THE CONFERENCE:

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 2002

By Greg Schleppenbach, Part 1, January-June

Life Insight 6-14-02 Answering Some Questions on Church Teaching

Life Insight 5-31-02 Voter Turnout Shameful

Life Insight 5-24-02 "Pill Bills": Further Enculturation of Contraception

Life Insight 5-17-02 Hostility Not Defused with Intellect

Life Insight 5-10-02 The Dignity and Importance of Mothers

Life Insight 5-03-02 Don't Underestimate the Power of One

Life Insight 4-26-02 The Gospel of Life Turns Seven

Life Insight 4-19-02 President Bush Speaks Strongly Against Human Cloning

Life Insight 4-12-02 Abortions Continue Downward Trend in Nebraska

Life Insight 4-05-02 The Annunciation: The Pro Life Feast Day

Life Insight 3-29-02 Pro Life Legislation in Congress 2002

Life Insight 3-22-02 Animals Afforded More Protection Than Unborn Humans

Life Insight 3-15-02 Hail Mary Full of Grace, Pray for Us Sinners

Life Insight 3-08-02 Pro Life in Pro-Active Mode for a Change

Life Insight 3-01-02 Unconventional Pro-Life Activities

Life Insight 2-22-02 Amazing Grace, Awesome Conversion

Life Insight 2-15-02 When a Cloning Ban Doesn't Ban Cloning

Life Insight 2-08-02 The Unmasking of "Pro Choice"

Life Insight 2-01-02 Fetal Tissue/Fetal Homicide Bills Meet Different Fates

Life Insight 1-18-02 The Revised Pastoral Plan and Nebraska Catholics for Life

Life Insight 1-11-02 What Do You Mean by Pro Life?

Life Insight 1-04-02 Holy Innocents and Holy Family

Life Insight 6-14-02

Answering Some Questions on Church Teaching I

A few months ago, I received a letter that had been sent to the Register with questions to be answered in the "Ask the Register" section of the newspaper. Since the questions related to the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life and sexuality, and would require a longer answer than normally given under "Ask the Register", I was asked to address the questions in this column. It will take more than one column to adequately answer the questions.

The first question challenged a quote from the Didache included in a pamphlet entitled "What the Church Teaches: Stem Cell Research" produced by Our Sunday Visitor and distributed in some parishes. The quote says: "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish". The questioner said he/she checked two translations of the Didache and found the word "abortion", but no mention of "embryo". "Can you explain this misquotation?" the writer asked.

The quotation was taken accurately from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)(para. 2271) which gives a citation in its footnote. I didn’t investigate the citation listed in the CCC, but I did find two other slightly different translations of this excerpt from the Didache. One came from a secondary source, a book called "The Facts of Life" by Brian Clowes, PhD. It said: "You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant."

The other came from a primary source—a version of the Didache itself which was published in a book called "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" (originally published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland beginning in 1867; ANF 7, Roberts and Donaldson). This source says: "thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten."

Now, since I didn’t track down the actual Didache cited in the CCC, I can’t verify whether or not that version actually used the term "embryo", but I trust the Catechism to be quite credible and accurate. Nevertheless, whether the translation refers to an embryo, an unborn child, or a child seems irrelevant to its condemnation of abortion. The relevant fact is that the Didache (regardless of translation) condemns abortion, period.

The next question asks: since Jesus said nothing about abortion, does that mean the Church’s teaching on this topic is derived from the human reasoning of theologians and Church leaders? Actually, the Church’s teaching comes from both the word of God and human reasoning.

First, while it is true that word "abortion" is not in the Bible, this does not mean that the Bible does not contain teaching about abortion. Similarly, the Bible does not contain the words "Trinity" or "euthanasia", but it contains teaching on these subjects. Conversely, the Bible explicitly and forcefully prohibits divorce, sodomy, fornication and adultery and yet many who profess a religious faith condone these acts. In other words, does anyone really believe that if Jesus had explicitly mentioned and condemned abortion that all Christians would adhere to the Church’s teaching against it?

