Clearly, the potential benefits of fetal tissue affected the decisionmaking on abortion in the above two anecdotes. It seems quite reasonable to conclude from the public opinion polls mentioned that it may have affected the abortion decisions of many more. For those individuals, including state senators, who have indicated that their support for the use of tissue from induced abortions in research would change if they knew it could lead to more abortions, the information above should compel them to pause, if not change their mind.

Back to Top

Life Insight 3-3-00

Truth Shines Bright; Will it Fall on Deaf Ears?

On Wednesday, February 23, Pro-life Nebraskans were storming heaven with prayers that the Truth would resonate among the members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee as they heard testimony for and against LB 1405. LB 1405 prohibits the use of fetal tissue from induced abortions in research. For all those who spent time in prayer for this intention: thank you. Your prayers were very evident as our side presented its case in favor of LB 1405. I commented to a number of people during and after our side’s testimony that I don’t know how we could make our case more clearly or convincingly.

Testimony in favor of the bill was presented by several pro-life and pro-family organizations, some medical students from UNMC, a scientist from the University of Cincinnati, a medical ethics expert from the American Bioethics Advisory Committee, a neurosurgeon and member of the faculty at UNMC, and of course, the Nebraska Catholic Conference.

The brightest light of this group (in my opinion) was Keith Crutcher, PhD, a scientist from the University of Cincinnati who is currently doing research on Alzheimer’s. He was invited by Senator John Hilgert (who introduced LB 1405) to primarily address the scientific dimensions of this debate. Dr. Crutcher first addressed the question of whether or not advances in treating neurological disease require the use of aborted fetal tissue. Dr. Crutcher said "on this question I feel quite confident that the majority, if not all, scientists working in this field would agree that there is no evidence to support this view".

To further substantiate this point, Dr. Crutcher mentioned during questioning that the vast majority of research in neurodestructive diseases (like Alzheimer’s) being funded by the National Institutes of Health does not involve fetal tissue. His point is quite clear: All that UNMC can do now is speculate about the potential of its research to lead to treatments for neurodestructive diseases. For UNMC and others to suggest that the overall effort to find cures for neurodestructive diseases will suffer if UNMC can’t use tissue from induced abortions is scientifically unsubstantiated and a shameless example of fear mongering.

Dr. Crutcher went on to say that even if UNMC could be certain that cures would ultimately emerge from its aborted fetal tissue research, this desirable goal could never justify an inherently immoral means.

Jim Cunningham, executive director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference emphasized the moral objections to using fetal tissue from induced abortions. "The Conference’s firmly held view is that the research and treatment use of fetal tissue procured from induced abortions is inappropriate, morally offensive and socially harmful conduct that should be prohibited…"

The Conference holds this view for at least three reasons: first, using this fetal tissue "involves an unmistakable, close and ongoing collaboration with active wrongdoing [i.e. induced abortion] and is therefore wrong in itself;" second, there is no one who can rightfully consent to the use of aborted child’s body; and third, "the State’s tacit approval and endorsement of the use of induced abortion as a source of fetal tissue, by virtue of its failure to prohibit the practice, promotes a utilitarian attitude and pragmatism that yield to the inevitable temptation of commercialization and to the development of an even greater manipulative and exploitative mentality regarding pregnancy and unborn human beings."

The Conference testimony made clear that we "understand the great importance of medical research and support it in a great many contexts, including many contexts involving human subjects…Our support for…LB 1405 is not based on opposition to fetal-tissue research in its full sense; it is based on opposition to the deliberately chosen and implemented use of fetal tissue derived from induced abortions. Research is not justified merely because it is undertaken with good intentions, praiseworthy objectives or desirable benefits."

In my mind, this debate boils down to a few points. First, UNMC cannot scientifically prove that its aborted fetal tissue research is necessary, let alone vital, to the overall effort to find treatments for neurodestructive diseases. Second, common sense and some pretty compelling public opinion polls (featured in my last column) suggest that knowledge of a potential beneficial use of fetal tissue could tip the scales in favor of abortion for some women. Third, even if UNMC was certain that its aborted fetal tissue research would result in a cure for Alzheimer’s or any other disease, the use of tissue from induced abortions would still be morally wrong.

While the Judiciary Committee has not yet voted on LB 1405, based on newspaper reports it appears that the bill is deadlocked 4 in favor and 4 against. Those senators who are presently opposed to advancing LB 1405 for further debate are: Ernie Chambers (Omaha), Matt Connealy (Decatur), Patrick Bourne (Omaha) and Jennie Robak (Columbus). Those senators in favor of advancing LB 1405 are: John Hilgert (Omaha), Kermit Brashear (Omaha), Dwite Pedersen (Omaha) and Thomas Baker (Trenton).

In the event that the Committee remains deadlocked, there is another way to get the bill to the full Legislature. After 20 days from the day of the hearing (February 23), a senator can make a motion to bring the bill out of committee. If the motion gets 25 votes, the bill will advance to General File and await scheduling for the first round of debate by the full Legislature.

