THE CONFERENCE:
Candidate Survey (11/2006)
making (1/06)
Statement (2/05)
-Capitol
Correspondent:
*********
Life Insight:
Columns-2008
*********
Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.
Life Insight 2000
By Greg Schleppenbach, Part II - July through
December
Life Insight 7-14-00 Stenberg v. Carhart Ruling a Disaster
Life Insight 7-28-00 Pro-Life Legislation in Congress
Life Insight 8-11-00 When Does Human Life Begin?
Life Insight 8-25-00 More Ammunition on Human Life's Beginning and Personhood
Life Insight 9-01-00 Destroying Some Human Beings to Help Others
Life Insight 9-08-00 Urge Senator Kerrey to Support the Pain Relief Promotion Act
Life Insight 9-15-00 Our Lady of Sorrows and the Hope and Healing Following Abortion
Life Insight 9-22-00 A Story About Faith and Divine Providence, Part I
Life Insight 9-29-00 A Story About Faith and Divine Providence, Part II
Life Insight 10-06-00 RU 486: Another Tool for Killing Babies; Abandoning Mothers
Life Insight 10-20-00 A Pilgrim's Reflections on Rome
Life Insight 10-27-00 Society’s Response to "The Least Ones"
Life Insight 11-10-00 A New and Effective Language
Life Insight 11-17-00 Rediscovering an Awe for Human Life
Life Insight 11-24-00 Giving Thanks
Life Insight 12-01-00 U.S. Bishops Issue Statement on Abortion and Supreme Court
Life Insight 12-15-00 Was This Election Confusion Inevitable?
Life Insight 12-22-00 Christ's Birth Reveals Joy and Meaning of Every Human Birth
Stenberg v. Carhart Ruling a Disaster
On Wednesday, June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling to strike down Nebraska’s law banning partial-birth abortions. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court, in effect, ruled that states are powerless to enact meaningful legislation to prohibit deadly violence against children who are almost entirely outside the womb, conduct most Americans rightly consider unworthy of a civilized society.
The ruling represents a frightening expansion of Roe v. Wade’s license to kill defenseless human beings beyond those in utero to those that are mostly outside the womb. This ruling has enlarged the segment of humanity that has been subjectively and unjustly excluded from our Constitution’s protections.
The Court said the law was unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it lacks any exception "for the preservation of the…health of the mother." Second, it "’imposes an undue burden on a woman’s ability’ to choose a D & E [dilation and evacuation] abortion, thereby unduly burdening the right to choose abortion itself."
The Court’s rationale behind the second reason is that the definition of partial-birth abortion in Nebraska’s law is vague enough that it could be interpreted to apply to the more commonly used D & E abortion procedure as well. The Court said "those who perform abortion procedures using that method must fear prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment. The result is an undue burden upon a woman’s right to make an abortion decision."
The most devastating aspect of the decision is the part about the health exception. By requiring a health exception for a ban on partial-birth abortion to pass constitutional muster, this Court has effectively prevented states from enacting a meaningful ban. This is because in Doe v. Bolton (Roe v. Wade’s companion case) the Court said third trimester abortions must be allowed if a woman’s life or health is endangered. It then defined health as encompassing "all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient." It is the exception that swallows the rule.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote "Justice O’Connor assures the people of Nebraska they are free to redraft the law to included an exception permitting the D & X to be performed when ‘the procedure, in appropriate medical judgment, is necessary to preserve the health of the mother.’ The assurance is meaningless. She has joined an opinion which accepts that Dr. Carhart exercises ‘appropriate medical judgment’ in using the D & X for every patient in every procedure, regardless of indications, after 15 weeks’ gestation…A ban which depends on the ‘appropriate medical judgment’ of Dr. Carhart is no ban at all. He will be unaffected by any new legislation. This, of course, is the vice of a health exception resting in the physician’s discretion."
Another place in his opinion, Justice Kennedy says, "Requiring Nebraska to defer to Dr. Carhart’s judgment is not different than forbidding Nebraska from enacting a ban at all; for it is now Dr. Leroy Carhart who sets abortion policy for the State of Nebraska, not the legislature or the people."
So where do we go from here? Attorney General Don Stenberg and others have said Nebraska should enact a new law that complies with the Court’s instructions. But he said the new law should acknowledge that it is simply a statement by the State reaffirming its abhorrence to the procedure; the health exception would prevent the law from stopping any partial-birth abortions. Senator Jon Bruning from Sarpy County has already announced his intention to introduce and prioritize a new bill.
Many people in Nebraska and around the country prayed and fasted for God’s intervention in this case. The outcome was disappointing to say the least. Since we know God answers all our prayers—but not always in the way we want—we should now pray for God’s grace to understand His will in this decision.
Perhaps the silver lining in this dark cloud will be the awakening of the American people to the violence and grave injustice of abortion and the expanding scope of its destruction. Perhaps it will result in the election of more public officials who will uphold the sacredness of human life in all its stages—particularly the most defenseless prior to birth.
Whatever the result, with every setback we encounter we must never, ever forget that we cannot be defeated by the culture of death. Our Lord, Jesus Christ defeated death once and for all with His death and resurrection. Our task is to be faithful and untiring in discerning and fulfilling His will in shining the light of Christ in the world. Changing minds and hearts is up to our Triune God.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer with Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and O’Connor concurring. Justices Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist and Kennedy dissented. Those wishing to read the opinions can do so by going to the following website: www.law.cornell.edu (go to Supreme Court decisions for June). Those who don’t have access to the internet can contact my office (402-477-7517) to obtain a copy of the opinions.
Update on Pro-Life Legislation in Congress
The following is a status report on some of the pro-life related legislation in Congress provided by the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
The Senate approved its version of this bill on October 21, 1999 with a vote that is two short of the two-thirds needed for a veto override. The House of Representatives approved a slightly different version of this bill on February 15, 2000 with a veto-proof margin. All three Nebraska representatives (Bereuter, Terry and Barrett) voted for this bill. Senator Hagel voted for the bill, but Senator Kerrey opposed it. The bill is now awaiting action in a conference committee that reconciles differences in the two versions of the bill.
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion, pro-life lawyers and leaders in Congress are discussing how to proceed since this federal bill is very similar to Nebraska’s law. The Court said in Stenberg v. Carhart any ban on this abortion procedure would need to have a health exception to be constitutional. The Court defined health so broadly in its Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that it allows abortion for virtually any reason.
Pain Relief Promotion Act
In 1998, 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. The Pain Relief Promotion Act affirms the use of federally controlled drugs for legitimate pain control and reaffirms that federal law does not authorize the deliberate use of federally regulated drugs for assisted suicide or euthanasia. The act provides important new programs to promote palliative care through research, education, and training.
The House approved the bill on October 27, 1999 with the support of all three Nebraska representatives. The bill is awaiting action in the Senate. Senator Hagel is a co-sponsor of the bill. Senator Kerrey’s position on the bill is unknown. Kerrey should be urged to support this bill (S. 1272).
