Hope for Better Conditions at Ad

Those were the well-chosen words an obstetrician-gynecologist, whose practice is located in Columbus, used to describe Nebraska’s new policy—now nine months old—that denies government-insured prenatal-care services when an impoverished, pregnant woman is an undocumented immigrant.

In his testimony to a panel of state legislators on Nov. 19, the doctor was describing the consequences of the policy for the unborn children, who are undeniably innocent of any unlawful conduct. They are the victims of “inappropriate punishment.”

For two decades or more, Nebraska provided medical-assistance coverage (Medicaid) for impoverished pregnant women regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. Nebraska policy regarded the unborn child as the recipient of the prenatal-care services, acknowledging the importance of prenatal care not only for his/her life in utero, but also as preventative care for the long term, following birth.

Late last year, the federal agency that governs the joint federal-state Medicaid program suddenly realized what Nebraska was doing. The policy’s long tenure notwithstanding, it was a no-no under federal rules. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid and unborn children are not recognized as beneficiaries of prenatal-care in their own right.

Among others testifying at the recent legislative hearing were the directors of the Good Neighbor Community Health Center in Columbus and One World Community Health Center in Omaha; both entities are Federally Qualified Health Centers, commissioned by a federal program to provide health-care services on a charitable basis and without attention to citizenship or immigration status. They testified that the constricted policy definitely has had repercussions: significant spikes in the number of uninsured, pregnant women seeking help, typically later in their pregnancies, without any prior prenatal care; undocumented women taking chances that complications won’t occur; births of more low-weight babies, most of whom did not receive adequate prenatal care; and increased requests for information about abortion.

The representative from the Columbus FQHC told legislators that after having no fetal deaths in the previous six years, the center has experienced four since March 1, the date the policy on covering prenatal care changed. Whether these stillbirths can be attributed to inadequate prenatal care is medically undetermined, but the context is real.

The representative of the Omaha FQHC related the case of an emergency in which a woman who had received no prenatal care prematurely delivered her baby at 20-weeks gestation; the baby did not survive.

An obvious, inherent consequence of eliminating a means of access to prenatal-care services was emphasized by several testifiers; namely, the long-term financial impact of health problems that can be prevented or mitigated by adequate prenatal care.

Termination of insured prenatal-care services for the unborn children of impoverished, undocumented women didn’t need to happen. For both the Governor and the state Legislature, an alternative was (and still is) quite available. These policy makers, whether by administrative or legislative action (or both) could have adopted the unborn-child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program.

For children specifically, CHIP extends insurance coverage somewhat beyond regular Medicaid eligibility boundaries. Pursuant to the option, unborn children are included in the definition of children for purposes of insured health care.

What’s more, this coverage qualifies for federal cost share that is about 15 percent better for the state than the rate for regular Medicaid.

In 2010, the CHIP unborn-child option was rejected because the Governor and a majority of state legislators viewed the policy decision as an immigration issue more than a pro-life issue or a health-care issue.

Former U.S. Congressman John Cavanaugh, now executive director of the Bright Futures Foundation, was another who testified before the panel of legislators. He made the point that not a single positive result can be attributed to the policy change.

The Governor, numerous state legislators and other Nebraskans as well would probably beg to differ, on grounds that preventing “illegals” from receiving taxpayer-subsidized medical assistance is a positive result.

But that view fails to acknowledge and respect the individual humanity and dignity of unborn children, disregards their health in utero and post-birth consequences, and ignores the facts that unborn children have no immigration status and are innocent of violating any laws.

The result is inappropriate punishment.

Fortunately, CHIP’s unborn-child option is still available. The lamentable repercussions that have occurred since March cannot be reversed, but more extensive harm can be avoided by policy action.

Arizona Cases Getting Supreme Court Review 11-19-10

What’s up with Arizona? The Grand Canyon state seems to be getting a lot of attention recently, especially with regard to high-profile challenges to its laws, challenges which the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to decide.

On November 3, the Court heard oral arguments pertaining to an ACLU-type challenge to Arizona’s 1997 law that allows individuals to claim tax credits for contributions to non-profit organizations that use the funds to provide tuition scholarships to help children enroll in non-governmental schools. Last year, Arizona’s program awarded 27,000 scholarships to help children pay tuition at 373 schools. (Legislation proposing a similar program in Nebraska, LB 67, was introduced during the last past, 101^st Legislature, but was held by the Revenue Committee.)

The rationale of the legal challenge is that since the scholarships can be used by recipients to pay tuition at religiously-based schools, Arizona’s law violates the ban on establishing religion set forth in First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected next spring.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a challenge to Arizona’s 2007 law that authorizes suspension and revocation of licenses to operate when businesses are found to have knowingly hired unauthorized immigrants. The challenge from businesses and civil rights advocates is that this law violates the preemption doctrine, derived from the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, because it interferes with Federal-law jurisdiction over immigration policy and enforcement.

It is important to note that this Arizona law is not the same one that has been receiving all the political and legal attention recently. It’s not the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” SB 1070 as amended by HB 2162, passed by the Arizona Legislature and dramatically signed into law by Governor Brewer last April. That law’s most notorious provision is the one that requires state and local law enforcement personnel to make “a reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of any individual who is the subject of a lawful stop, detention or arrest “where reasonable suspicion exists” (without any profiling, of course) “that the person is an alien and unlawfully present in the United States.”

That law, the key parts of which are currently enjoined, was argued in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on November 1. It too is likely to be the focus of U.S. Supreme Court review, perhaps some time next year.

On another aspect of the hot topic of immigration, it is worth noting that Nebraska now has eight counties tied into to the Secure Communities program, an initiative of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to improve the identification and deportation of aliens convicted of crimes.

ICE announced November 2 that Secure Communities in Nebraska now includes law enforcement in Adams, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Madison and Merrick counties, as well as Douglas and Lancaster, which were brought in August 17.

Pursuant to Secure Communities, fingerprints taken during the normal arrest-and-booking process are checked against the FBI and Department of Homeland Security databases. Both ICE and local law enforcement agencies are notified if the fingerprints identify the person as an unauthorized or out-of-status immigrant or an authorized immigrant who has previously committed a crime that makes him or her deportable. ICE evaluates the case to determine if it will issue a detainer against the jailed individual.