In closing, I was bothered and disappointed to read statements attributed to Sen. Matt Connealy following the testimony by the supporters of LB 1405. Sen. Connealy is reported to have said "I haven’t heard anything new other than morals and opinions." Certainly much of the testimony did focus on the legitimate moral objections to the use of aborted fetal tissue in this research (an argument that I hope would be compelling to the Senator). However, that he found no compelling scientific arguments against using aborted fetal tissue in the roughly 45 minutes that Dr. Keith Crutcher was testifying is dumbfounding to me.

I encourage everyone to pray for our state legislators and to write to them urging their support for LB 1405. Letters to state senators can be sent to: State Capitol, P.O. Box 94604, Lincoln, NE 68509-4604.

Back to Top

Life Insight 3-10-00

Reflections on the Value of Human Life

In the last chapter of his encyclical "The Gospel of Life" (Evangelium Vitae), Pope John Paul II discusses what must be done to form "a new culture of human life." He said in order for us to proclaim and celebrate the Gospel of life, "we need first of all to foster in ourselves and in others a contemplative outlook. Such an outlook arises from faith in the God of life, who has created every individual as a ‘wonder’…It is the outlook of those who see life in its deeper meaning, who grasp its utter gratuitousness, its beauty and its invitation to freedom and responsibility. It is the outlook of those who do not presume to take possession of reality, but instead accept it as a gift, discovering in all things the reflection of the Creator and seeing in every person his living image.

"This outlook does not give in to discouragement when confronted by those who are sick, suffering, outcast or at death’s door. Instead, in all these situations it feels challenged to find meaning, and precisely in these circumstances it is open to perceiving in the face of every person a call to encounter, dialogue and solidarity." (EV #83)

I recently came across a couple of stories that serve as good reflections to facilitate this "contemplative outlook" of which the Holy Father speaks. The first one came to me in a letter from Family First, a family advocacy organization in Lincoln, and is from the book The Applause of Heaven by pastor Max Lucado. Pastor Lucado talks about a sweater in his closet that he seldom wears—its too small, the sleeves are too short, the shoulders too tight. Some of the buttons are missing and the tread is frazzled.

Logically, he says, he should throw out that sweater since he has no use for it and will never wear it again. It simply takes up space in his closet. That’s what logic says. But love, he reports, won’t let him. Why not? What’s unusual about the sweater? To start with, it has no label, no tag telling you, "Wash in cold water." That’s because it wasn’t made in a factory, produced on an assembly line as the product of a nameless employee earning a living. Rather it was the creation of a devoted mother expressing her love and care—his mother.

That sweater is unique, one of a kind, irreplaceable. Each strand was chosen with care, and each thread selected with affection. And so, even though that sweater has lost all of its use, it has lost none of its value. It is valuable not because of its function, but because of its MAKER. So is each life.

The second story came to me from a friend and is entitled "Achieving God’s Perfection". In Brooklyn, NY, Chush is a school that caters to learning-disabled children. Some children remain in Chush for their entire school career, while others can be main-streamed into conventional schools. At a Chush fund-raising dinner, the father of a Chush child delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended.

After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he cried out, "Where is the perfection in my son Shaya? Everything God does is done with perfection. But my child cannot understand things as other children do. My child cannot remember facts and figures as other children do. Where is God’s perfection?"

The audience was shocked by the question, pained by the father’s anguish and stilled by the piercing query. "I believe," the father answered, "that when God brings a child like this into the world, the perfection is in the way people react to this child." He then told the following story about his son Shaya:

One afternoon Shaya and his father walked past a park where some boys Shaya knew were playing baseball. Shaya asked, "Do you think they will let me play?" Shaya’s father knew that his son was not at all athletic and that most boys would not want him on their team. But Shaya’s father understood that if his son was chosen to play it would give him a comfortable sense of belonging.

Shaya’s father approached one of the boys in the field and asked if Shaya could play. The boy looked around for guidance from his teammates. Getting none, he took matters into his own hand and said, "We are losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we’ll try to put him up to bat in the ninth inning." Shaya’s father was ecstatic as Shaya smiled broadly. Shaya was told to put on a glove and go out to play short center field.

In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shaya’s team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shaya’s team scored again and now with two outs and the bases loaded with the potential winning run on base, Shaya was scheduled to be up. Would the team actually let Shaya bat at this juncture and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shaya was given the bat. Everyone knew that it was all but impossible because Shaya didn’t even know how to hold the bat properly, let alone hit with it. However, as Shaya stepped up to the plate, the pitcher moved a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shaya should at least be able to make contact.

The first pitch came in and Shaya swung clumsily and missed. One of Shaya’s teammates came up to Shaya and together they held the bat and faced the pitcher waiting for the next pitch. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly toward Shaya. As the pitch came in, Shaya and his teammate swung the bat and together they hit a slow ground ball to the pitcher.

The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could easily have thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shaya would have been out and that would have ended the game. Instead, the pitcher took the ball and threw it on a high arc to right field, far beyond reach of the first baseman. Everyone started yelling ‘Shaya, run to first. Run to first!" Never in his life had Shaya run to first. He scampered down the baseline wide eyed and startled. By the time he reached first base, the right fielder had the ball. He could have thrown the ball to the second baseman who would tag out Shaya, who was still running.

