Life Insight 2001

It is important to point out that the use of aborted baby tissue in research need not be shown to increase abortions to be morally wrong. Even if it could be proven that such research would never increase abortions it is still immoral because of its complicity with the practice of abortion and an absence of a legitimate surrogate from which to obtain consent to use the tissue. The complicity and consent arguments were presented in last week’s column available below.

UNMC and others who support the use of aborted baby tissue in research have focused the public discussion on the devastating effects of certain diseases and the potential of UNMC’s research to find cures or therapies for these diseases. They say the debate is about research and cures, not abortion. At its core, however, the debate over the use of aborted baby tissue is not about research and cures, it is about morality. Specifically, it is about establishing boundaries beyond which society should not go in its pursuit of research.

Clearly, moral or ethical boundaries exist now, such as the prohibition on experimentation of non-consenting adults. So the question is not about whether moral constraints may restrict the research enterprise, but where the line will be drawn between what may be done and what may not be done. According to a public opinion poll commissioned by the Lincoln Journal Star, et.al. a majority (54 percent) of Nebraskans would draw the line to exclude aborted babies as a source of cells.

To illustrate this discussion, imagine if instead of using aborted baby tissue it was revealed that UNMC had an ongoing arrangement with the Nebraska Department of Corrections to obtain brain tissue from recently executed criminals with only the consent of those seeking the person’s death. This scenario is analogous to the use of aborted baby tissue because like abortion, capital punishment is legal and as in the abortion context, consent is obtained from the individual(s) seeking the person’s death.

Had this been the case, would the public discussion have focused on the promise of UNMC’s research or on the rightness or wrongness (i.e. morality) of obtaining human tissue in this manner? What would prevent UNMC from using the same arguments as it did with aborted baby tissue (e.g. executions are legal in Nebraska, it’s not a capital punishment issue it’s a research issue, it is not causing additional executions, the bodies would just be buried or cremated anyway, there is no moral complicity with capital punishment)?

Feel free to copy and disseminate this column for educational purposes.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 2-23-01

Could It Be That Prayer and Fasting Are Reducing Abortions In Nebraska?

The number of abortions in Nebraska decreased by 11 percent in 1999 from the number of abortions in 1998. According to preliminary figures that I’ve obtained, the number of abortions decreased another 9 percent in 2000. That’s a 20 percent decline in abortions in Nebraska over the last two years! While I am extremely grateful to God for this precipitous drop in abortions, I have been somewhat perplexed about identifying the cause of such a significant decrease.

Certainly there are any number of factors that one could point to as possible contributors toward the general decline in abortions nationwide over the last few years (e.g. growing emphasis on abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage, partial-birth abortion debate, pro-life education, decrease in the number of women of childbearing age, etc.). But what is the reason for such a large and sudden decline?

I have yet to identify any significant temporal factor for this decline. The closest temporal factor I could find was the retirement of Dr. William Orr who did abortions along with Dr. C.J. Labenz in Omaha. The number of abortions in Douglas County, where these two operate an abortion center, declined by about 12 percent following Dr. Orr’s retirement in 1998. During the same timeframe, the number of abortions in Sarpy County (Bellevue) and Lancaster County (Lincoln) stayed relatively constant. So perhaps having one fewer abortionist made abortion a less convenient option and provided just the prompting necessary to change the minds of some women contemplating abortion.

Thanks to what I believe was a prompting of the Holy Spirit, it recently dawned on me that perhaps the precipitous decline in abortions is due to a supernatural factor. Specifically, I believe that the initiation of a project called Intercessors for Life may be that supernatural factor. Intercessors for Life is a simple project in which individuals are asked to commit to some form of prayer and fasting on a weekly basis for the intention of forming a new culture of human life. Interestingly, Intercessors for Life was launched statewide in February 1999, the first year of the significant decline in abortions in Nebraska.