Advocates for just treatment of immigrants have expressed legitimate concerns about the Secure Communities initiative. For one thing, individuals are screened upon arrest and booking, before they have been convicted of or even charged with a crime. There also are concerns about the accuracy of data bases, about costs and prioritization of expenditures, about the ambiguity of whether or not local communities can decline or limit their participation; and about the fact the program is being rapidly expanded even though ICE has yet to promulgate regulations.

Perhaps an even more compelling concern is the effect this and other local enforcement attempts will have on community-policing endeavors, which rely so much on trust, cooperation and communication. These are apt to be weakened when local law enforcement is linked to ICE and deportation.

And finally….

Remember Tariq Aziz?

Prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein, he was regularly the televised spokesman for that regime, described as its “international face” by the Associated Press. A Catholic, he was the only Christian among Saddam’s closest group. After hiding for a while, he surrendered to the U.S. and was incarcerated. In July of this year his custody was transferred to Iraq’s government.

The latest news involving Tariq Aziz is that on Oct. 26 he was sentenced to death by hanging. Consistent with its international position, the Holy See has urged that the death penalty not be imposed; and may seek intervention through diplomatic channels.

Faithful Citizenship Extends Beyond Elections 11-05-10

The election is over. The results are known. The collective exhale of relief from both candidates and electors is like the winds that sweep across Nebraska in late October.

The voters in our household tried to stay positive, interested and focused on issues throughout the process, but after receiving several “recorded messages” during the weekend before Election Day, it was difficult to sustain good attitudes. That experience was a little souring—also somewhat entertaining—but not enough so to keep us away from the polls. Voting is always important.

It is also important to sustain interest in the political process even though the election is now a matter of history. Political responsibility and faithful citizenship, which Catholic teaching regards as necessary and virtuous, do not end with casting a ballot. All are called to engage the decision-making processes that affect the common good.

Now is an excellent, compelling time to take a relatively simple step: write a letter or send an e-mail to those newly elected, or re-elected, to represent you in government. Congratulate them. Wish them well as they shoulder important responsibilities and face major challenges. Do this even if they didn’t receive your vote.

Also, just as importantly, let them know of the issues you are interested in, the views you hold and the priorities you assign to those issues. Follow up, not once but on regular, reasonable basis. The objective? Initiating and cultivating a constituent-office holder relationship.

The conclusion of another round of elections means the decision-making processes are soon to renew, for which we all have a continuing responsibility.

Considering the news of just a few days prior to the election, we cannot help but wonder if some of those elected to the Nebraska Unicameral—probably more so for re-elected incumbents—are having some second thoughts about holding that office. We refer to the news that the Nebraska Economic Forecasting Advisory Board increased its estimate of the gap between state spending and anticipated tax revenue.

The Board’s numbers now forecast an unprecedented gap of $1.39 billion for the next budget biennium, i.e., July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2013. The previous forecast, in July, pegged the shortfall at $751 million. The budget problem has grown bigger as considered by the independent forecasters.

The Forecasting Board assumes a 10.4 percent increase in state spending for the two-year period, largely due to replacing federal stimulus funding, and forecasts a 3.3 percent growth in revenues, which is considerably below historical averages.

Since the state constitution requires a balanced budget, legislators and the governor will face a really big challenge in the upcoming legislative session, which begins January 5. Either spending will have to be substantially pared, at a cost to state aid and operations, or measures will have to be taken to increase revenue; i.e., raising taxes/fees. Quite a choice, huh? The decisions will be difficult and stressful.

There is some realistic hope that the situation will improve before the budget decisions are finalized. There will be updated forecasts in February and April, while the regular session will run through May.

Some trepidation is certainly understandable, but rather than having second thoughts about what they have gotten themselves into, it is more likely that those elected to serve in the upcoming 102^nd Nebraska Legislature are eager to tackle the challenges.

While the budget and its many component issues will be the Legislature’s foremost priority, it won’t be the only matter addressed in 2011. The scope is broad.

For example, this Legislature is likely to tackle implementation issues stemming from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, federal health care reform. Not only will this be a matter of deciding what has to be done, by when, and how best to do that, but it also will involve paying attention to changes being considered by Congress.

Many of the substantive provisions of PPACA are scheduled to take effect in 2014. Other provisions, however, took effect on September 23 of this year, including banning insurance denials due to pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime health insurance benefit caps and providing for dependent coverage of children through age 25.

And finally….

By December 1 upcoming, a six member task force of legislators is expected to present a statewide strategic plan for cultivating a climate of entrepreneurship that will result in innovation and high-wage employment. The aptly named Innovation and Entrepreneurship Task Force was created by the enactment of LB 1109, the aptly named Nebraska Innovation and High Wage Employment Act.

Part of the strategic plan must include an overview of best practices from other states, including “economic gardening and angel investor programs.”

Sounds interesting.

Legislature Seeking to Stay on Top of Health Care Reform 9-17-10

Like it or not—and there are reasonable and unreasonable arguments on both sides of this equation—the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or “P-pack-ah”) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (modifications made before the ink on the original bill was dry) constitute the law of the land on health care reform. (Some prefer just ACA or “Ack-ah.”) Implementation is underway. Unless further changes are drastic, it will be a long process with lots of frustration along the way.

Even though additional modifications seem inevitable for years to come, policy-makers, bureaucrats and regulators, as well as insurance companies, consultants, agents and employers, must proceed as if this massive and complex new federal law is taking effect as presently legislated. Some provisions are already underway, others are fairly immediate. Then there’s 2014, the reforms’ really big year. That’s when some of the most substantive provisions are scheduled to take effect, such as the mandate for individual minimum coverage and health insurance exchanges.

No small part of the implementation of PPACA is going to take place at the state level. As a result, the Nebraska Legislature is taking steps to figure out how to deal with all that has fallen into its bailiwick on this big-time policy matter.

Prior to adjourning its 2010 regular session in mid-April, state solons adopted Legislative Resolution 467, establishing a select committee with authority and direction to conduct an interim study to examine PPACA, and to provide recommendations for implementing the new law.

Members of the select committee are Senators Tim Gay, who is the designated chairman, Kathy Campbell, Lavon Heidemann, Health Mello, Mike Gloor, Jeremy Nordquist, Rich Pahls, Tanya Cook and Galen Hadley. It’s an appropriately diverse group. Senators Gay, Pahls and Heidemann are the chairpersons of three, key standing committees: Health and Human Services; Banking, Commerce and Insurance; and Appropriations respectively. Senator Gloor, a retired health-care administrator, serves on both the Health and Insurance committees. Senators Mello and Nordquist are influential members of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Campbell the same from the Health and Human Services Committee. Senator Hadley represents the Revenue Committee.