But the right fielder understood the pitcher’s intentions, so he threw the ball high and far over the third baseman’s head. Everyone yelled, "Run to second, run to second." Shaya ran towards second base as the runners ahead of him deliriously circled the bases toward home. As Shaya reached second base, the opposing shortstop ran to him, turned him in the direction of third base and shouted, "Run to third." As Shaya rounded third, the boys from both teams ran behind him screaming "Shaya run home!"

Shaya ran home, stepped on home plate and all 18 boys lifted him on their shoulders and made him the hero, as he had just hit a "grand slam" and won the game for his team. "That day," said the father softly with tears rolling down his face, "those 18 boys reached their level of God’s perfection." "Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." Galations 6:2

Back to Top

Life Insight 3-17-00

The Moral Dimensions of Using Vaccines Originating in Induced Abortion

The debate over the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s use of brain tissue from induced abortions in some of its research has recently raised questions about the morality of using vaccines that have some connection to induced abortion. Before I present the moral dimensions, it is important to understand the process by which vaccines are produced.

Viruses can only reproduce inside living cells. Therefore, the production of vaccines involves a stage where the virus is grown in large quantities in a human cell culture. The viruses are then removed from the cell culture, inactivated, and processed further in order to produce the vaccine.

Two human cell lines MRC-5 (Medical Research Council-5) and WI-38 (Wistar Institute-38) that are used in the production of vaccines for chicken pox, rubella and hepatitis A were acquired from the lung tissue of deliberately aborted babies about 30 to 40 years ago. It is relevant to point out here that these cell lines could have been produced using cells from morally acceptable sources. And should there ever be a need for new cell lines, those who produce them should be required to use these morally acceptable sources.

Now, the fundamental moral question involved here is: "does the use of vaccines derived from cell-lines originating from an induced abortion involve a person in immoral cooperation with the evil of abortion?" After reading some moral analysis of this question and discussing it with some priests and moral theologians, the answer is no.

First, it is important to understand that the only opportunity for cooperation in the 2 abortions that provided the cell-lines from which these vaccines are produced occurred in connection with the initial transfer of aborted baby tissue from abortionist to researcher. There was likely an immoral cooperation of the researchers who developed these cell-lines with the evil of abortion.

However, there is no cooperative action with these abortions on the part of those who produce vaccines from these cell-lines. Nor is there any cooperative action on the part of those who receive these vaccinations. The researchers using fetal tissue at UNMC however, are in a direct, collaborative relationship with the practice of induced abortion much like the researchers who produced the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell-lines.

Second, since these cell lines are self-perpetuating (i.e. they are maintained in such a way that they have an indefinite lifespan). Therefore, the maintenance of these cell-lines as well as the ongoing production of vaccines does not rely on the continual practice of induced abortion. This is very different from UNMC’s fetal tissue research that, according to UNMC, relies on, and collaborates with, the ongoing practice of induced abortion to supply tissue for its research. If these cell-lines or vaccines relied on a continual supply of tissue from induced abortions, it would then be morally wrong to use them.

Third, an individual can benefit from an unjust or immoral act without approving of, or cooperating with, that act. For example, a murder victim’s body is donated to a research project that results in the cure for some disease. Those who benefit from the cure would not be complicit with, nor approve of, that murder. Likewise, those who use vaccines that were produced from a cell-line that originated in an act of induced abortion are not complicit with, and may not approve of, that abortion.

According to the National Catholic Bioethics Center, the only currently available vaccines for hepatitis A, rubella, and chicken pox are produced from either the MRC-5 or WI-38 cell-lines. However, the following vaccines are not produced from these cell-lines: diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis ("DTP"), haemophilus B, hepatitis B, smallpox and yellow fever. The following vaccines have tainted AND untainted versions: mumps, polio, and rabies.

I would certainly encourage individuals and physicians to utilize the untainted version when they exist. As for vaccines not mentioned above, I encourage individuals to ask their doctor if the vaccine being sought is available in a form not originating from the MRC-5 or WI-38 cell lines. This would be a good opportunity to bring this information to the attention of doctors and to encourage them to utilize alternative vaccines whenever possible.

Those wanting further information about the moral analysis of this issue can contact me for an excellent document produced by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. Those wanting more information about which vaccines have alternatives not produced from MRC-5 or WI-38 can contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center at 617-787-1900.

Back to Top

Life Insight 3-27-00

A Concrete Opportunity to Change Minds and Hearts

As director of pro-life activities for the Catholic Church, I sometimes get asked the question: "What is the most important initiative to change minds and hearts on the practice of abortion?" Without hesitation, my answer is prayer and fasting. But a close second, in my view, is Project Rachel.

In a society grievously wounded—spiritually and psychologically, if not physically—by nearly 40 million surgical abortions since 1973, there is an enormous need for the healing that can only come from the infinite mercy and love of God. Project Rachel, an outreach of the Catholic Church, has been facilitating this healing through 73 specially trained priests and counselors statewide since 1992.