The Biblical dimension of the Church’s teaching on abortion includes the following (provided by Priests for Life):

Human life is sacred and unique from other types of life. "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27).

The Bible teaches that human life exists in the womb and has a relationship with the Lord. The phrase "conceived and bore" is used repeatedly (see Genesis 4:1, 17) and the same word is used for the child before and after birth (Brephos, that is, "infant," is used in Luke 1:41 and 18:15). God knows the unborn child: "You knit me in my mother’s womb…nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret" (Psalm 139:13,15); "You have been my guide since I was first formed…from my mother’s womb you are my God" (Psalm 22:11-12); "God…from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace" (Galatians 1:15)

Scripture obviously and repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent. God’s own finger writes in stone the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17) and Christ reaffirms it (Matthew 19:18).

The sacredness of human life, its existence in the womb, and the condemnation of killing innocent human life is unmistakable in Scripture and forms the basis of the Church’s teaching on abortion. But the Church’s teaching can also be substantiated through human reason.

It is biology, after all, not theology that determines the beginning point of human life. And the unambiguous biological reality (taught in nearly every biology textbook) is that a human being’s life begins at fertilization. If there were no objective beginning point to human life, then assigning personhood and rights would be arbitrary and subjective. This would mean that human rights are not intrinsic and "bestowed by our Creator" but rather are extrinsic and bestowed by man. Human reason must conclude that such a view of human life would be disastrous—and in fact has been disastrous.

Further Scriptural and biological references relevant to this discussion can be found by clicking here.

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

Life Insight 5-31-02

Voter Turnout Shameful

According to election officials, roughly one in five registered voters in Nebraska (20 percent) voted in the May 14 primary election. Right here in Lincoln (Lancaster County actually), the hub of state government, even fewer people voted (about 18 percent). If one considers the fact that statewide, fifteen percent (15%) of eligible voters (18 or more years old) are not even registered to vote, the voter turnout in this last election (and most elections) is shameful.

Voting is not only a privilege, but is a duty as citizens and as Christians. In Evangelium vitae ("The Gospel of Life") our Holy Father says, "Individuals, families, groups and associations, albeit for different reasons and in different ways, all have a responsibility for shaping society and developing cultural, economic, political and legislative projects which, with respect for all and in keeping with democratic principles, will contribute to the building of a society in which the dignity of each person is recognized and protected and the lives of all are defended and enhanced."

There is no doubt that changing our culture of death to a culture of life requires far more than political and legislative efforts, but these efforts are a critical component of such a change. Our elected officials—at the local, state and national level—have a significant role in shaping our culture. From the local school board to the President of the United States, elected officials determine everything from how our children will be educated to whether or not human beings should be cloned.

Serious issues. Issues that form our future generations. Issues that determine whether our nation will go down a path that respects and protects all human life or a path that views some human beings as a means to achieve someone else’s benefit. Failing to learn where candidates for elected office stand on serious cultural issues that impact human life, or failing to vote, is to fail in our Christian duty.

Perhaps the poor showing at voting booths on May 14 was due, in part, to the fact that so many races were uncontested. While it is also a shame that so many incumbents have no challengers this year, this is certainly no excuse for not voting, since many important races were (and are) contested. This lack of challengers brings me to my next point of civic and Christian responsibility.

In addition to being informed and consistent voters, we also have a responsibility to discern whether God is calling us to run for elected office. Running for office can involve an enormous sacrifice on the part of the candidate and his/her family. But for those who have the requisite gifts and the calling, God’s grace will sustain and inspire them as they pursue and live out this noble and important calling. The bottom line is: our communities, state and country need competent, articulate individuals, who will safeguard the sacred dignity of every human being, to run for elected office.

Finally, our civic and Christian duty does not end after we vote. We have a responsibility to support and encourage those officials who faithfully proclaim and defend the sacred dignity of every human being. Likewise, we have a responsibility to admonish and challenge (with charity and love) those who do not.