The LR 467 Select Committee recently conducted two hearings on the subject matter. Three others are scheduled. They will be convened at 9 a.m. on Thursday, October 7; Friday, October 8; and Wednesday, November 10 at the State Capitol.

According to the federal government, the “one stop consumer site” for P-pack-ah information is www.healthcare.gov.

On another, but much different federal policy matter: a resolution proposing ratification of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)—the old treaty expired in December 2009—may be moving toward a vote in the U.S. Senate. A mid-September decision by the Foreign Relations Committee on advancing the resolution to the full body is anticipated.

The new START Treaty, which would verifiably reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles and put new verification requirements into place, was signed by President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia on April 8 of this year. Their two nations still hold about 90 percent of all nuclear weapons. The treaty would reduce deployed strategic warheads to 1550. That’s 30 percent below the previous ceiling. It would limit the two countries to no more than 700 delivery vehicles.

Ratification of this treaty is supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, because nuclear weapons are a grave threat to human life and dignity. The use of such weapons cannot ensure noncombatant immunity and their destructive potential and lingering radiation cannot be meaningfully proportionate.

Much to his credit, Senator Ben Nelson already has announced an intention to vote to ratify the new START Treaty. Hopefully, he will that opportunity sooner rather than later. Hopefully, Senator Mike Johanns will make it unanimous from Nebraska.

And finally…….Another Federal court has ruled unconstitutional a city ordinance that attempts to penalize landlords who rent to unauthorized immigrants and employers who hire them—an ordinance like the one approved in June by voters in Fremont. That ordinance is already under similar legal challenge.

We say another Federal Court because this is at least the third such ruling; there haven’t been any decisions that have ruled the other way. This time it was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously upholding a district court’s July 2007 ruling that the ordinance of Hazleton, PA usurps jurisdiction pre-empted by federal immigration law and is therefore unconstitutional. In March, a U.S. District Court in Texas ruled the same way on a similar ordinance of Farmers Branch, TX.

Both district court rulings, those striking down the Hazleton and Farmers Branch ordinances, were known and given attention before the vote in Fremont.

Headlines Captivate Attention 9-3-10

While they seldom tell the whole story, and can be misleading and unreliable, and sometimes knee-slapping funny —recall a popular Tonight Show segment—newspaper headlines are a unique phenomenon. They tease; invite attention, whet appetites for more details. Millions are created every day.

For some odd reason, it strikes us that August was a good month for headlines in Nebraska. Issue-laden subjects such as the economy, immigration and politics spawned some interesting descriptions and juxtapositions. Consider some examples.

“More federal cash in pipeline for Nebraska, Iowa”

That’s not a real pipeline; it’s the flow of dollars from what some are calling “Stimulus 2.” Nebraska is to receive $59 million to support public education and $69 million for Medicaid spending. Intuitively, that’s all good, albeit not without complexities, but the story seems to be even better:

“State can take funds, not raise spending.

With regard to the $59 million in federal funding for education, Nebraska does not have to up its state ante in order to draw the federal funds.

The new federal funding has become politically hot, generating interest, intrigue and speculation involving a Governor and a U.S. Senator. Consider these: “Heineman, Nelson spar on Medicaid Mandate”; “Heineman, Nelson clash heats up (‘Fighting Words’)”.

Democrat Senator Ben Nelson is up for re-election in 2012. It won’t be a surprise if Governor Dave Heineman is his Republican opponent. Stay tuned for lots more.

“Is birthright issue born of politics?”

Unfortunately, this is claiming some attention. It has to do with the fact that the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes U.S. citizenship for anyone born in this country. Some think it’s time to change that, in order to mitigate illegal immigration and “birth tourism.” Nonetheless, the obvious response to the headline’s question is what smart-aleck kids are known to utter: “Duh.” When today’s “baby boomers” were kids the often-used retort for an obvious answer was: “Is the Pope Catholic?”

The immigration issue generates a lot of headlines. Consider what the taxpayers in Fremont are facing: “Fremont weighs cost of defending law: City clerk says council to take up $750,000 estimate for defense of immigration law”; and, “Fremont weighs tax hike to defend law.” That’s a lot of weighing.

Seem to recall that the reality of expensive litigation was a point well made before the vote was taken on the suspect ordinance.

But there’s even more: “Arizona suit doesn’t faze backers of a law for Nebraska.” And there’s irony in the sub-heading: “A Fremont lawmaker says he watching the court battle in Phoenix but plans to offer an immigration bill next session.”

Other litigation is receiving attention as well: “Officials sued for halting prenatal care.”

Even though the real issue is not about immigration, the Governor and a majority of state legislators cited their opposition to illegal immigration as the reason for refusing to restore Medicaid coverage for prenatal-care services for unborn children from impoverished families in Nebraska, regardless of their mothers’ immigration status. This lawsuit might not succeed, but it serves the legitimate purpose of keeping legitimate attention on a legitimate issue, one with a significant pro-life dimension. Reversing the harsh decision previously made ought to be a legislative priority.

For us, it would be disconcerting to find oneself too often in agreement with the editorial position of the Lincoln Journal Star, but these headlines (and the editorials accompanying them) warrant applause: “Efficient death doesn’t make it right.”; “Arizona-style law wrong for Nebraska.”

The former addressed the redesign of the death chamber at the State Penitentiary to enable execution by lethal injection. The latter dealt with Arizona’s attempt to enforce federal immigration law.

A narrow, but rather interesting juxtaposition arises from these two headlines: “Life sentence commuted over governor’s objection” and “Early parole is money saver.”

There is a rarely effectuated exception to the sentence of life imprisonment (meaning without parole) for certain homicide crimes. Pursuant to the Nebraska State Constitution, the Secretary of State, Attorney General and Governor constitute the Board of Pardons. As such, these three, statewide-elected public officials have exclusive authority, by majority vote, to commute life sentences to terms of years, the effect of which is to make the inmate eligible for parole review after half the term.

Parole from incarceration is decided by the Governor-appointed Parole Board. When the prison population greatly exceeds capacity, or when budget cuts are necessary, expediting the parole process can help address these challenges.

And finally…….Overall, though, the most curious and inviting headline during August had to be this one: “Bull breaks free, throws fair queen.”