Ban on Funding Harmful Human Embryo Research
Current law—first enacted in 1996—prohibits the use of federal funds for research in which human embryos are harmed or destroyed. In January, 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its opinion that this law does not apply to research using cells derived from human embryos, even though harvesting these cells (known as stem cells) directly kills the embryos. This opinion distorts the plain meaning and intent of the law.
On December 1, 1999, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) used this opinion to justify issuing draft guidelines for funding this research. These guidelines could be finalized and put into effect late this summer or fall. In addition, "the Stem Cell Research Act" (S. 2015) has been introduced in the Senate to explicitly allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that results in the death of the human embryo. Action on the bill is not expected until September. Our senators (Hagel and Kerrey) should be urged to oppose S. 2015.
Abortion in the Military
Current law governing abortion in the military has two restrictions: funds may not be used to pay for abortions except to save the life of the mother; facilities may not be used to perform abortions except to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest. Attempts in the House and Senate to repeal these two restrictions were introduced and defeated. All three Nebraska representatives voted to preserve these pro-life restrictions. Sen. Hagel also voted for these pro-life restrictions. Sen. Kerrey opposed them.
House Upholds Mexico City Policy
The Mexico City Policy provides that U.S. funds can be given to foreign nongovernmental organizations only if they agree not to perform abortions (except to save the mother’s life or in cases of rape of incest), not to violate other countries’ abortion laws or not to lobby to change those laws. An attempt in the House to repeal this policy was rejected. All three Nebraska representatives voted to retain this pro-life policy. The Senate has not yet voted on this policy.
I encourage Nebraskans to thank our representatives who voted for pro-life policies.
That Pesky Question: When Does Human Life Begin?
A few weeks ago, Vice President Al Gore appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press and during the interview was asked by host Tim Russert: "When do you think life begins?" The pro-abortion Vice President’s response (he gave no answer) was nothing short of incoherency. He said "the Roe v. Wade decision proposes an answer to that question…which is, in my view, a commonsense approach that there is a developmental process during which the burden kind of shifts over time."
One would think after 27 years of legal abortion—and roughly 40 million aborted babies—such a staunch supporter of legal abortion could provide a more intelligent answer. On the question of when human life begins, the Court in Roe v. Wade did not "propose an answer" as the Vice President said. In fact it said "[w]e need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."
What the Court did was establish a trimester approach to abortion law (this is the "developmental process" mentioned by the V.P.). It said states cannot restrict abortion in any way during the first three months of pregnancy. In the second trimester it said states may regulate (but not restrict) abortion procedures to ensure the mother’s health. In the last three months, recognizing a state’s interest in "the potentiality of human life" the Court said states may regulate or even prohibit abortion as long as an exception is allowed if the mother’s life or health are endangered by continuing the pregnancy.
This apparent authority of states to prohibit third trimester abortions is, practically speaking, meaningless. This is because in Doe v. Bolton (Roe’s companion case) the Court defined "health" as "all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient." It is such a broad definition that a pregnant mother could, technically, get an abortion for virtually any reason right up to the moment of birth.
Adding to the nonsense of this ruling, the Court did conclude that "the word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [to the Constitution] does not include the unborn." But how could the Court come to this conclusion if they didn’t know whether or not they are human beings?
So, the "commonsense approach" the V.P refers to in Roe v. Wade is this: avoid determining the central issue of whether or not the unborn are human beings, and then with no rational basis declare them to be non-persons and give them no meaningful protection from being killed. Does this mean that Mr. Gore believes that human life begins at birth or does he believe that some human beings are undeserving of constitutional protection from being killed.
If I were Tim Russert I would have followed up with these questions: Mr. Vice President, when your wife Tipper was pregnant with your offspring, were those creatures growing inside of her human beings? If not, why not? And when did they become human beings? If you think they were human beings prior to birth, why do you think it should be permissible to exclude these human beings from constitutional protection as persons?
Another example in our society of the incoherency of our regard for the moral status of the unborn is fetal homicide laws. These laws, already enacted in a number of states, make it a crime for a person, either through negligence (a drunk driver causing an accident) or a criminal act (assaulting the pregnant mother), to cause the death of an unborn child. In these cases the unborn child is considered a person and is protected under the law. But these laws make clear that they in no way affect a woman’s ability to get an abortion. In other words, if a mother wants her child and someone kills him/her, it is a crime, but if she doesn’t want her child she can have it killed through abortion and it is a constitutional right.
The intellectual incoherency in our society’s regard for unborn human life can only be attributed to a deep spiritual poverty. Let us pray for spiritual renewal within our Church and society so that a new culture of human life may be forthcoming.
More Ammunition on Human Life’s Beginning and Personhood
In my last column I focused on Vice President Al Gore’s incoherent response to a reporter’s question about when he thinks human life begins. Since there is no more fundamental question in the abortion debate, I thought I’d spend a bit more time on this topic.
As I mentioned in my last column, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Roe v. Wade that it "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." But then it concluded that "the word ‘person’ as used in the [Constitution] does not include the unborn." In other words the Court said that it didn’t know if the unborn are human beings and then excluded them from any meaningful protection from being killed.
Let’s look first at some of the evidence regarding the humanity of the unborn. In his book "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments", Randy Acorn cites a number of medical textbooks and scientific reference works that agree that human life begins at conception. Here are just a few:
Dr. Bradley M. Patten’s textbook, Human Embryology, states, "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that…marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." Dr. Louis Fridhanler, in the medical textbook Biology of Gestation refers to fertilization as "that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual." Time and Rand McNally’s Atlas of the Body states, "In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual."
Alcorn also cites prominent scientists and physicians who have testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception. The late Dr. Jerome LeJeune, was professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris and discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He testified that "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being" and this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion" but "is plain experimental evidence."
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic testified that "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School said, "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Now let’s look at the Court’s exclusion of the unborn as "persons" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In his book "The Winning Side" Charles E. Rice says the "Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, protects the right of a "person" to life and to the equal protection of the laws. The framers of that amendment did not consider the status of the unborn child but they intended that, ‘in the eyes of the Constitution, every human being within its sphere…from the President to the slave, is a person.’
"In any society where personhood determines the possession of legal rights," Rice continues, "justice mandates an inseparable connection between humanity and personhood." After all, as Rice points out, "[i]f that connection is broken, where does one draw the line?" As an example of the logical conclusion of separating humanity from personhood, Rice cites Peter Singer who was recently hired by Princeton University as its Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the Princeton Center for Human Values.
Singer says "We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals, and alone possessing an immortal soul." He goes on to say that "[w]e should reject the doctrine that places the lives of members of our species above the lives of members of other species. Some members of other species are persons; some members of our own species are not. No objective assessment can give greater value to the lives of members of our species who are not persons than to the lives of member of other species who are…So it seems that killing, say a chimpanzee is worse than the killing of a gravely defective human who is not a person."
As Professor Rice points out, "the denial of personhood was the technique by which the Nazis…stripped Jews of their citizenship and political rights, effectively depriving them of personhood." This same denial of personhood was used by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1857 ruling of Dred Scot v. Sanford to rule that slaves were property rather than persons.