After Jesus expelled a demon from a boy, the disciples asked Him, "Why could we not expel it?" "Because you have so little trust," He said. "I assure you, if you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you would be able to say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it would move. Nothing would be impossible for you. This kind [of demon] does not leave but by prayer and fasting." (Mt 17: 19-21)

Lent is a particularly appropriate time to begin a commitment to prayer and fasting for the cause of human life. I will be encouraging Catholics and others throughout Nebraska to initiate or expand their Intercessors for Life efforts during this Lenten season. Individuals can contact their parish pro-life coordinator or my office (402-477-7517 or gregschlepp@alltel.net) to obtain the Intercessors for Life commitment cards. I suggest that the following intentions be paramount for our prayer and fasting:

1. For President Bush and all elected officials, that they will faithfully and aggressively use their offices to help form a new culture of human life.
2. That the Project Rachel Media Initiative will succeed in healing the spiritual and emotional wounds of abortion in Nebraska and for the strength and well-being of the clergy and counselors who are facilitating this healing.
3. For spiritual renewal in our Church and society.
4. For an increase in understanding and respect for the sacred gift of sexuality.
5. For healthy and faith-filled families.

We will and we must continue to shine Christ’s Light and Truth into this world blinded by sin. However, unless we are equally committed to prayer and fasting, His Light and Truth may not penetrate and transform those hearts hardened by sin.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 3-2-01

Sen. Chambers’ Bills Highlight Verbal Dehumanization

Senator Ernie Chambers (Omaha) introduced two bills (LB 566 and LB 567) to point out what he sees as a verbal inconsistency in our state. LB 566 would prohibit the use of the term "fetus" by public school employees and require the use of the term "unborn child". Sen. Chambers’ rationale is that the term "unborn child" is the term used in Nebraska statutes to refer to prenatal human beings and therefore that is the term that should be used to educate our children.

LB 567, conversely, would strike the term "unborn child" from all Nebraska statutes and replace it with the term "fetus". His supposed rationale for proposing this bill is that the term "fetus" is the scientifically correct term to use for prenatal human life from about 9 weeks gestation until birth.

Most people who know about Sen. Chambers’ strident defense of legal abortion view these bills as nothing more than a cynical attempt to tweak the pro-life community. Given that conclusion, one is certainly inclined to not dignify these bills with a response. Regardless of Sen. Chambers’ motive, I disagree with the conclusion that we should not engage him in this debate.

As it turned out, I was the only person who testified (for or against) at the public hearing for his bills. What follows is my testimony:

The Nebraska Catholic Conference is opposed to these three bills for the following reasons:

1. In reference to LB 566, we believe it is absolutely appropriate and correct to refer to the scientific terms of zygote, embryo or fetus within the context of teaching science. Those of us who believe that prenatal human life deserves the same status and protection as postnatal human life have no objection to using these terms in that context.
2. Likewise, in reference to LB 567…we believe it is absolutely appropriate and legitimate for elected officials to use certain language to express a public policy position through the democratic processes of this Legislature.

What we believe is the real abuse of language is when it is used to degrade or dehumanize members of our human family. The term "unborn child" has a long history of use in individual and public discussions about pregnancy. When women get pregnant (and aren’t considering abortion) they and those around them use the terms "unborn child", "my baby" and "with child". To emphasize my point, I brought with me several newspaper articles on pregnancy-related topics in which the term unborn child was used.

But when abortion is under consideration, a transformation of language takes place. "Unborn child" and "baby" turn into "fetus", "blob of tissue" and "product of conception". Is the physical reality of the prenatal human being any different in these two scenarios? Of course not. What is clearly going on here is an attempt to rationalize an act of killing an innocent human being.

Verbal engineering has been used throughout history as a tool for dehumanizing and oppressing vulnerable and marginalized human beings with devastating effects. This verbal engineering has been chronicled in a book entitled "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives", by William Brennan."