Vote in Fremont Will Capture Attention 06-11-10

With all due respect to that city in Nevada and its catchy, pop-culture, commercial advertisement; what happens in Fremont, Nebraska on June 21 won’t stay in Fremont. It receive plenty of attention and will reverberate for quite some time; it being the outcome of a municipal election on a proposed city ordinance involving illegal immigration.

More specifically, this is a repeated attempt—similar to that of Hazleton, PA; Valley Park, MO; Escondido, CA; Riverside Township, NJ and Farmers Branch, TX—to use a local measure to enforce federal immigration law. Each of those has either been ruled unconstitutional or blocked from enforcement.

If approved by voters, proposed new section 6-428 for Ordinance 3139 of the Fremont Municipal Code, a proposal that already has quite a history, is likely to be a subject of attention and reaction for a lengthy period of time, because it will be the subject of extensive and costly litigation. Almost certainly the city will have to defend against a challenge that the measure is an impermissible intrusion into federal authority and responsibility, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The proposed ordinance generally has two prongs. One deals with housing and the other with employment. Both invoke federal law as justification, seeking “harmony with the congressional objectives of prohibiting the knowing harboring of illegal aliens and prohibiting the knowing employment of unauthorized aliens.”

The employment prong would mandate that an authorized representative of any business entity applying for any business license or permit from the city, or awarded a contract for work to be performed in Fremont, or applying for any grant or loan from the city, must execute an affidavit that the business entity does not knowingly employ any immigrant lacking authorization for employment in the U.S. as verified with/by the federal government. To that end, every business entity operating in Fremont would be required to be registered in the federal government’s E-Verify program.

The uniqueness of this prong of the proposed ordinance appears to be its prescribed enforcement: any affected business entity that failed to register in E-verify and to verify the authorization of every employee hired after “such registration” would be “tried at a public hearing before the City Council.” Lawsuits are authorized as well.

Even more intriguing and curious are the implementation and enforcement mechanisms of the anti-harboring, housing prong.

Prior to occupying a leased or rented dwelling unit (dormitory rooms, hotel rooms and rooms at any shelter for the homeless or abused are excluded), every prospective occupant 18 or older would have to obtain an “occupancy license” from the Fremont Police Department. That would require submitting an application and paying $5. The application would require several items of identifying information, e.g., name, address, date of birth and country of citizenship. A U.S. citizen or national would have to declare that status. An applicant who is not a U.S. citizen or national would have to submit an identification number assigned by the federal government, which the occupant believes establishes his/her lawful presence in the U.S. If such an applicant did not know of any such number, s/he would so declare and that would be good enough.

It would be a violation of Fremont’s municipal code for an owner/landlord to lease or rent a dwelling unit without retaining a copy of the occupancy license of every known occupant. It would be a violation not to state in the lease that occupancy without a license would constitute a default. It would be a violation for an owner/landlord to knowingly allow anyone without a license to occupy the dwelling unit.

Promptly after issuing an occupancy license to one who did not declare him/herself to be either a U.S. citizen or national, the Police Department would submit the identity and immigration-status information from the application along with a request that the federal government, e.g., Department of Homeland Security, ascertain whether the occupant is lawfully present. If the report back is conclusive that the occupant is not lawfully present, the police would send a “deficiency notice,” giving the occupant 60 days to seek a correction and/or to provide additional information. The police would be prohibited from making any independent determination of immigration status.

No earlier than the 61^st day after issuing a deficiency notice, the police would again ask the federal government. If the response again was that the licensed occupant was not lawfully present, the police would send a “revocation notice” to the occupant and the owner/landlord. Revocation of the occupancy license would take effect 45 days later.

Occupying a dwelling unit without retaining a valid occupancy license would be a separate violation for each day beginning on the 46^th day after the revocation notice.

Each violation of the ordinance, whether by an owner/landlord or by an occupant, would be subject to a fine of $100, upon conviction in the Dodge County Court.

The extensive and cumbersome mechanism—and burdensome for the police—is probably deemed necessary to satisfy concerns about due process. Obviously, the underlying objective is that the entire rigmarole won’t play out, because undocumented immigrants will leave the city rather than risk being identified and detained.

New Anatomical Gift Law Worthy of Attention 05-21-10

According to a recent news item, approximately 450 Nebraskans are waiting for an organ transplant on an average daily basis. Beginning next year that number could begin to decline if legislation enacted this year fulfills its intended purpose.

Legislative Bill 1036 offered Nebraska’s lawmakers the essence of the latest version—2006 as updated—of the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). The bill’s intent and purpose are to update and improve governance and coordination of the donation and procurement processes, thereby facilitating more donations of body parts for transplantation, therapy, research and education.

Legislators gave LB 1035 a generally warm, but rather ho-hum reception. Its length (46 pages) and substance notwithstanding, the bill had a smooth, unchallenged trip through the legislative process, under the sponsorship of Senator Brenda Council of Omaha. It was introduced January 21 and given final passage March 26, on a 48-0 vote. It was signed into law by the Governor and takes effect next January 1.

As its descriptive title suggests, LB 1036 is sort of model legislation. Its scope is limited to donations from deceased donors as a result of gifts made before or after their deaths. The basic framework and most of the details are the work-product of the NCCUSL, which creates and pushes for legislation that can be generally uniform and harmonized among all the states, on a variety of subjects. Like most states, Nebraska has several Uniform Law commissioners, typically highly influential attorneys. Two of these commissioners did most of the lobbying for LB 1036 and were bolstered in their efforts by the national chairman of the UAGA drafting committee, who visited the state and testified for the bill at the public hearing held by Health and Human Services Committee.

The original Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was promulgated in 1968 and adopted by every state in a short period of time. In 1987, NCCUSL revised the 1968 UAGA to address changes in technology and practice. Only 26 states enacted that new version; Nebraska was not among them.

But Nebraska hasn’t ignored its anatomical-gift laws since 1968. There has been amendatory legislation several times during the intervening period; significant among such bills were establishment of an organ-donor registry, and a “first-person consent” law, which bars next-of-kin from overturning an adult’s own act of donation.

Before passage of LB 1036 in Nebraska, 38 other states had adopted the essence of the updated 2006 UAGA. While uniformity is the mantra, it hasn’t been achieved on an absolute basis. States have made independent decisions and changes within the framework, including Nebraska with LB 1036.

Among aspects of the UAGA adopted by LB 1036 is explicit recognition of the autonomous decision of anyone who desires not to be an organ donor. The legislation expressly allows for making a “refusal” to be a donor. If a refusal is written and signed, as with a document of gift, it has to be honored, assuming adequate communication.