It is certainly understandable why those who support legal abortion avoid questions about when human life and personhood begin. It is because if they dwelt too long on these questions, they might actually have to acknowledge how incoherent and facile their reasoning is—and what horrible company their views share.
Destroying Some Human Beings to Help Others
Last week, the federally-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued new guidelines allowing its taxpayer funds to go to scientists who experiment on embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are the very early cells, present in a newly conceived human being, that eventually differentiate into the various tissues and organs of the body. Obtaining these cells results in the destruction of the human being. For the first time in history, our federal government will officially approve and regulate the destruction of innocent human life for research purposes.
Since 1996, federal law has banned federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or human embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for fetuses in utero" under federal human subjects regulations. So how can these guidelines be reconciled with current federal law? This is no problem coming from the Clinton Administration which is second to none in its legal and ethical hair-splitting.
With a cynical and shameless sleight of hand, the Administration simply separates the act of obtaining the cells from the act of experimenting on them. The guidelines say that obtaining the stem cells—the act that destroys the unconsenting human beings—must be done with private funds. Then, as though the cells magically appear without any connection to the destructive act from which they came, they can be experimented upon with federal tax dollars. What a breathtaking example of man’s infinite ability to deceive himself.
Through these guidelines, the NIH directs how embryos are obtained for destruction, regulates the process for obtaining consent from the parents, determines which categories of embryos may be destroyed for the research project, etc. It is crystal clear that the process of destroying the embryo for its stem cells is an integral part of the research project receiving federal funds; and without the destruction of the embryo the proposed research would be impossible. The person destroying the embryos can even be the same as the person who then uses the stem cells thus obtained—as long as different funds are used for the two activities.
Where do the embryos come from? Primarily from in vitro fertilization clinics. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a process of creating human embryos by combining egg and sperm in a petri dish—usually for the purpose of implanting them in the uterus of a woman who is having difficulty conceiving through a normal act of marital intercourse. The Catholic Church teaches that IVF is immoral because it removes the begetting of human life from its only rightful context: the marital embrace.
IVF also turns the sacred act of procreation into the "manufacturing" of a "product" that can be genetically tailor-made, tested and destroyed if defective, or, as we are discussing here, cannibalized for the benefit of scientific progress. This is a prime example of how one evil act can build upon another evil act.
In IVF, more embryos are often made than are needed to achieve a pregnancy (in case subsequent attempts at implantation are needed). This often results in "spare" or "excess" embryos that are then frozen for later use by the couple. If the couple decides not to use them they can be unfrozen and allowed to die or used for experimentation.
The guidelines prohibit the use of embryos that were created solely for the purpose of being destroyed and used for research. However, the prohibition is virtually meaningless; IVF clinics can simply create more embryos at the outset, ostensibly for fertility treatment, so they will have more "excess" embryos left for research—and nobody can know the difference. Moreover, a bill has been introduced in Congress, supported by Clinton’s National Bioethics Advisory Committee, that would overturn the ban on funding research that involves the destruction of human embryos and would allow the use of federal funds in experiments that create embryos solely for experimentation and destruction.
One of the often used arguments in favor of using "excess" embryos from IVF clinics is that they’re going to be destroyed anyway. To illustrate the slippery slope, an analogy is in order here. In the debate over the use of tissue from induced abortions in research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), one of the prime arguments it used in its defense was that the child is dead already so why not benefit from it. With embryonic stem cell research the argument is that the embryo is going to be destroyed anyway so why not benefit from it.
Following such faulty reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, we should also start researching on death row inmates and terminally ill persons since they are going to die soon anyway. And while we’re at it we may as well experiment on any human being since we are all going to die eventually anyway.
Finally, speaking of UNMC, recent reports that it is interested in pursuing embryonic stem cell research seem to have caught the Med Center in a lie or at least a show of moral incoherency. During the debate over its fetal tissue research, numerous UNMC officials said that if it could be shown that the research was causing abortions (i.e. the destruction of human life), they would stop using the tissue. But that is precisely what happens in the embryonic stem cell research they want to pursue: human beings are destroyed solely for the purpose of using them for research.
Urge Senator Kerrey to Support the Pain Relief Promotion Act
Background on the Pain Relief Promotion Act
In 1998, 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 prohibits the use of these drugs to endanger "public health and safety" or for anything other than a "legitimate medical purpose". In other words, the position of the Clinton Justice Department is that assisted suicide can be a "legitimate medical purpose."
The Pain Relief Promotion Act (H.R. 2260, S. 1272) was introduced in Congress to remedy this nonsense. The House of Representatives approved the bill on October 27, 1999 (271-yes to 156-no) with the support of all three Nebraska representatives (Terry, Bereuter and Barrett). The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a similar bill on April 27, 2000. However, despite strong bipartisan support and 43 co-sponsors for the bill, a determined campaign is underway to stop the bill’s passage. It is anticipated that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) will filibuster the bill to prevent a vote on passage. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster.
What the Pain Relief Promotion Act Would Do
According to a letter from Americans for Integrity in Palliative Care signed by more than 100 medical and legal professionals and scholars, the Act promotes pain management and palliative care for the terminally and chronically ill in several ways. Palliative care is comfort care that addresses physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs. "First, it calls on the Department of Health and Human Services to collect and disseminate available protocols and guidelines on palliative care to make these more widely know among medical professionals, health care entities and the general public.
"Second, it provides $5 million a year for training grants to help medical professionals learn the latest techniques for pain management and palliative care. Third, it provides a new explicit "safe harbor" in the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) for medical professionals’ use of federally controlled drugs to relieve pain, even in those rare cases where death may unintentionally be hastened.
"Fourth, it provides for continuing education for Drug Enforcement Administration agents and other law enforcement personnel, so they will understand this safe harbor and the legitimate need for large palliative doses of painkilling medications. Fifth, it clarifies the law so the CSA is not construed to authorize use of these federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
"The last-named feature is itself an important contribution to palliative care. If our society is to commit itself to addressing the real needs of dying patients for pain control and compassionate care, our government must say clearly to these patients that it will not support the ‘quick fix’ of deliberately seeking the death of seriously ill citizens. To condone physician-assisted suicide would erode trust between patients and their physicians, and undermine society’s commitment to the more difficult but infinitely more rewarding task of meeting patients’ real needs."
Action Needed
The Senate is expected to take action on this bill in September. Senator Chuck Hagel is a co-sponsor of the bill, but Senator Bob Kerrey’s position is unknown. Please contact Sen. Kerrey’s office immediately and urge him to "please support the Pain Relief Promotion Act and oppose any filibuster to the bill." Sen. Kerrey’s contact information is: no longer current.
Our Lady of Sorrows and the Hope and Healing Following Abortion
The feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, celebrated on Friday, September 15, provides an appropriate liturgical opportunity to focus on the Church’s message of hope and healing to those wounded by an abortion experience. One of the great tragedies of the practice of abortion, besides the destruction of innocent human life, is the spiritual devastation that usually results in the woman and others involved in the decision.