One of the greatest challenges in facilitating this healing is having the means to communicate its availability on a widespread basis. This is why I am so excited to tell you about the Project Rachel Awareness Initiative, sponsored nationally by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro-Life Office and in Nebraska by my office. The purpose of the initiative is to substantially raise public awareness about post-abortion aftermath and the existence of Project Rachel to help facilitate spiritual and emotional healing from the wounds of abortion. The initiative has a central message that dovetails with the Church’s millennial theme of forgiveness and reconciliation.

The U.S. Bishops’ Pro-Life Office has produced professional and stunning media materials (radio, billboard and print ads) that we will be using in Nebraska. The main tag line in all of these ads is: "Something inside dies after an abortion…For help call Project Rachel at 1-800-964-3787."

The importance of this case is that it will either facilitate or put the skids on a movement from the practice of abortion to the practice of infanticide. The partial-birth abortion procedure is, by objective observation, closer to infanticide than abortion. More specifically, this case will decide whether or not Nebraska’s ban on this barbaric practice can go into effect. Nationally, this ruling could affect similar bans in numerous other states.

Our Lord Jesus Christ tells us that there are certain demons that only prayer and fasting can drive out. I believe that the practice of abortion is one such demon. Please commit yourself to praying and fasting for this intention.

Back to Top

Life Insight 4-28-00

End-of-Life Issues Update

Here is an update on three different items related to end-of-life issues:

End-of-Life Issues Conference

The Nebraska Coalition for Compassionate Care, along with the Nebraska Hospice Association and the Nebraska Medical Association is sponsoring a conference on end-of-life issues on Thursday, May 4 at the Continuing Education Center in Lincoln. This conference, "Affirming Life in the Face of Death", is an excellent opportunity to learn more about the various aspects of end-of-life care from nationally-known speakers.

Topics include "Assisted Suicide: Economic Implications", "Effective Communication at End of Life", "Pain and Suffering: The Role of Medicine—Improving Palliative Care", "Pain as the 5^th Vital Sign" and "Advance Directives: Benefits and Perils". Continuing education credits are available for physicians, nurses, social workers, professional counselors and nursing home administrators. Cost for the conference is $65.00. To register, contact me at 402-477-7517. I highly recommend this conference to anyone interested in learning more about end-of-life care issues.

Pain Relief Promotion Act

On June 5, 1998, overturning an earlier determination by her own Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. attorney general Janet Reno announced that the federal Controlled Substances Act establishes no uniform national policy against the use of federally regulated drugs for assisted suicide. As a result, these drugs may be used to assist patients’ suicides in any state that, like Oregon, allows the practice under state law. This ruling disregards current federal law that uniformly prohibits the use of these drugs to endanger "public health and safety" or for anything other than a "legitimate medical purpose."

The Pain Relief Promotion Act would do 3 things: 1. Reaffirm that intentionally prescribing federally regulated drugs (such as morphine) to cause patients’ deaths is not authorized, even if a state law permits assisted suicide or euthanasia. 2. Encourage physicians to use these drugs to relieve pain and discomfort by clarifying that such use is consistent with the Controlled Substances Act even in cases where it may unintentionally shorten life. 3. Help educate and train health professionals on medically accepted means for alleviating pain and other symptoms for seriously ill patients.

The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved this bill last year. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the bill on April 25. Sen. Chuck Hagel is a co-sponsor of the bill. Sen. Bob Kerrey’s position on this bill is unknown. I encourage individuals to contact Sen. Kerrey (202-224-6551) and urge him to support the Pain Relief Promotion Act, H.R. 2260/S. 1272.

Oregon’s Second Year Report on Legalized Assisted Suicide

The Oregon Health Division (OHD) released data on the state’s second year of legalized physician-assisted suicide on February 24. It shows 27 reported cases of assisted suicide in 1999, up from 16 in 1998. Only 10 patients (37%) were tested for mental competency. Less than a third (31%) received a lethal prescription from the first physician they approached, but eventually found one who did prescribe the lethal drugs.

The primary reason (cited by 81%) for seeking assisted suicide (in both 1998 and 1999) was "loss of autonomy"; worsening pain was cited by only 26 percent. Assisted suicide advocates sold the idea of legalizing assisted suicide on the notion that it was necessary for those whose physical pain couldn’t be controlled. Families say almost half the patients (47%) cited becoming "a burden on friends and family" as a reason for suicide.

But the biggest source of controversy from this report has not been what it contained but what it omitted. Even the OHD admits that the information in this report is unreliable and incomplete. All reports are from physicians and families personally involved (and the family member interviewed by the OHD was generally chosen by the physician involved). The OHD says that each doctor’s report "could have been a cock-and-bull story."

News media have revealed abuses ignored by the state’s report: the Matheny case, where a family member actively "helped" a patient ingest lethal drugs; the Cheney case, where an adult daughter described as "somewhat coercive" even by the psychiatrist who approved the suicide request, shopped around to find a physician willing to disregard her mother’s dementia and aid her suicide; and a recent "botched" assisted suicide where the drugs caused grave complications but did not end the patient’s life.