There is a significant flaw in the way this autonomy is addressed. While there is an active registry and a process for effectuating a positive designation, no similar registry or process exists for the negative designation. It’s a general authorization; if one wants to use it, he or she has to make sure the decision is communicated in a variety of ways. Attempts to correct this flaw by opening the registry to refusals as well as donations were vigorously rejected by the uniform law commissioners, paying heed apparently to objections from the exclusive organ procurement organization in the state.

Catholic teaching encourages organ donation as an act of beneficence and charity, but there are moral principles and prescribed conditions to be upheld, such as informed consent, medical certainty that death has occurred and not causing death. As part of its response to enactment of LB 1036, the Nebraska Catholic Conference plans to provide information and guidance relating to this new law prior to its January 1 effective date. Basic information on the bill is available on the Legislature’s website: www.nebraskalegislature.gov; enter LB 1036 and click on “Go”.

And finally…..observations on a different matter:

Thursday, April 29 could not have been a great day for the Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk, at least in terms of the morning’s headlines in the Midlands section of the Omaha World Herald. At the top of the page, there was this one: “Community colleges’ feud flares up.” Down a little on the same page was this one: “Second hospital in Kearney more likely—Talks break down between a doctor group and Good Samaritan.”

Senator Flood, you see, organized negotiation summits and appeared to have successfully brokered compromise agreements in both of those controversies. Those headlines indicated some cracks in those agreements; apparently minds didn’t stay met. Still, from the Speaker’s perspective, his efforts were good enough to keep both controversies from tying up the Legislature in its closing days.

Legislature Adjourns, but Still to be Active 05-07-10

The second and concluding regular session of the 101st Nebraska Legislature completed its 60 legislative days on April 14, as scheduled. No last-day drama; no late-hour adjournment; not even the buzz of a veto override. There was plenty of time to honor the three senators known for sure not to be returning for the 102nd Legislature.

As is of course the case, the practical results of the 2010 session, and of this Legislature as a whole, won’t be fully known for a while. Typically, it takes some time for the true impact of public-policy changes to make a difference.

Most of the 196 bills passed this session won’t take effect until mid-July—90 days after adjournment sine die. Some of the bills were passed with an “emergency clause,” which means they took effect when the Governor gave his signature of approval.

From most perspectives, the 2010 regular session of the Legislature was successful; probably not anything historically monumental, but efficient and significant. The Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk, told his colleagues in his closing speech that “fiscal responsibility” was the standard of the session. With few exceptions, any bill requiring a general fund appropriation did not make it through the process. Following up on last November’s special session, the legislators further pared the current budget and resisted temptations to tap the cash reserve, which now exceeds $300 million, a number that is pretty remarkable relative to other states.

Even though its two regular sessions are now concluded, this Legislature is by no means finished. The cash reserve notwithstanding, a budget deficit now projected at nearly $680 million for the next fiscal biennium is a source of ongoing concern and anxiety for current legislators, most of whom will confront it directly in 2011.

Although unlikely, it’s not out of the question that this Legislature will have another special session before the end of 2010. More unique with respect to the fiscal situation is something the legislators did on April 13, the next-to-last day of their session. On a 46-0 vote, they approved Legislative Resolution 542, which was introduced by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Lavon Heidemann.

LR 542 sets in motion a process for preparing to confront the budget deficits in 2011. It encourages the current Legislature’s standing committees and Executive Board to “examine General Funded functions and expenditures of state agency operations and aid that are required by state law.” Articulation of what this might mean is found in this statement: “…it is hoped that committees are able to identify statutory changes that de-obligate the state from operating and aid costs for the forthcoming biennium.” The resolution also expresses the Legislature’s desire “that the Governor submit enabling legislation specific to his budget recommendations.”

Anytime budget making involves “de-obligating” and statutory changes, it’s a major situation, much more so than just setting line-item numbers. Given this context, the rest of 2010 is clearly going to be active and meaningful for the Legislature.

The three senators who for sure won’t be back in 2011 will be able to participate in LR 542 and other legislative activity, because their terms continue until their successors are sworn-in early next January. They are the district 22 senator, Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center; the district 14 senator, Tim Gay of Papillion; and the district 8 senator, Tom White of Omaha. Senator Stuthman is the only legislator subject to term limits in this election year. Senator White chose to run for another office and Senator Gay opted not to seek a second term. Appropriately, they each addressed their colleagues during the closing ceremony and were applauded for their public service.

Another thought on the recently concluded session: In our own category of bills that received less attention than was warranted, but are likely to have a significant impact, we have these two: LB 1036 and LB 1106. The former is a 43-page rewrite of state laws governing organ and tissue donations, generally consistent with the latest “Uniform Anatomical Gift Act” pushed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. It updates and facilitates the organ-donation process and empowers organ and tissue procurers to be even more aggressive. The latter bill authorizes public-school districts to operate health centers under certain conditions and makes the services eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Uniquely, it was handled as a budget bill.

These measures passed on final votes of 48-0 and 49-0 respectively. Both had less than eight hours of floor discussion and few probing questions.

And finally……Of the numerous blogs and other internet reactions we’ve seen on the hot issue of continuing prenatal care services for unborn children from impoverished families regardless of the mother’s immigration status, this may be the most amusing: “Nice try (Senator) Ashford, but my governor knows what’s best to deal with the scurge (sic) of illegal immigration, and it isn’t giving them incentives.”

Evidence perhaps of a winning political calculation?

Legislators’ Dilemma Alleviated on Prenatal Care Issue 04-09-10

The Nebraska Legislature is a remarkable institution. That’s not only because of its uniqueness as the sole unicameral among all the states, or the fact it makes both public policy and history on a regular basis. It’s also because it assembles 49, elected citizen-legislators and facilitates and coordinates much of their public-service, encompassing their personalities, principles, ideas, political concerns and judgments. It is more than a process; it’s the unique sum of unique parts. It has its own existence, role and influence.

The role and influence of the Legislature as institution were on display recently. It happened on the controversial and emotionally charged issue of reinstating governmentally supported prenatal care services for unborn children of impoverished families, regardless of the mothers’ federal immigration status. After 30 years or more of having such a policy, relying upon the federally established Medicaid program, Nebraska was suddenly told by federal officials that its policy was impermissible and no longer qualified to receive federal funding. The reason? Medicaid never has recognized the unborn child as the recipient of benefits in his or her own right, as a separate individual. And if the unborn child’s mother is an unauthorized immigrant, she is ineligible.