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

Life Insight 5-24-02

"Pill Bills": Further Enculturation of Contraception

It’s hard to imagine a behavior more engrained in our culture—sadly—than the use of contraception. Most polls indicate that even most Catholics (90%) use contraception. But apparently this sad reality is not enough of a victory for the contraceptive family planning crowd. They now want to force all of us, whether we like it or not, to pay for contraception.

How so? By legislatively forcing all insurance companies that provide coverage for prescription drugs or devices to provide coverage for contraceptive pills or devices. Such bills have already been adopted in 19 states and a federal bill, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC), has also been introduced. A similar bill has been introduced in Nebraska twice over the last few years but fortunately has been rejected, albeit more for economic reasons (anti-insurance mandates) than moral ones.

In the debate over such contraceptive coverage mandates, contraception advocates have made numerous false claims about the supposed need for and effects of the mandates. Here are some of the myths and facts, provided by the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities:

MYTH: "Failure to cover contraception constitutes sex discrimination."

FACTS: Most health plans do not cover purely elective procedures or services. Some health plans do not cover contraception or sterilization procedures for either men or women. These plans are not discriminatory, because they treat men and women equally in terms of coverage benefits. Proponents of contraceptive mandates argue that because some health plans voluntarily cover Viagra, all health plans should be required by law to cover contraception. But Viagra, used properly, treats a medical condition and restores reproductive function while contraception does just the opposite.

MYTH: "Contraceptive mandates will reduce the abortion rate by half."

FACTS: More than half (58%) of all abortion patients were using contraception during the month when they became pregnant. Only 11% of abortion patients have never used a method of contraception. Moreover, studies have shown that once contraception is more widely available, abortion rates may actually rise. In Maryland, for example, the first state to enact a contraceptive mandate, the number of abortions rose by 1,226 the year after the mandate took effect. In Vermont, after that state’s contraceptive mandate took effect, the number of abortions increased for the first time in ten years.

MYTH: "Contraception is basic health care."

FACTS: Contraception is an elective intervention that stops the healthy functioning of healthy women’s reproductive systems. Medically it is infertility, not fertility, that is generally considered a disorder to be treated. Contraceptives also have numerous side-effects and risks of serious complications. The side-effects of the pill include headaches, depression, decreased libido and weight gain. Documented serious complications include heart attacks, cervical cancer and blood clots. Recently, a class-action lawsuit, brought by 123 English women against three pharmaceutical companies, alleges that a form of the pill—the "third generation pill"—has caused death, strokes and life-threatening blood clots."

Most contraceptive mandate laws and proposed legislation violate rights of conscience, require coverage of abortifacient drugs, and undermine parental rights. First, only one of the 19 state mandate laws protects the moral and religious beliefs of individuals and entities who object to contraception. Fourteen of the laws protect the conscience of religious employers but of these, 7 have adopted such narrow definitions of "religious employer" that many Catholic organizations do not qualify for the conscience protection. The proposed federal mandate would explicitly override existing conscience protection in the state mandates, requiring all religious employers (including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) to provide coverage for contraception.

Second, such mandates would require coverage of pills and devices that can act as abortifacients, meaning that one of the ways they work is by preventing the newly conceived embryo from implanting in the mother’s womb.

Third, once contraception becomes a mandated prescription benefit, the benefit will apply to all beneficiaries of the health plan, including minor children. And in many cases, physicians are allowed to provide contraceptives to minors without parental consent.

I urge all to write our members of Congress (Senators Hagel and Nelson, and your representative: Bereuter, Terry or Osborne) and ask them to oppose S. 104, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act. Here are some additional talking points that could be used:

	Women should be provided benefits for real health care needs. Contraceptives are not basic health care, but elective drugs and devices based on lifestyle choices. Employers and individuals should not be forced to pay for such elective drugs.
	The priority of policymakers should be to insure the 40 million uninsured people, rather than to mandate coverage of elective and controversial procedures for the already insured.
	Contraceptive mandates are bad public health policy. Studies show that increasing the availability of contraception increases abortion rates. Further, contraceptives provide little or no protection from sexually-transmitted diseases.
	The push for contraceptive mandates is really an effort to pave the way for mandating abortion coverage.