I concluded by saying that I welcome the opportunity that these bills provide to engage in public discourse on verbal engineering. Senator Chambers engaged me in a bit of discussion after my testimony during which he acknowledged that "unborn child" is a commonly used, albeit unscientific, term. He then asked me if the term "fag" became common usage to refer to homosexuals would it be appropriate to use this term in Nebraska statutes?

My response was simple and straight forward: Of course not, because if a term is used to dehumanize or degrade ANY human being, it is wrong to use it and it should be rejected.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 3-9-01

Pro-Life Legislative Update and Action Request

What follows is a brief summary of some bills being considered by the Nebraska Legislature relating to prenatal human life, one federal issue, and a request for action.

It would be irresponsible for me to give the impression that the aborted baby research UNMC is doing is not promising or important in the effort to find cures for neurodegenerative diseases. At this point, no one knows for sure if it is or isn’t important. What is irrefutable from the above information is that fetal tissue research is by no means the only avenue of research in the area of neurodegenerative diseases. In fact, based on what is arguably the best indicator of promising research —funding—fetal tissue research is insignificant among the larger body of neurodegenerative disease research.

UNMC should not—AND NEED NOT—be complicit with the evil of abortion in order to find cures for diseases.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 3-30-01

Some Help in Understanding our Culture

A few weeks ago, I made a weekend retreat at Good Counsel Retreat House in Waverly. During the meals, audiotapes of Archbishop Fulton Sheen talks were played. The first of these talks was on the sacrament of confession in which Archbishop Sheen talked about sin and its effects in our lives and in society. It is one of the clearest explanations of our modern culture that I’ve ever heard.

"This despair has another effect too—it often turns into fanaticism against religion and morality. The man who has fallen away from the spiritual order will hate it, because religion is a reminder of his guilt…Some souls reach a point where, like Nietzsche they want to increase evil until all distinctions between right and wrong are blotted out. Then they can sin with impunity and say with Nietzsche, ‘Evil, be thou my good.’ Expediency can now replace morality, cruelty becomes justice, lust becomes love"

There are obviously numerous examples of behavior today that embody what Archbishop Sheen describes. The dominant view of sexuality in our society is a good example. This view embodies both of the erroneous views of freedom. On one hand, many view sex as an expression of freedom to be had whenever and however one wants (this is the exaggerated view; I’ll determine what is right and wrong for me). On the other hand, the same individuals will say that they or others are incapable of abstaining from sex outside of marriage (this is the minimizing of freedom or denial of guilt).

As Archbishop Sheen said, "Unrepented sins beget new sins", and so the abuse of our sexuality (and the denial that this is sin), often leads to subsequent sins like abortion at one extreme or artificial—and immoral—means of achieving a pregnancy (e.g. in vitro fertilization) at the other extreme.

Archbishop Sheen quotes George Bernard Shaw as saying that the modern man is too busy to think about his sins. He then says perhaps Shaw should have said "the modern man keeps nervously busy so he will not think about his sins." To one degree or another, I think all of us can relate to this assessment that we avoid acknowledging and addressing our sinfulness. One way to begin this conversion is to take some time away from our busy-ness and go on a retreat.

The full text of Archbishop Sheen’s talk can be seen here or can be obtained by contacting me at 402-477-7517.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 4-6-01

University Shows Arrogance, Disregard Toward Nebraskans Moral Concerns

University of Nebraska officials (and others) have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not understand (perhaps do not want to understand) the moral objections to using the remains of intentionally aborted babies in research. Some recent actions by the Nebraska Bioethics Advisory Committee and some University officials provide a case in point.

So, on one hand, the University is trying to assuage the moral concerns of Nebraskans by its efforts to find alternatives to using tissue from induced abortions. Yet, on the other hand, it is arrogantly pursuing, and is likely to engage in, ES cell research that is worse, morally speaking, than its research using tissue from induced abortions.

Such a contradiction is insulting to the moral sensitivities of many Nebraskans and a prime example of the University’s moral and intellectual disconnect on this issue.