For more complete information, the report is available on the OHD’s Website ( www.dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/chs/pas/pas.cfm ) or as a journal article: A. Sullivan et.al., "Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon—The Second Year," 342 New England Journal of Medicine 598-604 (Feb. 24, 2000).

Back to Top

Life Insight 5-8-00

Pope Paul VI Institute: A Treasure in our Midst

In the fourth chapter of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), our Holy Father illumines the path to forming "a new culture of human life". "The first and fundamental step toward this cultural transformation", says his Holiness, "consists in forming consciences with regard to the incomparable and inviolable worth of every human life." (EV #96)

"Closely connected with the formation of conscience is the work of education… [particularly] about the value of life from its very origins. It is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not help the young to accept and experience sexuality and love and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection…The trivialization of sexuality is among the principal factors which have led to contempt for new life." (EV #97)

One cannot read the writings of our present pope without concluding that mankind’s understanding of, and faithfulness to, the truth and meaning of human sexuality is fundamental to our effort to restore reverence for the sacredness of all human life and to form a "new culture of human life." We are fortunate here in Nebraska to have in our midst a one-of-a-kind institution that was founded for the purpose of facilitating this understanding of, and faithfulness to, the truth and meaning of human sexuality: Pope Paul VI Institute For the Study of Human Reproduction, founded by Dr. Thomas Hilgers.

According to a promotional flier, Pope Paul VI Institute, which is headquartered in Omaha, "is the only comprehensive research, education and service Institute in the world that is completely dedicated to the principles of Catholic teaching in areas related to women’s health." Its mission is "[t]o build programs that will deliver morally and professionally acceptable reproductive health services to women throughout the world."

For starters, the Institute has developed the scientifically accurate and effective Creighton Model Fertility Care System to assist couples to achieve and avoid pregnancy and has trained 1000 teachers and 150 physicians—from seven countries—in this system. It has also developed a new reproductive technology called NaProTechnology (Natural Procreative Technology) to effectively correct diseases of the menstrual cycle.

The Institute deserves our support because it "can effectively confront: the contraceptive mentality which is the gateway to abortion; the impact of artificial reproductive technologies that suppress, distort, and alter women’s fertility; the controversy within the church on family planning and sexuality; [and] the moral erosion resulting from the culture of death." Furthermore, the work of the Pope Paul VI Institute "can strengthen marriages and families by reconnecting love and life."

Unfortunately, the Institute has always struggled financially and is particularly in need of our financial support right now. Dr. Hilgers has accepted a great deal of financial risk and sacrifice to establish and maintain this vital work for the cause of human life. It is a great injustice that Planned Parenthood has hundreds of millions of dollars to spread the culture of death worldwide and institutions like Pope Paul VI Institute have to struggle to just keep the doors open.

The Holy Father says the "Church is grateful to those who, with personal sacrifice and often unacknowledged dedication, devote themselves to the study and spread of [natural methods of regulating fertility] as well to the promotion of education in the moral values which they presuppose." (EV #97) Pope Paul VI Institute deserves our financial support and our thanks for its important contributions in the effort to form a new culture of human life.

Contributions to the Institute can be sent to them at 6901 Mercy Road, Omaha, NE 68106. The Institute is a non-profit, tax exempt and tax deductible 501(c)(3) organization. For more information about the Institute, it can be reached at 402-390-6600 or visit its website at www.popepaulvi.com.

Finally, I want to express my gratitude to all Catholic physicians who are striving to fully adhere to the teachings of the Church in their practices. These physicians also have accepted a certain amount of risk and sacrifice (not to mention the scorn of some of their colleagues) in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church—the bride of our Divine Physician. I strongly encourage Catholics to seek out these courageous physicians and support them with your patronage.

Back to Top

Life Insight 5-19-00

The Rotten Fruit from 40 Years of "The Pill"

Forty years ago the Food and Drug Administration approved the first oral contraceptive referred to simply as "the pill". What I have read so far in the secular press has, predictably, heralded "the pill" as a great advance for women—giving them "power", "choice", "control", "freedom". "Nothing has changed the gender power balance more," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Financial support in exchange for domestic services is no longer valid," Feldt added.

Ms. Feldt and her fellow contraception advocates have such a sick and twisted view of reality. They claim that contraception and abortion are great liberators for women—freeing them from the oppression of domestic servitude as stay-at-home moms. Feldt and her ilk aren’t authentic advocates for women, they’re shameless frauds. This should be evident from the underlying message in their contraception/abortion advocacy.

The underlying message is that if women can just suppress or eliminate their natural reproductive capacity (and destroy any "slip ups") they can advance economically and socially. In other words, these alleged advocates of women are asserting that women need a pill, device or surgery (or an abortion license) to "correct" this physiological "flaw" that handicaps them from being equal participants in society. This is profoundly and insidiously anti-woman, and pro-irresponsible men.

Authentic feminism says that economic and social policies should affirm and, where necessary, accommodate women’s unique and critical function as mothers. This way, when mothers need or want to work outside the home, or pursue other goals, they can do so without renouncing an essential and unique aspect of who they are as persons.