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

Life Insight 5-17-02

Hostility Not Defused With Intellect

I recently encountered an individual with obvious hostility or bitterness toward the Catholic Church (and/or me) that reaffirmed an insight I have had about dealing with such hostilities toward the pro-life movement. This individual, an editor of a newspaper, had opined his disappointment that the Pope had indicated he would leave it up to the American bishops to resolve the sexual abuse scandal (this was before the Pope called the Cardinals to Rome).

He said this was surprising "coming from a pope who has made micromanagement a hallmark of his tenure"…and who "has made the lives of American Catholics the subject of much commentary and criticism over the years." I don’t typically respond to issues not directly related to my pro-life work, but for some reason I was compelled to e-mail him to ask (in a very sincere and non-confrontational way) what was the basis of his perception of the Pope.

His response started out with this "cordial" introduction: "I was not surprised to hear from you; just surprised that it took you until 10:49 a.m. to write." He then said that my simple e-mail request "smacks of the disingenuous drivel, usually distributed with arrogance and a hint of admonition, that has been the hallmark of the administrators and elders of Holy Mother Church…"

I should say here that this editor is only an acquaintance, so we do not know each other well. Yet, he responded as though he knew (wrongly) that my motives for writing were not sincere, but rather dishonest and arrogant. Naturally, I was surprised and disappointed that he chose to personally attack me (or at least my motives) and the Church instead of answering my question. I replied to him with this sentiment of disappointment.

Then came round two: an even more visceral and personal attack in which he said I am a "nonsensical mountain of intellectual dust bunnies." Wow, all of that just for asking why he perceived the Pope as a micromanager and as overly critical of American Catholics! Either this guy was having a really bad day or he has some serious issues with the Church. My guess is, he has had a very bad experience with the Church that has embittered or discolored his view of the Church to the point, I believe, that even indisputable facts would be dismissed.

Just as a point of interest here, a couple days after our communication, a New York Times article appeared in the Omaha World Herald entitled "Pope Often Misperceived as Micromanager". Naturally, I sent the article to him accompanied by a smart aleck, but good natured comment like, "here’s some more "disingenuous drivel" from that Vatican mouthpiece, the New York Times".

My point in telling this story is that when we encounter individuals, such as this editor, who demonstrate unprovoked hostility, providing an intellectual or factual response is often fruitless. This is often our challenge in dealing with such personal and emotional issues as abortion, euthanasia, contraception, even the death penalty.

Those who have had or have been involved with abortions, for example, are typically wounded with grief and pain or are desperate to rationalize their destructive act. Consequently, they are inclined to dismiss even the most compelling facts that scratch at these wounds or challenge their rationalization. Such individuals are more likely to respond favorably to a message or act of the heart rather than the intellect. Demonstrating humility, patience and unconditional, sacrificial love will have a better likelihood of breaking through the underlying hostility or bitterness and opening up a relationship conducive to trust and conversion.

I don’t know if I handled my encounter with the editor as well as I could have, but I’m trying hard to practice what I preach.

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

Life Insight 5-10-02

The Dignity and Importance of Mothers

"Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at this mystery of life, and ‘understands’ with unique intuition what is happening inside her. In the light of the ‘beginning’, the mother accepts and loves as a person the child she is carrying in her womb. This unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an attitude towards human beings—not only towards her own child, but every human being—which profoundly marks the woman's personality.