What all happened next has been documented by generally good reporting and numerous editorials. Once it became definite that administrative action to overcome this “surprise” development was not going to be implemented, even though it was possible to do so, enough legislators cast a procedural vote to suspend the Legislature’s rules to allow for late introduction of remedial legislation.

LB 1110 proposed to reinstate prenatal care services for unborn children of impoverished mothers using the specific unborn-child option of another federal program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). What’s more, due to its higher federal-funding share, exercising this option most likely would have meant continuation of the policy at less cost than had been the case. The CHIP unborn-child option also offered obvious cost savings from the preventive effects of prenatal care services.

After a public hearing, the Health and Human Services Committee voted 6-1 to advance LB 1110 to the full Legislature and designated it as a priority bill.

Unless something unexpected and dramatic takes place in the final eight days of the session, the report on LB 1110 will be that it never had much chance for enactment, at least in a thorough, logical version that would do the most good for at-risk unborn children. For one thing, once the bill “reached the floor,” the Governor’s opposition to providing governmentally-funded prenatal care services for unborn children of “illegals” was firmly set, imposing a dark cloud over the prospects. Correspondingly, the political winds of “the immigration issue” blew chilly throughout the legislative chamber.

In its full form, LB 1110 never had a vote. The issues at stake, such as the health and well-being of children in utero, the social, health and fiscal repercussions of not having access to prenatal care services; and the separate, individual existence of unborn children, never had a thorough debate on its own substance. This is where the institution of the Legislature had an impact.

Legislative leadership, including the Speaker, the chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee and the introducer of LB 1110, assessed the voting sentiments of their colleagues and concluded that there were not enough votes to invoke cloture on a filibuster (33), to override an anticipated veto by the Governor (30) or even to advance and pass the bill (25). Their assessment led to a decision to withdraw LB 1110 from further consideration.

Apparently, for the sake of the institution it was deemed better not to debate and vote on LB 1110, regardless of the outcome, then to have debate and a vote that would put legislators on record on a highly contentious and politically divisive matter, one involving in one way or another, whether logical and appropriate or not, both pro-life and immigration issues. In essence, the institution protected its members.

Numerous legislators undoubtedly welcomed and appreciated the quiet demise of LB 1110. Otherwise, they would have faced a real dilemma in casting a vote (or perhaps abstaining) that would have pitted fundamental pro-life principles against the real or imagined political consequences of appearing to be soft on the federal issue of illegal immigration. The extensive exhale of relief seemed detectible throughout the capitol.

Late last week, right before adjourning for their four-day Easter weekend, legislators voted 43-zip to add an amendment to another bill, which could permit case-by-case eligibility for a narrow category of otherwise ineligible pregnant women as long as they are U.S. citizens. This action, which has to be viewed positively to whatever limited extent it might make a difference, was more one of expedience than pro life principle.

Pro Life Commitment or Lip-Service? 03-19-10

Only 15 legislative days remain in the Nebraska Unicameral’s regular session for 2010. Some earlier-hinted speculation that legislators might not use all 60 working days allowed for this session now appears remote. A significant amount of prioritized legislation remains on the worksheet.

A bill sure to spark intense debate and likely, but lamentably, a showdown with the Governor is LB 1110. It proposes to reinstate longstanding governmentally funded prenatal care and services for unborn children in impoverished families. Codifying the unborn-child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program will allow Nebraska to continue this medically-important coverage for all eligible unborn children in the state irrespective of the mothers’ immigration status. What’s more, since the federal share of costs is greater under CHIP than under “regular” Medicaid, the state can continue the coverage and still have savings over what the cost would have been had such coverage under Medicaid been allowed to continue.

LB 1110 is a win-win: continuing the long-term benefits of prenatal care for unborn children from impoverished families at a cost lower than what it has been.

For those who are inclined to react to this as an issue of providing benefits to illegal immigrants, notwithstanding the reality that the true recipients of such benefits are unborn children, who are not illegal immigrants but presumptive U.S. citizens, reading both LB 1110 and its fiscal note would be a helpful, conscientious thing to do. Both documents are available through the Legislature’s website.

Those who maintain that churches and charities should step in and meet the prenatal healthcare needs of all those in the impacted category are naively or intentionally unrealistic about the scope and scale of these needs. They also may be ignoring the essential functions and social responsibilities of government.

By now it is well-known through media reports that Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop William Dendinger of Grand Island wrote to Governor Heineman, respectfully asking him to reconsider his announced opposition to LB 1110. The essence of the Bishops’ message is the following:

“This is an important and urgent Pro Life matter, Governor. Obviously, the need for, and importance of, prenatal care and services only exist when a woman is pregnant, carrying an unborn child in her womb....Denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity and Pro Life principles. It is a terrible injustice, which could do great harm to the lives of children at a very vulnerable stage in their development. What’s worse, the lack of access to coverage for such care could be a decisive factor in leading some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth, each time a tragedy.

“Assisting unborn children to have a healthier start to life makes abundant sense, not only from an economic standpoint, since healthcare needs are likely to be considerably greater without the benefits of prenatal care and services, but also from a human rights standpoint as well. The immigration status of their mothers should not be allowed to adversely affect the health and well-being of the unborn children. When balanced against the legitimate public-policy concerns about illegal immigration, caring for the unborn children should be the higher priority, as the right thing to do.”

The letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s office on March 2. As of March 15 there had not been a direct response. Nonetheless, comments made for media purposes suggest that his opposition to reinstating prenatal coverage for unborn children regardless of their mothers’ immigration status is firm.

The Governor’s vigorous opposition significantly increases the challenge for enacting LB 1110, especially for legislators who desire to remain true to pro life principles of respect for the sanctity and individuality of human life in the womb and safeguarding the health of these vulnerable lives. In the face of political repercussions, is being pro life a matter of commitment to fundamental principle or more a matter of lip-service? That’s a dilemma of conscience some legislators might have to face with regard to LB 1110. Politicians who tell voters they are pro life, but turn their backs on an opportunity to support the unborn deserve to be viewed with skepticism.