Contraception advocates can’t even point to any real or concrete ways in which women have benefited from contraception. In one of the columns I read, the 2 authors said "[h]istorians and sociologists have extensively documented the pill’s effect on the family and professional lives of American women. Without the pill, they have argued, the feminist movement would never have taken root. Within a few years, women were marrying less frequently and at later ages; the size of families started to shrink; and women entered the workforce to compete for jobs held previously by men."

Since they provided no further explanation, I guess these authors assume that those of us who read this will automatically understand that these things (feminist movement, marrying less, etc.) are benefits to women. How?

An objective examination of the most relevant social and economic indicators provides no support for the assertion that women have benefited from contraception. Since the introduction of the pill, the rates of abortion, divorce, family breakdown, wife and child abuse, sexually-transmitted disease and out of wedlock births have all skyrocketed. And, the last time I checked, women and children were in the largest and fastest growing poverty group in the United States. Obviously, "the pill" isn’t the sole cause of this unraveling, but it is a major player.

It is long overdue that the outrageous and empty slogans about the alleged benefits of contraception to women be exposed for the frauds they are. It is also long overdue that Catholic individuals and institutions humble and commit themselves to truly learn, reflect on, and live the Church’s (Christ’s) beautiful and fundamental teaching on the truth and meaning of human sexuality.

Some obvious resources are: the encyclicals Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubii, Familiaris Consortio, the Vatican document Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality and Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (available through any Catholic bookstore). Archbishop Charles Chaput has also written an outstanding pastoral letter on Humanae Vitae that is very easy to understand (available from my office). For those with internet capability, there are several good web sites for information on this topic: www.priestsforlife.org, www.onemoresoul.org, www.popepaulvi.com, www.ccli.org, www.vatican.va.

Back to Top

Life Insight 5-26-00

Be Faithful and Leave the Rest to God

Whenever I am asked to speak on pro-life issues, I usually conclude my talks in the same way: Everyone is called by God to do something to help form a new culture of life. Our tasks in this endeavor (as with our own life) are to continually ask God what He wants us to do (discern His will for us) and then to be obedient to His will. One of my favorite summations of these tasks was penned by T.S. Elliot: "For us there is only the trying and the rest is not our business."

As we confront the overwhelming magnitude of the culture of death, it is very easy to become wearied and perhaps discouraged by our seemingly fruitless efforts. As Christians, we must be vigilant in driving out such temptations toward discouragement or despair because our greatest source of inspiration—indeed the premise of our efforts—is the fact that Our Lord defeated death once and for all with His death and resurrection.

Hence, although we continue to struggle against the culture of death, we must be confident and joyful with this knowledge that the battle has already been won and our task is to be faithful to the will of God. "The rest" as T.S. Elliot says [conversion of minds and hearts and our culture] is God’s business. The following allegory does an eloquent job of explaining our task of obedience. It comes from an online source called God@work.

A man was sleeping at night in his cabin when suddenly his room filled with light and the Savior appeared. The Lord told the man he had work for him to do, and showed him a large rock in front of his cabin. The Lord explained that the man was to push against the rock with all his might. This, the man did, day after day.

For many years he toiled from sun up to sun down, his shoulder set squarely against the cold, massive surface of the unmoving rock, pushing with all his might. Each night the man returned to his cabin sore, and worn out, feeling that his whole day had been spent in vain.

Seeing that the man was showing signs of discouragement, the [devil] decided to enter the picture by placing thoughts into the man’s weary mind: "You have been pushing against that rock for a long time, and it hasn’t budged. Why kill yourself over this? You are never going to move it." Thus giving the man the impression that the task was impossible and that he was a failure.

These thoughts discouraged and disheartened the man. "Why kill myself over this?" he thought. "I’ll just put in my time, giving just the minimum effort and that will be good enough." And that is what he planned to do until one day he decided to make it a matter of prayer and take his troubled thoughts to the Lord.

"Lord", he said, "I have labored long and hard in your service, putting all my strength to do that which you have asked. Yet, after all this time, I have not even budged that rock by half a millimeter. What is wrong? Why am I failing?" The Lord responded compassionately, "My friend, when I asked you to serve me and you accepted, I told you that your task was to push against the rock with all your strength, which you have done. Never once did I mention to you that I expected you to move it. Your task was to push. And now you come to me with your strength spent, thinking that you have failed. But, is that really so?"

"Look at yourself. Your arms are strong and muscled, your back sinewy and brown, your hands are callused from constant pressure, and your legs have become massive and hard. Through opposition you have grown much and your abilities now surpass that which you used to have. Yet you haven’t moved the rock. But your calling was to be obedient and to push and to exercise your faith and trust in My wisdom. This you have done. I, my friend, will now move the rock."

At times, when we hear a word from God, we tend to use our own intellect to decipher what He wants, when actually what God wants is just simple obedience and faith in Him…By all means, exercise the faith that moves mountains, but know that it is still God who moves the mountains.