It is not untypical for women who obtain abortions to conclude that they have committed an unforgivable sin and therefore not seek God’s forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This mistaken understanding has eternal consequences and needs to be corrected. This is why Project Rachel is so important. The mission of Project Rachel is "to share the Good News of hope, healing and reconciliation with anyone affected by abortion."
Project Rachel draws its name from the biblical reference in Jeremiah 31:15-17, "Rachel mourns her children: she refuses to be consoled because her children are no more. Thus says the Lord: Cease your cries of mourning. Wipe the tears from your eyes. The sorrow you have shown shall have its reward. There is hope for your future."
The purpose of Project Rachel is to extend this hope, through spiritual and psychological healing, to anyone affected by an abortion. Project Rachel communicates to all that abortion is not an unforgivable sin and that God’s mercy and love are limitless to those who seek it with sincerity. Project Rachel was founded by Vicki Thorn in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in 1984 and began in the three dioceses of Nebraska in 1992.
Roughly 70 priests, religious and professional counselors from all over Nebraska are specially trained to understand the spiritual and psychological aftermath of abortion and how to facilitate its healing. These priests, religious and counselors understand that pain caused by involvement with abortion is often not recognized by our society. This pain comes in part from a denied grief that there was a child who is no more. By calling the toll free Project Rachel line (1-800-964-3787) individuals can begin the confidential healing process with a specially trained priest or counselor.
The predominant psychological community and its journals have largely denied or downplayed post-abortion aftermath despite compelling research to the contrary. However, in the August issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry researchers who support legal abortion acknowledged that some women experience post-abortion syndrome (PAS). The researchers diagnosed PAS among 1.4 percent of a sample of women who had abortions two years previously.
"Even at the low rate identified in this study, the impact is tremendous," said Dr. Vincent Rue, who first diagnosed PAS as a variant of posttraumatic stress disorder in 1981. "With 40 million abortions since 1973, this would translate into 560,000 cases of PAS." Rue also notes that many women in the study reported psychiatric disorders that are less severe than full-blown PAS. Twenty percent of the women in the study experienced clinical depression.
Participants were also asked if they would do it all over again. Thirty-one percent said that they would not have chosen abortion or were uncertain. "Since ambivalence is a good predictor of post-abortion problems," said Rue, "it is likely that many of these women are having post-abortion symptoms that simply fall short of full-blown PAS."
Dr. David Reardon, who directs the Elliot Institute, a post-abortion research and education organization, said "The biggest shortcomings of this study are the high dropout and refusal rates. Even though women were offered payment to participate, 15 percent of the women who were initially approached refused to participate, and 50 percent of those who originally participated refused to participate in follow-up interviews. Research has found that those women who are most likely to experience negative post-abortion reactions are also least likely to participate in post-abortion research."
It is my belief that Project Rachel is one of the most important and promising initiatives undertaken by the Church to counter our nation’s abortion culture. Since it is possible that half of the people in the United States have had some involvement with an abortion, the pro-life movement must speak a language that resonates with those wounded by an abortion experience. Project Rachel does this by communicating and facilitating God’s infinite mercy and love.
My office is planning a major media initiative to raise awareness in Nebraska about post-abortion aftermath and healing. The radio, billboard and print ads were produced professionally by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro-Life office and have been utilized very effectively in a few dioceses already. I plan to launch our media initiative in January 2001 and am trying to raise roughly $120,000 to do first-rate statewide effort. So far about $60,000 has been raised.
If you want to make a contribution to a pro-life effort that will truly change minds and hearts on abortion and heal many souls, this is it. Contributions should be made payable to Nebraska Catholic Conference and sent to Project Rachel, 215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 410, Lincoln, NE 68508. NCC is a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt organization so contributions may be deductible for income tax purposes.
A Story About Faith and Divine Providence, Part I
As we struggle to be faithful to the will of God in our efforts to counter the culture of death, it is so refreshing and awesome to encounter examples of God’s manifold grace and a response of faith. The following is the story of a Nebraska couple, Chris and Karen, who wanted to share their struggles and joys of seeking and accepting God’s grace in their lives. Rather than leave out too many of the wondrous details or have an exceedingly long column, I am breaking this story into two columns.
Chris and Karen’s story begins with the pregnancy of their first child in 1994. Seven and a half months into the pregnancy it was discovered that their baby developed a life-threatening complication from a virus that Karen had caught. Ten days later the baby was born by emergency C-section and died 20 minutes later. The following year was spent picking up the pieces, going through the traditional stages of shock, anger, despair, always asking "why"?
Then, in August 1996, the sun came out from behind the clouds as Chris and Karen gave birth to their son Ian, a healthy, chubby little boy. Finally, here was their miracle. They were the happiest parents alive. Little did they know that God had more in store for them—much more.
Both Chris and Karen came from large families and desired a large family of their own but two subsequent pregnancies in 1998 ended with miscarriages. Finally, in April of 1999, with the help of fertility drugs, the couple’s prayers were answered as they found out that Karen was pregnant again. Later that same month, however, Karen started bleeding heavily necessitating a trip to the emergency room. The couple assumed they were about to lose this baby as well.
Instead of the bad news they expected, an ultrasound discovered that Karen was pregnant with quintuplets—five babies! Chris and Karen were overjoyed. The next morning, the couple’s roller coaster ride took another turn downward as their fertility doctor told them that Karen’s uterus could not take the strain of having multiple babies. The recommendation: "selective reduction". It took awhile for Chris and Karen to realize that the doctor was telling them they should abort some of their babies to give the others—and Karen—a better chance of surviving.
Chris and Karen went home extremely torn between their feelings of hope for their pregnancy and despair over what they were facing. The next five weeks were spent in prayer and dreams. The conflict took them to the edge of sanity, testing the bonds of their marriage and taking them to depths of despair they would not wish on anyone. During this time they went back to the specialist that delivered their first two babies—a doctor they trusted above all other doctors. He also urged "selective reduction" abortion telling Chris that if they didn’t do this he "could be planning six (the five babies and Karen) funerals from the hospital".
At that point they knew they had come to a fork in the road that would strongly define the rest of their lives. Both Chris and Karen are Catholic, but beyond attending Sunday Mass were not very active. Nothing in their upbringings had prepared them to face the huge decision of having to choose between their lives and the lives of their children. Knowing they could not make this decision on their own, they talked to friends, relatives and priests trying to rationalize, searching for answers, searching for signs that they would not be judged too harshly, that they could live with themselves if they chose to go the medically-recommended route.
They stormed heaven with prayers for guidance and strength, for a miracle, for some sign that they were not alone. Karen was already in the eighth week so a decision had to be made soon. They knew that God doesn’t always answer our prayers in the manner or timeframe we desire, but, with their backs against the wall and desperate, they agonizingly scheduled a tentative appointment for the "selective reduction" abortion procedure on June 4th, 1999.
Suddenly, however, Karen felt prompted to contact the Carmelite Nuns in Sioux City to request their prayers. Much to Karen’s amazement the nun who answered the phone said she was born at 24 weeks gestation and had survived despite overwhelming odds against her. The nun reassured Karen and referred her to Dr. Tom Hilgers at the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha. It appeared that their prayers were being answered. On June 1st Chris and Karen met with Dr. Hilgers knowing that if this doctor didn’t have any hope for them, the week would end with the "selective reduction" abortion.