The debate over prohibiting the use of fetal tissue from induced abortions is not about research and it’s not even directly about abortion. It’s about the moral status of prenatal human beings; it’s about whether our tax-funded university should conduct research that is complicit with the destruction of these human beings; it’s about establishing ethical research boundaries for our University, which has shown—and continues to show—wanton disregard for the moral status of prenatal human beings.

The University of Nebraska Board of Regents has refused to set such ethical boundaries so it’s now up to the Legislature to do this. The University is using every bit of its considerable resources to defeat LB 462 and is putting a great deal of pressure on state senators to oppose this bill which would prohibit government-sponsored use of tissue from induced abortions. PLEASE send a note to your state senator NOW (State Capitol, PO Box 94604, Lincoln, NE 68509-4604) and urge him/her to support LB 462. For talking points, click here and previous columns see index at top of page.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 4-13-01

Lack Intellectual Substance? Religion’s A Good Scapegoat

It is quite common for those who lack the intellectual substance to defend their position to turn to ad hominem (personal) attacks against their opponent. Rev. Lauren Ekdahl, a Methodist minister and board member of Planned Parenthood of Lincoln routinely resorts to such attacks when discussing issues related to the beginning of human life and concomitant human rights. His most recent deposit of intellectual and moral nonsense was featured as a guest editorial in the March 31, 2001 edition of the Lincoln Journal-Star.

In his article, Rev. Ekdahl defines the debate about fetal tissue and embryonic stem cell research as one between "the progressive spirit of scientific discovery [and] the conservative, fearful and controlling spirit of dogmatic religious tradition." He goes on to say that "[r]ather than viewing scientific discovery as a gift from God to be used for the benefit of humanity, it is seen as a threat to the authority they use to exercise control over their adherents and others."

For those who don’t know Rev. Ekdahl or his writing, "dogmatic religious tradition" is his code word for the Catholic Church. And so Rev. Ekdahl apparently thinks that the only (or primary) reason the Catholic Church opposes the use of tissue from induced abortions or embryonic stem cells is because she believes that "scientific discovery" is a "threat to the authority [she] use[s] to exercise control over [her] adherents and others." This ad hominem attack against the Church is nothing short of unmitigated and bigoted nonsense. Predictably, Rev. Ekdahl provides NO substance to back up this attack.

As I’ve pointed out in previous columns, even the University’s Medical Center embryology textbook says unambiguously that "Human development begins at fertilization". It says that the resulting one-celled zygote "is the beginning of a new human being" and "marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

The Catholic Church argues, with recent history on her side, that once humanity and personhood are separated, decisions about who belongs in the family of persons will be arbitrary, political and utilitarian. Rev. Ekdahl believes that some human beings (those prior to birth) should not be included in the family of personhood. That puts him in pretty lousy company historically.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 4-20-01

Various Thoughts on Fetal Tissue Research and Beyond

Last Wednesday, LB 462, the bill to prohibit public entities (and funds) from using tissue derived from induced abortions, was bracketed (postponed) until the next session of the Legislature in January 2002 (the bill is on General File—first round of debate—and will be on General file when it comes up next session).

Having to postpone the bill was deeply disappointing, but there simply weren’t enough votes to stop Senator Ernie Chambers’ filibuster (endless debate). Consequently, the bill’s sponsors, and some of us lobbying for the bill, made a judgment that such a move provided the best hope for keeping the bill alive and eventually enacting it.

During last year’s debate over fetal tissue research, a friend (who agrees with my position on this issue) asked me why prohibiting the use of tissue from abortions—in the larger picture of our efforts to form a

new culture of life—is deserving of so much of our time and resources. His question was a good reminder of the importance of choosing our battles carefully and avoiding the temptation to focus only on stomping out fires and never addressing the cause of the fires.

I thought long and hard about his question. My conclusion is this: Research that is complicit with the destruction of human beings (using tissue from induced abortions) or causes the destruction of human beings (using embryonic stem cells) represents another form of attack on the sacred dignity of prenatal human life.