Back to Top

Life Insight 6-2-00

The Visitation

"Thereupon Mary set out, proceeding in haste into the hill country to a town of Judah where she entered Zechariah’s house and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leapt in her womb. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and cried out in a loud voice: ‘Blest are you among women and blest is the fruit of your womb. But who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me? The moment your greeting sounded in my ears, the baby leapt in my womb for joy.’" (Luke 1: 39-44)

On Wednesday, May 31 we celebrated The Visitation of our Blessed Mother to her cousin Elizabeth as described in Luke’s Gospel. This celebration in the Church has tremendous relevance to the pro-life cause for at least three reasons. First, besides Mary of course, it was John the Baptist—an unborn child—who was one of the first, if not the first human being to recognize the presence of our Lord: "the baby leapt in my womb for joy."

Second, someone recently pointed out a pro-life aspect of The Visitation that hadn’t occurred to me. Scripture tells us that immediately after our Lord’s conception in Mary’s womb (The Annunciation), Mary went "in haste" to Elizabeth’s home. Given the distance between Mary’s home and Elizabeth’s home, it likely took Mary four to five days to arrive at Elizabeth’s home. I am told that the normal time it takes for a newly conceived human being to travel down the fallopian tube and implant in the uterus is seven to ten days.

Therefore, it is very likely that our Lord had not yet implanted in Mary’s womb when his presence caused another unborn child to leap for joy. Why is this relevant? One reason is that the medical profession (specifically the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology) has changed the definition of pregnancy from conception (or fertilization of the ovum by the sperm) to the implantation of the embryo in the mother’s womb. Along with this redefinition came the (scientifically inaccurate) euphemism "pre-embryo" to further de-humanize the human embryo prior to implantation.

One of the motivations for the redefinition and the euphemism is to neutralize one of the objections to certain birth control methods (such as "the pill"): they can operate as abortifacients (i.e. one of the ways they work is by preventing an already conceived human being from implanting in the mother’s womb—hence, they cause an abortion). If pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation—voila—no abortion!

Another reason for the redefinition and euphemism is the unbridled desire of scientists to experiment on (thus destroying) human embryos "left over" from various in vitro fertilization techniques. I guess they think that if pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation these "spare" embryos are fair game for experimentation and destruction since they are "created" and reside outside the womb. How extraordinary is man’s ability to deceive himself!

A final relevance of The Visitation is Mary’s example of service to those in need—specifically her pregnant cousin. Mary demonstrated her great love of neighbor in going to help Elizabeth. By our society’s embrace of abortion, it has responded to pregnant mothers in a different way—a selfish way. It has effectively said to pregnant mothers: "Don’t bother me with your troubles. It is easier for ME if you just get rid of this little parasite, this burden, this consumer and destroyer of mother earth.

The Catholic Church (through Catholic Social Services/Charities and other outreach efforts like Elizabeth Ministry) and the pro-life movement (through more than 3000 pregnancy-assistance centers nationwide) have tried to follow Mary’s example in providing material, spiritual and social support to pregnant women. This is true love: giving until it hurts. A list of these agencies, that deserve our most generous support, is available from my office.

Back to Top

Life Insight 6-16-00

Surgical Abortions Drop Significantly in Nebraska for 1999

Nebraska law requires those who perform abortions to report each one to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services within 15 days after each reporting month. At the end of each year these forms are compiled and published into the "Statistical Report of Abortions". The 1999 report was released last week and it reported that a total of 4,565 abortions were performed in Nebraska—an 11.2 percent drop in abortions from 1998.

This number of abortions is the lowest annual total in Nebraska since 1977 and represents the biggest one-year drop in abortions since abortion was legalized. The first question that comes to mind is: "why the big drop?" This is a question I’ve been thinking about for some time because the total number of abortions has been available for several weeks even though the official report was just released last week.

I looked at demographic trends such as the number of child-bearing aged women, the number of births to married and unmarried women, the number of pregnancies, etc. and there are no clear explanations here for the large drop in abortions. Thus we are left with speculation as to why the number of abortions dropped so precipitously.

Predictably, Planned Parenthood representatives credited more awareness and use of contraception as the reason for the drop. There simply is little or no empirical evidence to substantiate the claim that more contraception equals fewer pregnancies equals fewer abortions. To punctuate this point, let’s consider the dropping rates of teenage pregnancy, births and abortions.

According to a 1999 report by the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils entitled "The Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion Rates in the 1990’s: What Factors are Responsible?", abstinence, not increased contraceptive use, is the "primary reason for the decline in teen pregnancy and birth rates throughout the 1990’s.

What proof does this report provide? Among other facts, it points out that although condom usage has increased 33 percent among teenagers, this increase was more than offset by a whopping 45 percent decrease in the use of oral contraceptives among females aged 15-19. What’s worse, from the standpoint of "pregnancy prevention", condoms are far less effective in preventing pregnancy than oral contraceptives. So, based on Planned Parenthood’s rationale, this decline in contraceptive use should have caused the pregnancy, birth and abortion rates to go up, not down.