Please see next week’s column for the inspiring conclusion to this story.
A Story About Faith and Divine Providence, Part II
The following is a continuation of last week’s column about a Nebraska couple, Chris and Karen, who were pregnant with quintuplets and told by doctors to abort some of them to save the rest and to save Karen. Last week’s column can be accessed above or contact my office for a copy.
This story left off with the couple being referred to Dr. Tom Hilgers by a Carmelite nun. Dr. Hilgers was extremely sympathetic and immediately began calling doctors throughout North America who specialize in high-risk pregnancies. On June 3, a day before the "selective reduction" abortion procedure was scheduled, Dr. Hilgers’ office called to say he had located a doctor who thought he could help—Dr. Amankwah from Toronto Canada. He said Dr. Amankwah was very positive and thought that if it were only the c-section scar that was the risk he could most likely get the pregnancy to 28 weeks, but certainly past the 24-week viability point.
This news was the start of the miracle that Chris and Karen had been praying for. They immediately cancelled the abortion procedure and made plans to go to Toronto to meet Dr. Amankwah. The next day, June 4th in Dr. Hilgers’ clinic, they found out that one baby’s heart had stopped beating. While sad about this death, Chris and Karen took some relief in the hope that this natural loss would lessen the risk for the remaining four and for Karen.
On June 15, Chris and Karen flew up to Toronto for their first appointment with Dr. Awankwah. At this appointment it was decided that Karen would be hospitalized in Toronto starting at the 20th week of pregnancy with Dr. Hilgers taking care of her in Omaha until then. As Chris and Karen were leaving their appointment with Dr. Awankwah, Chris mentioned how fortunate it was that Dr. Hilgers was able to get through to him on his first call. Dr. Amankwah got a strange look on his face as he said: "Do you know why I was able to take Dr. Hilgers’ call on June 3 so quickly?"
He proceeded to tell Chris and Karen that many years back he had a practice in the United States with a partner and that after they parted ways he continued to keep in touch with him once or twice a year. He said that when this ex-partner called, unless he was in surgery, his office would transfer the call to him no matter what. Dr. Amankwah said, "his name is also Dr. Hilgers!" As it turns out, this Dr. Hilgers is the brother of Dr. Tom Hilgers but Dr. Tom Hilgers had no idea his brother had worked with Dr. Amankwah. Oh, the sweetness of Divine Providence!
June and July of 1999 went by in a blur following Chris and Karen’s initial visit with Dr. Amankwah and a lot of strange and wonderful things started happening to them. For example, Chris discovered that he has a cousin in Toronto who offered him and Ian a place to stay while Karen was in the Hospital; Chris’ employer gave him a lap-top computer so he could work from Toronto; and many neighbors, friends and relatives came by with support, food, prayers and games and puzzles for Ian. This support and love helped to sustain Chris and Karen through this struggle.
On August 2, Chris and Karen headed up to Toronto arriving on August 6; Karen was admitted to the hospital that same day. It was a momentous day for them as they knew that they would leave the hospital with answers to all their prayers. The next four weeks involved a routine of daily hospital visits by Chris and Ian, of ultrasounds and doctors’ rounds, of discovering the huge-heartedness of Anita and Edwin (Chris’ cousin and her husband who opened their home and hearts to the family).
Shortly after her 24th week, Karen started bleeding and having severe contractions and on Sunday, September 5th, two babies were born. The first one, named Adam, was stillborn and, it was discovered, had been dead for a couple days. The second, named Trevor, was taken to the neo-natal intensive care unit (NICU) where he was weighed in at a spunky one pound and three ounces. The next baby, Colin, was born two days later and the last baby, Nathan, was born on September 11, nearly a week after the first birth.
The three babies spent their first few weeks struggling to live. Trevor and Nathan were the strongest and did the best. Colin had the toughest time; his left lung collapsed and he was given 24 hours to live. To make matters worse, Karen developed an infection at the same time as Colin’s ailment. Chris and Karen were beginning to wonder about their miracle—this wasn’t how miracles were supposed to end.
Colin’s struggle lasted a couple of weeks, but he overcame the setback and as everyone’s health began to stabilize Chris and Karen’s thoughts turned to going home. In early November, the babies were flown from Toronto to the NICU at Children’s Hospital in Omaha. As Chris and Karen were leaving the hospital, Dr Amankwah stopped by to with them well and to reassure them that they had made the right decision.
He told them that with selective reduction abortions the babies that are closest and easiest to reach are usually the ones that are destroyed. In Chris and Karen’s case, Adam (the baby who was stillborn) was the furthest to reach and likely would not have been aborted. Therefore, Dr. Amankwah said, had they opted to abort some of the babies they may have ended up with no babies.
Chris and Karen’s homecoming was heartwarming. Relatives and friends who had supported them throughout the long summer with their prayers, food, baby-sitting, and lawn mowing once again came by to hold their hand and tell them that they believed in them. The neighbors in the subdivision decorated the street with balloons and streamers; the front of their house had balloons and posters signed by all the kids on the street, and everyone on the street had left their front porch lights on for them. Chris and Karen had lumps in their throats when they saw all of this. There was even a refrigerator full of groceries, flowers on the table and a bottle of champagne.
Colin and Nathan came home on December 16, Trevor came home January 9, 2000. The whole family was finally under one roof. The rest of January was spent trying to figure out how to balance schedules, feedings and diaper changes. In February, all three babies caught a cold virus that could be deadly for premature babies. Trevor and Nathan recovered the quickest and were home by mid-February; Colin, who was hit the hardest didn’t come home until the end of March. Those days and nights reminded Chris and Karen once again of how fragile these babies were and how much they needed God’s help every day.
In the course of the last year the couple has traveled many miles, cried many tears, said a lot of prayers and received a lot of prayers. But Chris and Karen said that the most powerful part of this experience has been seeing God’s hand reaching out to them and giving them the support and strength they needed every day. It was probably the hardest decision that they will ever be faced with, but God stepped in when they called on Him—God did not let them down.
"If there is one thing that we would like people to learn from our story," said Chris and Karen, "it is that God is always ready to help us no matter how bleak the situation or how desperate things may seem. We had our backs against the wall and we got through it all with God’s help."
RU 486: Another Tool for Killing Babies; Abandoning Mothers
It finally happened. The much dreaded, but inevitable, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the human pesticide RU 486 occurred last week. My initial response, which was reflected in my press release and comments to the local media was this: "The approval of the abortion pill Mifepristone means our nation has another means for destroying innocent pre-born human beings while abandoning and harming pregnant women in need."
There have been other important points made against the approval of this chemical abortion regimen (e.g. concerns about its safety for the mother, the potential increase in abortions, etc.). For me, however, the saddest aspect of the development and approval of this chemical killer is not what it will do to its victims (mothers and their pre-born babies) but what it will do to the soul of our nation and to those who dispense and applaud this poison.