To their credit, six of the seven members of the Health and Human Services Committee voted to advance LB 1110 to the full Legislature for floor debate and supported making it a priority bill. Appreciation and commendation are due these six: Senators Tim Gay (chairman), Kathy Campbell (introducer), Mike Gloor, Gwen Howard, Arnie Stuthman and Norm Wallman. The same is true for those who exhibited leadership by adding their names as co-sponsors of this important legislation: Senators Howard, Bob Krist, Colby Coach, Jeremy Nordquest, Ken Hear and Abby Cornett.

And finally….according to at least three dictionaries, the word “illegal” is not a noun. Thus, referring to unauthorized immigrants as “the illegals” is incorrect. It is also inappropriate and dehumanizing.

Legislation Not Needed for NSAA Changes 03-05-10

During the remaining couple dozen working days in their current session, Nebraska legislators are likely to spend some time and energy deciding the extent to which they should use state law to dictate organizational, governance and policy changes regarding the Nebraska School Activities Association.

LB 1021 deals with this subject matter. It was advanced to the full Legislature by the Education Committee, with a recommended amendment that would pare its impact. It is the priority bill for Lincoln senator Bill Avery. Having that status, it will be addressed on the floor of the Unicameral.

Among all the many issues, concerns and problems the Legislature can and does deal with, matters such as tax and fiscal policy, energy, health and welfare, the core of education, higher education, roads and infrastructure, water, law enforcement, criminal justice, etc., etc., giving attention to this one is a bit of a head-scratcher. It is connected to education, but only in the context of extracurricular activities.

The Nebraska School Activities Association has a 100-year history of governing and managing interscholastic competition and contests involving high schools statewide, encompassing both public and private high schools.

The NSAA is not a governmental agency. It has no authority to levy taxes. It is not part of, or beholden to the state Department of Education. It is an independent, non-profit, membership-based, self-governing organization with a constitution and by-laws and its own representative, legislative, and judicial processes. Its members are the high schools. They pay dues and activity fees, but the greatest amount of revenue is generated from admission and concession sales involved with district and state contests in athletics primarily; music, drama, speech, debate and journalism are also sanctioned activities.

If the reported numbers are correct, about five percent of NSAA’s annual budget has a tie to tax dollars. That budget is $3.5 million, of which $210,000 is paid by the member schools in dues and fees. But that number drops to $182,500 as the public-school, tax-funded share, since approximately 13 percent of the member schools are private and non-tax-funded.

The independent, membership-governance model and the small amount of tax support notwithstanding, Senator Avery and some others apparently have concluded that there are enough public-interest and quasi-governmental elements in the NSAA to justify involvement by the Legislature. He is urging legislative action to address issues he has identified with respect to fairness, accountability, transparency and oversight.

Legislative interest in the NSAA was originally prompted by concerns some parents had in recent years with rules that limited “dual participation” in non-school “club programs” during the concurrent interscholastic sports seasons. From the NSAA’s perspective, this was a matter of protecting the integrity of the high-school programs and watching out for the welfare of the student athletes. For the parents and club coaches it was viewed as an intrusion upon their rights to enable their children to train and compete to the extent they desired.

The parents and club coaches took their concerns to state legislators, such as Sen. Avery, who, upon examination, identified broader issues of concern.

Make no mistake, there are legitimate issues involving the structure and governance of the NSAA, especially with regard to equity and fairness in representation. Senator Avery points to the fact that over 100 years, the NSAA’s top level of governance, its elected, six-member Board of Control, has never had a member of a racial minority and only one female.

Interestingly, as far as we have been able to determine, there never has been a board of control member from other than a public school either. What’s more, there have been rules that have been unfair to private-school members, particularly strict reliance upon public-school-district boundaries for residency, eligibility and transfer rules. Nonetheless, changes have been made over the years and issues addressed.

Obviously, private schools are a minority in the NSAA membership, but they participate actively in the elections and processes and seem generally satisfied with the relationship. By no means are they advocating for intervention by the Legislature in the governance of the NSAA. Like their public-school counterparts they have doubts and concerns about LB 1021 and its repercussions for a non-governmental association.

To its credit, the Legislature’s Education Committee has recommended that LB 1021 be scaled back to a point that it only would impose requirements for open meetings and open records, like those that apply to governmental subdivisions. The committee has proposed an amendment to accomplish this. But even that might be going too far.

If there is a compelling need for this legislation it is obscure, with consequences for the independence of an organization that many think ought to be independent. The NSAA’s governing authority and its member schools cannot have been oblivious to the clamor. They have gotten the message. Changes will be made. The Legislature need not dictate change, but should watch it happen.

Cost of Capital Punishment 01-29-10

    When does the economic cost that government incurs in seeking to dispense the ultimate retribution to those convicted of heinous murders become too high to justify? How much is endmost revenge worth in spending taxpayer funds? Can capital punishment be too expensive and irresponsibly wasteful when other crime-fighting and crime-solving needs are underfunded?

    Nebraska appears to be in a phase of its death-penalty history that has some lawmakers and others asking serious and legitimate questions about the economic drain—especially during economic angst and instability—and cost-effectiveness of continuing to hang onto the death penalty as the maximum sentence for aggravated first-degree murder. The obvious alternative would be maximum-security imprisonment for life with the only possibility of ever being paroled resting in the hands of three officials elected statewide—the Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State—and their rarely used constitutional authority to commute sentences to terms of years.

    Last year, rooted on by lobbyists for the Governor and the Attorney General, a clear-cut majority of the Nebraska legislators breathed new life into the death penalty. They did so by amending state law to establish lethal injection as the method of execution. This was in response to Nebraska Supreme Court rendering the death penalty lifeless by ruling that the longstanding, sole method, death by electrocution, was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. During intense debate on this difficult and emotionally draining issue, several lawmakers, who saw the policy circumstances as they truly were, an opportunity to move past the social and economic burdens of the death penalty and forward toward more cost-efficient and effective responses to crime and violence, brought attention to the general issue of cost effectiveness. The attention didn’t make a difference in the policy outcome, but it raised new, legitimate issues that won’t soon go away.

    Now, this year, in a new session of the Legislature, the questions already have re-surfaced on the floor of the Unicameral. It happened last week when LB 306 was called for General File (first round) debate. The bill, chiefly sponsored by Senator Brenda Council of Omaha, proposes to replace the death penalty with a maximum sentence of life without parole (subject to the single exception) and with an order of restitution.

    LB 306 didn’t have a chance of advancing, but it created another opportunity for Senator Council and Senator Danielle Conrad in particular, to focus attention on the issues of cost and cost effectiveness.