In fairness, I readily admit that I have no provable reason for the decline either. I would like to hope that the recently implemented state abstinence program has contributed. Perhaps the attention on partial-birth abortion—which confronts the public with the brutal reality of abortion—has had an impact. Maybe the retirement of one of the primary abortionists in Omaha (William Orr) had an impact.

According to the abortion report, the number of abortions performed in Douglas County (where Orr used to abort babies) declined by nearly 700. Since the number of abortions performed at the two other abortuaries in Nebraska (Planned Parenthood in Lincoln and Leroy Carhart in Bellevue) stayed fairly constant, these abortions didn’t simply transfer to the other abortuaries. Perhaps they went to another state or perhaps having one less abortionist meant more mothers chose to give life to their babies.

There is one other possible (perhaps probable) reason for the decline: an increase of prayer and fasting by the people of Nebraska. My office, for example, has placed a much greater emphasis on prayer and fasting as a necessary basis for our pro-life activity. I’ve also seen this emphasis on prayer by other pro-life activists and organizations.

Our Lord said that there are certain demons that only prayer and fasting can drive out. Perhaps the decline in abortions is God’s way of rewarding our faithfulness. Let us continue to pray and fast that this may be so.

Copies of the 1999 Statistical Report of Abortions can be obtained from the Nebraska Department of Regulation and Licensure by calling 402-471-2241.

Back to Top

Life Insight 6-30-00

Theocracy is Scapegoat for Sloppy Intellectual Reasoning

I wrote the following editorial in response to an editorial by Dick Herman that appeared in the on-line newspaper Nebraska StatePaper.com. His article was entitled "Does Theocracy Lie Ahead?" and can be seen on-line at http://nebraska.statepaper.com/ and typing "theocracy" in the search line.

As the youngest of eleven children, I have many memories of older siblings teasing me to provoke a response. As with most teasing, my siblings didn’t really mean the things they said—the point was to provoke a response. If I wasn’t familiar with Dick Herman’s philosophical leanings I would have concluded that his intellectually embarrassing diatribe ("Does Theocracy Lie Ahead" 6-20-00) was a tease to provoke a response. After all, how could anyone really mean the utter nonsense he demonstrated in this article?

Comparing us to the Mormon Church in Utah, Mr. Herman asserts that the Catholic Church and Christian fundamentalists are well on our way to electing (or having appointed) public officials that will tow the doctrinal line and ban abortions.  Oh really?  Perhaps Mr. Herman would be so kind as to point out these officials so we can start tightening the ecclesiastical screws on them. The fact is, the only modest public policy successes the broader pro-life movement has had have come through hard fought efforts in legislatures and at the ballot box—in other words legitimately through the democratic process. Conversely, the most significant victories won by supporters of legal abortion came through what even some pro-abortion legal scholars say was inappropriate and undemocratic judicial activism (most notably Roe v. Wade). Now, who is imposing their agenda on whom?

Mr. Herman claims that the pro-life movement is one Supreme Court vote from overturning Roe v. Wade. Again I find myself needing Mr. Herman’s enlightenment in identifying the fourth vote on the Court disposed to overturning Roe. The last time the Court ruled on the practice of abortion was in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and on the issue of Roe v. Wade it ruled 5 to 4 to reaffirm the decision. One of those four dissenting votes (Justice Byron White) has retired leaving only three votes presumably disposed to overturning Roe.

Saving the most intellectually dishonest argument for last, Mr. Herman tries to assert that banning abortion is tantamount to enshrining in public policy Catholic doctrine about when human life begins. If Mr. Herman cared enough about the truth in this matter he would have done some minimal research and found that Catholic doctrine does not DEFINE when human life begins. Such a definition is biological not theological. Catholic doctrine has always taught that direct and intentional abortion is wrong from the point when human life begins, but it has followed the revelations of science to define that point. From a biological standpoint, it is simply irrefutable that an individual human being’s life begins at fertilization.

Moreover, Mr. Herman needs to explain why he believes the Catholic Church is guilty of imposing a theocracy on our nation when it speaks out against the practice of abortion but presumably not when it advocates for just social and economic policies for the poor and marginalized or in opposition to the death penalty for example. These and other public policy positions of the Catholic Church have in common Her belief in the intrinsic worth of every human life—a truth that even our nation’s Declaration of Independence says is "self-evident". The Catholic Church is consistent, and legitimately engaged, in its advocacy for human life. It would appear that Mr. Herman is not consistent in his views and, what’s more, needs to research the distinction between theocracy and legitimate issue advocacy.

Finally, Mr. Herman conveniently avoids one of the fundamental questions of the abortion debate: If not at its biological beginning (fertilization), when should a human being become a person protected by our constitution? Some say at viability, others say several months after birth. The U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade effectively said at birth, since it provided no meaningful protection for human beings prior to that point. But these determinations are purely arbitrary and subjective. History has proven more than once the deadly consequences when man subjectively assigns personhood to human beings at a point other than their biological beginning.

With the consequences of the abortion debate as serious as they are, public discourse on the topic should at least be intellectually honest and constructive. Dick Herman’s article was neither.