The Second Vatican Council in Gaudium et Spes referred to abortion and other acts "opposed to life itself" as "infamies" that "poison human society" and "do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator." (#27)
How sad it is that so many human and financial resources have been spent developing and promoting a new tool for killing human beings. How sad that so many Americans applaud this development as a great advance for women or for women’s health. And for what reason? So that desperate pregnant mothers can have easier access to a physician who will help them kill their offspring? Only the most morally, intellectually and spiritually misguided individual can believe that a new abortion method (or any abortion) is pro-women.
Why? Because how we respond as individuals or a society to someone in need defines what kind of people we are or will become. This is particularly true when the persons in need are as vulnerable as a pre-born child and her/his frightened pregnant mother who has in some way been abandoned and is crying out for support and love.
Those who support abortion respond to pregnant mothers in need by offering a radical commitment to unrestricted and largely unregulated abortion on demand. In other words, they help and often encourage women to destroy their offspring, rather than helping to eliminate the problems that drive women to this act of violence and desperation. That is not pro-women, that is the abandonment of women.
Mattie Brinkerhoff, an early feminist activist agrees. She said "When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society—so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged" (The Revolution 3(9): 138-9 September 2, 1869).
Those who oppose abortion have a different vision and response. We believe the pro-women, loving response to pregnant mothers in need is to do whatever is necessary to support both mother and child—no matter how much sacrifice this may take on our part. We also believe that rather than agitating for legally unrestricted and unregulated abortion, the truly pro-women response is to work for public policies that support both mother and child.
One reporter asked me what the pro-life movement’s practical response would be to this new abortion method. My response was that we would increase our efforts to provide practical assistance to pregnant mothers in need so no mother feels abandoned to the violence of abortion. Our other response should be to pray for God’s mercy on our morally adrift nation and for His grace in restoring spiritual health to our secularized culture.
A Pilgrim’s Reflections on Rome
I was one of roughly 200 pilgrims who recently traveled to Rome for a Jubilee Year pilgrimage. Let me say up front that no words or photographs can adequately represent the experience, but I want to try to convey the more spiritually profound experiences I encountered.
First were the visits we made to the Vatican museum and to the four major basilicas: St. Paul’s (outside the ancient wall of Rome), St. Peter’s (the largest basilica in the world), St. Mary Major and St. John Lateran. The Vatican museum includes many of the world’s greatest art treasures, foremost of which are in the Sistine Chapel. Again, words and photographs cannot capture the soul-moving awe and grandeur of witnessing these physical tributes to God.
In my view, most modern art and architecture fails to lift our minds and souls beyond our natural experiences to a supernatural experience. The art and architecture displayed in these holy places give us a glimpse of the supernatural; of the objective beauty and order that is God. It seems to me that even the hardest of hearts, after experiencing these extraordinary places, would have to at least speculate on the existence of a higher being.
At each basilica we had the extraordinary privilege of walking through the "Porta Sancta" (the holy door) and receiving the plenary indulgence that accompanies this act of faith. The doors are opened by the Holy Father only during Jubilee Years; walking through them represents a movement from a life of sin to a life in Christ. As I walked through each holy door (and at Mass each day), I asked God to bless and inspire our efforts to form a new culture of human life. Since the elections are fast approaching, I asked particularly for the election of public officials who will respect and protect all human life from conception to natural death.
Next in line to the awe and grandeur of these basilicas were the ruins of the ancient Roman empire (e.g. the Coliseum, the Forum, Circus Maximus, etc.). It is truly awesome to witness these extraordinary structures and to wonder about how they built these monstrosities (the Coliseum held roughly 50,000 people!) more than 2000 years ago.
One of the sentiments that dominated my thoughts as I reflected on all these ancient architectural wonders was how resourceful and capable humans can be in overcoming obstacles. Unfortunately, in dealing with the preeminent social challenges of our modern culture—those at the beginning and end of life—our society has yielded to the obstacles rather than overcome them.
Rather than advocating for public policies that empower mothers to simultaneously say yes to life and to other social pursuits, powerful institutions and special interests have agitated for an unlimited legal license to destroy innocent human beings. Rather than using human ingenuity and intelligence to support and enhance human life, much God-given talent is wasted on discovering new methods for destroying human life and eviscerating married love.
Finally, the most powerful experience I had happened after our audience with the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II. I was incredibly excited about getting close to the Pope and I jockeyed for a position along one of the fences surrounding our section in hope that he would drive by. He did; I was 10 feet from the Vicar of Christ! It was such a thrill—my whole body was shaking.
Later that day, we celebrated Mass at St. John Lateran (the Cathedral of Rome). At the beginning of Mass, His Excellency, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz made the simple but sobering statement that while we had just been with the Vicar of Christ on earth, we were now in the presence of Christ Himself. That statement hit me between the eyes. I thought, do I ever get as excited about going to Mass or spending time before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament as I did about being with the Pope?
This lesson clearly has application to our efforts to form a new culture of human life. Despite our tendency to look to our own efforts in defeating the culture of death, it was Jesus Christ who did this once and for all. Our task is to imitate Christ; to discern and faithfully carry out His will. But it is His grace—and only His grace—that will transform our culture.
Society’s Response to "The Least Ones"
"I assure you, as often as you did it for one of my least brothers, you did it to me…[and] as often as you neglected to do it to one of these least ones, you neglected to do it to me." (Matthew 26: 40, 45)
Surely one of the saddest commentaries on the late 20th Century (and perhaps early 21st Century) will be the way in which our nation, and others, responded to the least ones in our society. Certainly the elderly, poor, disabled and politically marginalized fit into the category of "least ones". We must not only resist (in ourselves and in public policy) the temptation to abandon these least ones to the ideals of utility, productivity and cost-effectiveness, we must go out of our way to help them.
As the U.S Bishops said in the document "Faithful for Life", like the Good Samaritan, we "are all journeying down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and this story haunts us, for it flatly contradicts the strong persuasion so widely held today that our loyalties and our obligations are owed only to those of our choice. On the contrary, we owe fidelity to those we choose and, beyond them, to others we do not choose. It is we who have been chosen to go out of our way for them."
In "Living the Gospel of Life", the U.S. Bishops said these least ones "at least have a presence…the possibility of organizing to be heard. Those who are unborn, infirm and terminally ill have no such advantage. They have no ‘utility,’ and worse, they have no voice." (#4) The pro-life movement has worked effectively to advocate the humanity of the unborn child and his/her inalienable right to life; to be his or her voice. Similar pro-life advocacy has focused on the sick and terminally ill.
What we’ve done less effectively is to speak about our responsibility as individuals and society to "go out of our way" for pregnant mothers, the sick or the terminally ill; to speak about abortion and euthanasia or assisted suicide as an abandonment of these least ones.
"Freedom of choice" whether it applies to the practice of abortion or euthanasia is a cruel hoax. Most pregnant mothers with challenging situations do not freely choose to kill their offspring. They seek abortion like an animal caught in a trap "chooses" to gnaw off its own leg to be free of the trap. Likewise, most terminally ill persons do not freely choose to commit suicide or to be killed through euthanasia. They seek it to be free of pain or indignities or of the perception of being a burden on loved ones.