    At one point, Senator Council offered an amendment that called for an official state audit of the costs of the death penalty and the comparative costs of incarceration for life for the 11 convicted murderers now on death row. Senator Conrad, a member of the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee, made an especially compelling point when she alluded to the fact that due almost entirely to budget constraints—lack of funds to spend—the manpower of the Nebraska State Patrol is now at its lowest level since fiscal year 1985-86. And, the state crime lab is underfunded as well. Safety takes a hit, while the death penalty racks up costs.
While Senator Council’s amendment to study costs was decisively rejected, it did lead to the introduction of a legislative bill, LB 1075, proposing to authorize and urge the State Auditor to do an audit, taking into account all relevant fiscal factors. That bill will continue the discussion, because it will have a public hearing in front of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, probably in late February.

    Numerous studies involving other states have concluded that the death penalty is incredibly expensive, an exorbitant drain on already hard-hit state budgets and a highly inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

    Just last October, a report by the Death Penalty Information Center, citing figures compiled from several states, including Florida, New Jersey, Maryland, Kansas and California, found that death-penalty costs can average $10 million more per year per state than life sentences. The organization’s executive director said, “With many states spending millions to retain the death penalty, while seldom or never carrying out an execution, the death penalty is turning into a very expensive form of life without parole. At a time of budget shortfalls, the death penalty cannot be exempt from reevaluation alongside other wasteful government programs that no longer make sense.”

    Then, in December, an economist at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy published a study that found the state of North Carolina would have a net savings of $11 million per year if it replaced its death penalty with imprisonment for life without parole. Part of the expense differential, of course, is tied to protections that state and federal laws require for those facing execution, to prevent putting innocent people to death.

    Nebraska doesn’t know its death penalty costs, because there hasn’t been a serious effort to out. There’s no better time to do it than now. LB 1075 is a vehicle to direct and facilitate it. Nebraskans ought to know.

    Some lawmakers say that deterrence is worth whatever it costs. But deterrence as a justification for the death penalty has been dismantled by facts and argument, to the point it’s unreliable, if not totally irrelevant. Others might say the cost of studying the cost of the death penalty will be too high, but that’s nonsense.

    Some lawmakers, perhaps even a majority sad to say, hold a view that they don’t need to know or want to know, because the cost differential won’t make a bit of difference. In cases that become capital cases, the cost of revenge and retribution is worth it. Sky’s the limit. You might have to wait a long time to hear any of them say that same thing about spending for more effective law enforcement, or for the correctional system, or for solving cold cases, or for compensating victims of crime and violence, or for any number of human service programs.

Hope for Better Conditions at Adjournment 01-15-10

One thing Nebraskans might hope to count on when the 101st Nebraska Legislature concludes its second regular session in mid-April is that there won’t be 20-plus inches of snow on the ground and wind chills well below zero. Goodness.

Not that the Legislature is responsible for the weather, of course, but no Nebraskan needs reminding that those were the conditions when the 49 citizen legislators began their 2010 lawmaking journey last week at the State Capitol. Welcome back, solons. Of course it wasn’t that long ago—early November—when the Governor called you into special session to reduce the current biennium’s spending plan.

This regular session is the second of the two conducted by each Legislature and is generally limited by law to no more than 60 working days. This is the part when legislators “hit the floor running,” because legislative bills that were not passed or indefinitely postponed (killed) last year are still available for action. So, after three transition days of little more than new bill introductions, floor debate began last Monday. From January 19 through March 1—tentatively—the full Legislature will meet in the mornings and its committees will conduct hearings on the new bills in the afternoons. The tentatively scheduled 60th day, for adjournment sine die, is April 14. Remember, less snow and warmer temperatures.

It is important for Nebraskans to stay informed about the myriad of public policy debates and decisions that will be taking place at the State Capitol over the next 13 weeks. An excellent starter source is the Legislature’s official website, www.nebraskalegislature.gov. Also (in addition to this column, of course), there’s Unicameral Update, which is available both online and in hard copy.

For the 34th consecutive year, we’ll be using the space graciously provided by the diocesan newspapers to update and comment on issues of interest and concern for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, which is the public-policy agency operated jointly and cooperatively by the three dioceses in Nebraska, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops. Our website is www.nebcathcon.org. Our phone number is 402-477-7517.

Explanation Would Help Address Disappointment

The amendatory wording that Senator Ben Nelson and his staff “stumbled onto”—his description of the circumstances—for prohibiting federal-government funding of elective abortions and maintaining longstanding policy (e.g., the Hyde Amendment), thus enabling him, at least in substantial part, to provide the key vote for Senate passage of health-care-reform legislation, is imprecise, troubling and controversial.

To his credit, Senator Nelson took a strong stand—some say courageous—that expanding government funding of abortion should not be part of health care reform. He pledged that any legislation that violated this principle and precedent would not get his vote. Nonetheless, he ended his resistance and thereupon brought an end to an important segment of the process, because, apparently, he became convinced and confident that adoption of the wording he stumbled onto fulfills his objective and his pledge.

But does it? Skepticism, doubt and concern, as well as disappointment, are appropriate pro life responses.

Does it truly maintain the status quo or is it an “accounting gimmick” and an abortion-funding mandate as some have analyzed? From a pro life perspective, it is not nearly as sound as the Stupak amendment in the House of Representatives’ bill. But is it better, equal to, or worse than the Nelson-Casey-Hatch amendment that was defeated earlier in the process? That’s a debatable topic. Apparently, Senator Nelson determined that it was not worse.

One thing is certain, Senator Nelson’s last amendment doesn’t fulfill the objective he consistently asserted and the pledge he consistently made just because he says it does. It isn’t better than or even equal to the status quo just because he says it is. He bears a responsibility to thoroughly and clearly explain how his amendment does not expand federal funding for abortion. Otherwise, doubt, concern and disappointment will persist.

And finally….

There’s a note left over from the Unicameral’s special session on budget cutting.

Because a big part of the mainline budget consists of government operations, at least one representative of every agency, usually the director appeared before the Appropriations Committee to describe the anticipated impact of an across-the-board budget cut and in some instances, targeted, program-specific cuts as well. The typical description was that cuts were understandable, acceptable and doable. But almost as typically, caveats and some reluctance were expressed.

One of the agency representatives, who appeared late in the process, near the end of the long list of agency hearings, told committee members at the onset of his testimony that he had observed how common it was for those appearing before the committee to testify, “our agency supports the proposed cuts, but….”

“I too have a little but,” he further testified.