With abortion, the lives of prenatal human beings are subordinated to the interests of the mother. With the use of embryonic stem cells or fetal tissue from abortions, prenatal human beings are subordinated not to the mother’s interests but to a speculative effort to find cures for diseases. The state’s allowance of, and collusion in, such research cannot but further deepen a view of prenatal human life that is utilitarian and arbitrary (i.e. some human beings can be means to an end instead of being ends themselves).

At the risk of sounding "Clintonesque", it depends upon how one defines "pro-life". Just as the term "pro-choice" is typically associated with the belief that abortion should be legal, the term "pro-life" is typically associated with a belief that abortion should not be legal. The foundational principle upon which the pro-life position has always been based is that prenatal human beings have an equal moral status to born human beings and therefore should be equally recognized and protected in law. Unless otherwise clarified, the general assumption is that those individuals who identify with the pro-life label subscribe to this foundational principle.

I, along with other pro-life and pro-family groups, have tried to clearly communicate to pro-life Nebraskans (particularly public officials) that a belief in this foundational principle is irreconcilable with support for research that is complicit with the destruction of prenatal human beings. Here’s our reasoning:

Current law and ethics prohibits complicity with the destruction of born human beings (e.g. a researcher or organ harvester cannot have a prearranged and ongoing agreement with a serial murderer to obtain tissues or organs from his/her victims). Therefore, for those who agree with this legal and ethical restraint regarding born human beings and believe that prenatal human beings should be equally recognized and protected in law, logic demands that they support a law that prohibits complicity with the destruction of prenatal human beings.

Based on this reasoning, those who support research that is complicit with abortion either believe that finding cures for diseases can justify complicity with killing prenatal human beings or they don’t believe that prenatal human beings are morally equal to born human beings. For those who claim to believe in the moral equality of prenatal human beings and support the University’s research, logic would likewise demand that they support research that is complicit with the destruction of born human beings.

Some public officials who identify themselves as being pro-life and who support the University’s research have objected to such definitive statements. They have wrongly concluded that we are trying to dictate to them their beliefs. This is not the case. We have simply clarified that the traditional pro-life position is irreconcilable with support of the University’s fetal tissue research. Those who believe that the University’s fetal tissue research is compatible with a pro-life position are free to do so, but since this is contrary to the traditional pro-life position, they have an obligation (at least to their constituents) to clarify how they define the term "pro-life."

The disappointment with the outcome of LB 462, particularly since it occurred during Holy Week, must be kept in perspective. As we celebrate Christ’s resurrection and victory over death, we must allow this victory to permeate our lives. As that great Easter hymn proclaims: "the strife is o’er, the battle done, now is the Victors triumph won".

Christ defeated death once and for all. Christ’s victory is the source of our hope, not any little victory we could win on this earth. Our task is to be faithful to the will of God in proclaiming with love the Hope and Truth that is Christ—and to pray and fast that His truth resonates in the minds and hearts of our culture. The rest is up to God. Thanks be to God.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 4-27-01

Project Rachel Media Effort a Success

On January 22, 2001, my office initiated a statewide media project to raise awareness among Nebraskans about the spiritual and psychological aftermath of abortion and the hope and healing that is available through Project Rachel. Project Rachel is an outreach that provides professional counseling and reconciliation to anyone who has been involved with an abortion (female or male). About 75 individuals (priests and counselors) in Nebraska have been specially trained to understand the psychological and spiritual wounds of abortion and to help post-abortive women and men heal from those wounds.

Project Rachel has been functioning in all three dioceses of Nebraska for about 10 years, but this is the first major media project that has been undertaken. The project was initiated by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office in Washington, D.C., which had the radio and billboard ads developed professionally—with input from post-abortive women. The ads were then made available for use in local dioceses.

Because of my belief in the extraordinary role Project Rachel plays in healing and changing our abortion culture, I immediately jumped on this opportunity to raise awareness in Nebraska of the hope and healing available through Project Rachel. For the next year or so I worked to raise slightly more than $100,000, most of which went toward radio ads that ran throughout most of the state for six weeks. The results have been tremendous.