How we respond to these least ones defines us as human beings and, as Jesus tells us in Matthew’s Gospel, will be a large factor in our final judgment before the Author of Life. True compassion means to "suffer with" and true love means to give until it hurts--unconditionally. Sacrificing to alleviate the problems that drive pregnant women and terminally ill patients to acts of violence fits these definitions; destroying human life does not.
The late Gov. Robert Casey from Pennsylvania eloquently defined the choice before us: "The fundamental question posed by abortion is this: Once a child has been conceived, what is the proper response of a good society—of America at her best? If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we, as a society, rise to that challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround the mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home or at the abortion clinic?" This same choice, of course, applies to our response to persons who are sick or terminally ill and to all persons whose dignity is being compromised.
A New and Effective Language
Occasionally when I speak to strangers about what I do for a living and mention the word "pro-life" I get less than favorable responses. Unfortunately, for too many people, the word "pro-life" has a negative connotation. It tends to conjure up images of bombed abortion centers, murdered abortionists, screaming protesters, judgmental fanatics, women haters, etc.
Rather than be placed in this "box" of false perceptions, when I speak to groups now, I begin by explaining what beliefs and principles motivate authentic pro-life advocacy. What I have found from this approach is that individuals who have negative perceptions about (or are hostile toward) the "pro-life" movement are disarmed and challenged to rethink their position. This approach can apply to discussions about any attack against human life.
I begin by stating that I am motivated in my advocacy by a belief that every human being is sacred, precious, irreplaceable and therefore deserving of legal recognition and protection. To back up this belief I recite several bible passages that substantiate (at least to believers) the intrinsic dignity of human life. For example, from Jeremiah 1:5 we read: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you."
In Genesis 1:27 we find: "God created man in his image; in the Divine image He created him; male and female He created them." The psalmist articulates it this way: "Truly you have formed my inmost being; You knit me in my mother’s womb. I give You thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made, wonderful are Your works (139:13-15)."
I also mention that even those who are not believers can surely recognize the value of life. Otherwise what is the basis for laws that protect born individuals from being killed, exploited, etc.
Now, most people will agree with the proposition about the intrinsic value of human life. However, where some stumble is with the question of when human life begins. It is important to communicate that this question is answered by biology not theology. The point at which human life begins is not a matter of religious opinion. Medical science is quite clear about when an individual human life begins: fertilization. For specific scientific citations to back this up check out the Nebraska Catholic Conference website at www.nebcathcon.org and go to my 8-25-00 Life Insight column, or contact my office.
Finally, I talk about abortion, euthanasia and any attack against human life or its dignity as an abandonment of our neighbor in need. Due to a modern feminism that became unmoored from truth (and its roots), abortion began being promoted as the solution to most of women’s problems. Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, once said: "We have to remind people that abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s…right to participate fully in the social and political life of society."
Similarly, euthanasia and assisted suicide advocates are trying to convince society that euthanasia and assisted suicide are expressions of autonomy, compassion and dignity.
While the pro-life movement has been largely successful in convincing the American people that the unborn child is a human being worthy of protection, it has largely failed to make the case that abortion is also violence against women; an abandonment of women. As a result, many Americans are uncomfortable with abortion but tolerate it out of a misguided notion that in some way abortion helps women. We must challenge the offensive and absurd notion that abortion is pro-women.
Mattie Brinkerhoff, one of the founders of the feminist movement said "[w]hen a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society—so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged." For more pro-life quotes from early feminists, go to the website of Feminists for Life at www.feministsforlife.org or contact my office.
We must remind ourselves and others of our obligation to our neighbor who
Jesus Christ identified in the parable of the Good Samaritan as anyone in need. As Christians we don’t get to choose who we go out of our way for. It is we who were chosen to go out of our way for others. True love and compassion means sacrificing in whatever way necessary to support those in need, whether they be pregnant mothers, dying or elderly persons or someone who is marginalized and helpless. In no way can killing an innocent human being ever be considered an act of love or a compassionate solution.
This is the language and vision the pro-life movement must speak in order to resonate with a society that has adopted false understandings of neighbor, responsibility, compassion and love.
Rediscovering an Awe for Human Life
One doesn’t have to look far to encounter some sign that our culture, in large part, views human life as a burden. Largely discredited population control zealots continue to pound the message that human beings are nothing more than destructive polluters ravaging mother earth. A bumper sticker I saw recently aptly conveys this mentality: "The #1 pollution solution = birth control".
A Planned Parenthood ad announced that "Babies are loud. Smelly. And expensive. Unless you want one." This view of human life as burden has spread throughout our culture to one degree or another. Sadly, it can even be witnessed in many of our parishes. How many of us have overheard disparaging comments about large families in our parish as though the parents are somehow irresponsible simply by having many children?
This view of human life as a burden is a spiritual poverty. We have lost the sense of awe for the intrinsic value of every human life. In our selfishness we have lost the sense that each human life is a magnificent, unrepeatable gift from an all-loving, all-powerful God.
This is why the current Vicar of Christ on earth, Pope John Paul II said "It is time for all of us to adopt [a contemplative] outlook and with deep religious awe to rediscover the ability to revere and honor every person…". What follows are some excerpts from the book The Wonder of Human Sexuality by Fr. Richard Hogan that can serve as a stimulus to help us reflect on the awesome gift that is human life.
* In the account of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis, God said before He created Adam and Eve: "Let us make man in our own image." (Gen. 1:26). Only human beings are like God. God did not make any other earthly being in His image…God confirmed our dignity and value when He told our first parents to "be fruitful and multiply" and commanded them to "fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:28). Through the divine command to "be fruitful and multiply," God invited us (since we are made in His image) to love others as He loves us. (p. 4)
* God’s love forms a union of persons, the Holy Trinity. Since our love reflects God’s love, it also forms a union of persons, the family. Secondly, God’s love is always life-giving. In Creation, God’s love gave us life. When He loved us by dying for us on the cross, His perfect love gave us His divine life, grace, which we receive through the sacraments of the Church…In the command to "be fruitful and multiply," God has invited us to love others as He loves us. Since married love unites people and is life-giving, it is truly a mirror image of divine love. God’s invitation to participate in His love is an extraordinary confirmation of our worth and value. (p. 8)
* In fact, persons are radically different from all other things. Everything in God’s creation (except other human beings) is for us, but we are not for anyone or anything. Since God gave us the animals, plants, rocks, sands, and oceans (as well as every other earthly thing), these things can be used for our own benefit…However, human persons exist in their own right…Other people were not created so that we could subdue or dominate them…the only proper attitude towards other persons is love. There are two possible ways of relating: loving and using. We use animals, plants, rocks, and oceans, but we should always love persons. When we use persons, we violate their dignity. In violating the dignity of another, we violate our own dignity. (p. 8-9)
* We are the only persons in the universe with bodies and the only bodied beings who are persons. The body is not something added to each of us as an afterthought…Our bodies express our persons. Our bodies are the exterior or outward signs of who we are. Although we reflect God chiefly through our powers of thinking and choosing, the activities of our minds and wills, we also reflect God in and through our bodies. After all, we are the only beings who can express personhood in a physical way…The angels cannot physically manifest personhood because they do not have bodies. Only a human being is able to express his/her personhood physically. (p. 9-10)
* However, we not only express our persons, we also reflect the divine Persons through our bodies. Since we are like God, we are invited to act as God acts. When we act as God acts and this action is expressed outwardly, we not only express our own persons through our bodies, we also reflect the divine Persons. Thus, the human being, as an individual, reflects God because he/she possesses a mind and a will and because he/she has a body.