First the tangible results.

Now for the intangible results.

I cannot thank enough the hundreds of Nebraskans who prayed and contributed financially to the funding of this project. Every prayer and every donation, whether it was $5.00 or $10,000.00, made an extraordinary difference in this effort to facilitate the spiritual and emotional healing of countless women and men who have been wounded by an abortion experience. May God bless you richly for your generosity and may His grace and mercy penetrate the lives of all who have been wounded by an abortion.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 5-4-01

Legislation Exposes "Pro-Choice" Incoherency, Dishonesty

Last Thursday, April 26, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to adopt the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (HR 503) by a vote of 252 to 172. All three of Nebraska’s U.S. representatives (Doug Bereuter, Lee Terry, and Tom Osborn) deserve our thanks for voting for this bill and against a substitute amendment that would have undermined it. The Senate hasn’t taken action on this bill yet.

This bill will enable the federal government to recognize that when a pregnant woman is assaulted or killed within its jurisdiction, and her unborn child is harmed or killed as a result, the crime has two victims—the woman and her child. The bill does not apply to abortion conduct, medical treatment, or to any woman with respect to her unborn child. A similar bill (LB 824) has been introduced and prioritized in the Nebraska Legislature by Sen. Mike Foley of Lincoln.

Nationally, twenty-seven states treat the killing of an unborn child (outside the context of abortion) as a form of homicide. Twenty-five states have this protection because of legislation and two because of judicial decisions. Of the twenty-five state laws, twelve provide this protection throughout pregnancy. The federal bill and Nebraska’s LB 824 would likewise provide protection throughout pregnancy.

An obvious question raised by this legislation is, "Don’t the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion cases prevent any recognition or protection of unborn children in the law?" The answer is "no". In legalizing abortion, the Court did not declare that a state may never protect the right to live of an unborn child. Nor did the Court declare that an unborn child cannot be treated as a person in contexts other than abortion. And in Nebraska, the official public policy of the state since 1973 has been "to provide protection for the life of the unborn whenever possible" (Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-325(1))

This legislation serves a couple of important purposes in my estimation. First, it recognizes that the child in utero can be a separate victim when a pregnant mother is the victim of a criminal act. There have been numerous cases nationally and a few in Nebraska in which pregnant mothers were victims of assault, murder or negligence (e.g. drunk driving). In some of the cases, the child was nearly full term, in others he/she was at an earlier stage of development.

In those jurisdictions without fetal protection laws, the mothers and fathers were devastated to find out that their child in utero, whom they recognized and loved, and who was killed against their will, was not recognized by the law as a child deserving of protection.

The second purpose of this legislation is that it stimulates discussion and reflection on the issue of personhood as well as the "pro-choice" mantra. These laws point out the incoherency of our nation’s view of personhood.

In those states with prenatal protection laws, whether or not an unborn child is considered a person protected by law depends upon whether he/she is wanted by his/her mother. If a mother wants to kill her child through abortion, the unborn child is not a person recognized by the law. If she wants to keep the child and someone kills her child against her will, the unborn child is considered a person protected by the law. This is moral and legal incoherency.

As for the "pro-choice" mantra, it is quite revealing that most "pro-choice" groups strongly oppose prenatal protection laws. One of the primary arguments of "pro-choice" groups is that women should be free to decide the moral status of their unborn child. If that belief was sincere or even marginally coherent, "pro-choice" groups should fight just as hard for laws that protect the "choice" to give birth as they fight for laws that protect the "choice" to abort.

The fact that "pro-choice" groups oppose efforts to recognize and protect (throughout pregnancy) the "choice" of mothers to give birth, is a pretty strong indicator that supporters of legal abortion are pro-abortion not "pro-choice".

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 5-11-01

Motherhood: A Proud Profession

On the back bumper of my mom’s car is a big, colorful bumper sticker proclaiming: "Motherhood: A Pr