When the person acts as he/she should (as God acts) and this act is expressed outwardly, the body becomes a mirror reflecting God; the body becomes a sign or sacrament, a physical image of divine Persons. As embodied persons, we are called to a wonderful task. We are each called to reflect God in our interior and exterior activities. We are each of incredible value and dignity before God because in every aspect of our being, we are invited to be a mirror image of Him. (p. 10)
Giving Thanks
It is probably a part of human nature to get caught up in the various trials and tribulations of life and thus overlook the tremendous blessings in life. Instructed by our faith, I have tried to make it a habit to begin my prayers each day by giving thanks to God for the many blessings He has bestowed upon me. However, I am still far too frequently inclined to allow the trials and inconveniences of life to dominate my thoughts.
Fortunately, just as frequently I am sent little reminders from God about how blessed I truly am. For example, I recently received one of those reminders via e-mail in the form of a thanksgiving prayer. Among other things, it said the next time your car breaks down and you must walk for help, remember those who are paralyzed and would rejoice at the ability to walk. Wow, how many of us would think of that!?
Recently, I was walking down the street, rushing here and there, overwhelmed by all I had to do when I saw a person who is blind walking confidently down the street with her cane. I found myself not only giving thanks to God for my ability to see, but marveling at how she was able to get around so well.
The other day when I was grocery shopping I grumbled to myself about having to do this (for me) unpleasant task and I grumbled about the wait in the checkout line and the expense of the groceries. Then, spontaneously, my thoughts turned to the persons who don’t know from where their next meal will come or who can’t afford the groceries I had bought. I gave thanks to God for my material blessings. And I went one step further, I asked my pastor to add my name to the newly forming St. Vincent DePaul Society in my parish so I can concretely help those less fortunate in my parish and neighborhood.
I want to take this opportunity to publicly give thanks to God for His countless blessings to me: for the gifts of faith, hope, love, life, health, the best family and friends a person could ask for, and many material blessings. I want to thank my Mom and Dad (God rest his soul) for a stable and loving family and home, for blessing me with many brothers and sisters, for forming us in the Catholic faith. I want to thank my Mom for her leadership and dedication to the pro-life cause, to which I owe my involvement in the cause.
I want to thank every parish pro-life coordinator in Nebraska. As state director, I often get most of the attention and credit for the pro-life efforts in our Catholic parishes, but it is these selfless, often thankless volunteers who are the heart and soul of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities. Their efforts and dedication to the cause of human life edify and motivate me.
I want to thank the Knights of Columbus in Nebraska whose incredible financial generosity funds a large part of my office. The Knights deserve the thanks of us all for all the many pro-life efforts they fund and for their tremendous commitment to the cause of human life.
My deep gratitude also goes to the Bishops of Nebraska for their spiritual and moral leadership in the cause of life and for their generous support of my office.
Finally, I want to thank all those individuals who in one way or another work or advocate for a respect for the right to life and dignity of every human being from conception to natural death. May the Author of Life continue to inspire and lead our efforts on His behalf.
U.S. Bishops Issue Statement on Abortion and the Supreme Court
On November 15, the United States bishops, during their meeting in Washington, D.C., issued a statement entitled Abortion and the Supreme Court: Advancing the Culture of Death. The Bishops issued this document to express their strong denunciation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart and to recommit themselves to the "long and difficult task of reversing the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions—Stenberg v Carhart as well as Roe v Wade itself…". What follows are some excerpts from this document
"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decisions Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton ushered in legalized abortion on request nationwide. By denying protection to unborn children throughout pregnancy, these rulings dealt a devastating blow to the most fundamental human right—the right to life. In its 1992 Casey decision the Court could not muster a majority for the view that Roe and Doe were rightly decided. Yet the controlling opinion insisted that even if these decisions were wrong, they must stand because Americans have now fashioned their way of life on the availability of abortion.
"No more damning indictment of the coarsening effects of Roe on our national character can be imagined. This ruling has helped to create an abortion culture:
 |
in which many Americans turn to the destruction of innocent life as an answer to personal, social and economic problems; |
|
which encourages many young men to feel no sense of responsibility to take care of the children they helped to create and no loyalty to their child’s mother; |
|
in which men who do feel responsibility for their children are left helpless to protect them; |
|
whose casualties include not only the unborn but the countless thousands of women who have suffered physically, emotionally and spiritually from the deadly effects of abortion; |
|
in which fathers, grandparents, siblings, indeed entire families suffer and are forever changed by the loss of a child. |
"The principles of Roe and Doe have also been used to call into question the right to life
of newborn children with disabilities and adults with serious illnesses…In Stenberg v Carhart, a majority of five justices ruled that even the killing of a child mostly born alive is protected by what the Court called ‘the woman’s right to choose’…Already the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League has used this decision’s expansion of the logic of Roe to attack congressional efforts to reaffirm that a child completely born alive is a legal person.
"Ultimately this issue is not about ‘when life begins,’ or even exclusively about abortion. Modern medicine has brought us face-to-face with the continuum of human life from conception onwards, and the inescapable reality of human life in the womb. Yet our legal system, and thus our national culture, is being pressed to declare that human life has no inherent worth, that the value of human life can be assigned by the powerful and that the protection of the vulnerable is subject to the arbitrary choice of others. The lives of all who are marginalized by our society are endangered by such a trend.
"As religious leaders, we know that human life is our first gift from a loving Father and the condition for all other earthly goods. We know that no human government can legitimately deny the right to life or restrict it to certain classes of human beings. Therefore the Court’s abortion decisions deserve only to be condemned, repudiated and ultimately reversed.
"Building a culture of life in our society will also require efforts reaching beyond legal reform. We rededicate our Church to education, public policy advocacy, pastoral care, and fervent prayer for the cause of human life…In so doing, we hope to bring an end to the abortion culture in our society."
In a brochure produced by the U.S. Bishops Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities in the wake of the Stenberg ruling, several suggestions for action are offered. They are:
|
Pray every day that our nation will again respect the lives of every human being from conception to natural death. |
|
Learn the facts about abortion. The newsletter Life Insight and other educational materials are available from the bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. My office also produces a newsletter and other educational materials. There are numerous pro-life web sites packed with excellent information. A list of many of these sites is available from my office. |
|
Serve. Programs that serve pregnant women and children always need extra hands. Offer to help. Contact your parish pro-life coordinator and offer to help with pro-life activities in your parish. |