"It is commonly thought that women are more capable than men of paying attention to another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even more. The man—even with all his sharing in parenthood—always remains ‘outside’ the process of pregnancy and the baby's birth; in many ways he has to learn his own ‘fatherhood’ from the mother. One can say that this is part of the normal human dimension of parenthood, including the stages that follow the birth of the baby, especially the initial period. The child's upbringing, taken as a whole, should include the contribution of both parents: the maternal and paternal contribution. In any event, the mother's contribution is decisive in laying the foundation for a new human personality."

This excerpt from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem (Dignity and Vocation of Women) (#18) provides a rich reflection on that very special vocation we remember and honor this Sunday: motherhood. In our culture that values having over being and inclines toward self over others, motherhood, and its characteristic nature of self-sacrifice, is an inevitable casualty. Hopefully, in addition to the usual secular recognition we give our moms this Mother’s Day we’ll reflect on the deeper spiritual meaning of motherhood.

Our Holy Father begins the section on motherhood by recalling the Second Vatican Council’s instruction on the truth about the very nature of what it means to be a human person: "The human being…is the only being in the world which God willed for its own sake. And we find our fullness as persons when we make a "sincere gift of self". One obvious example of this truth is the universal attractiveness of the typical human response to tragedy or loss.

The human response to the terrorist attacks is a good case in point. Everyone agrees that the extraordinary generosity and self-sacrifice demonstrated post-attack was humanity at its best. This is because tragedy forces us to look outside ourselves and to focus on others. "This truth about the person", our Holy Father says, "also opens up the path to a full understanding of women’s motherhood."

The "mutual gift of the person in marriage opens to the gift of a new life, a new human being, who is also a person in the likeness of his parents. Motherhood implies from the beginning a special openness to the new person…in conceiving and giving birth to a child, the woman ‘discovers herself through a sincere gift of self’". So beyond the physical dimension of perpetuating the human race, motherhood exemplifies and draws us into a fuller understanding of what it means to be a person. In a very real way, motherhood keeps humanity human by providing a concrete and beautiful example of self-sacrificial love—of humanity at its best.

May God bless all (physical and spiritual) mothers for their gift of self and sacrificial love which models our mother Mary’s words at the Annunciation: "Let it be done to me according to your word."

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

Life Insight 5-3-02

Don’t Underestimate the Power of One

For anyone who is troubled by the growing callousness and disregard toward human life, it is increasingly difficult to open the newspaper or turn on the news each day. Attacks against the sacred dignity of human life grow more numerous and severe. Human research cloning—that is, producing and destroying human beings solely to benefit other humans—is the latest and most severe example of the downward spiral of our culture’s disregard for human life and objective truth.

The magnitude of the culture of death can overwhelm and paralyze us if we’re not careful. We may be tempted to think, "what can one person do to counter this enormous problem?" Actually, one person can do quite a lot. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the paradigm of the impact one person can have. Mother Teresa is a more modern and perhaps relatable example.

"I never look at the masses as my responsibility", she said. "I look only at the individual. I can love only one person at a time. I can feed only one person at a time. Just one, one, one. You get closer to Christ by coming closer to each other. As Jesus said, ‘Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me.’

"So you begin…I begin. I picked up one person—maybe if I didn’t pick up that one person I wouldn’t have picked up the others. "The whole work is only a drop in the ocean. But if we don’t put the drop in, the ocean would be one drop less. Same thing for you. Same thing in your family. Same thing in the Church where you go. Just begin…one, one, one.

"At the end of our lives, we will not be judged by how many diplomas we have received, how much money we have made or how many great things we have done. We will be judged by ‘I was hungry and you gave me to eat. I was naked and you clothed me. I was homeless and you took me in.’ Hungry not only for bread—but hungry for love. Naked not only for clothing—but naked of human dignity and respect. Homeless not only for want of a room of bricks—but homeless because of rejection. This is Christ in distressing disguise."

Transforming the culture of death into a new culture of human life and love will not happen as the result of some magical formula or program developed by pro-life leaders, politicians or intellectuals. The culture that produces attacks against human life will change one person at a time, one family at a time, one parish or community at a time. In other words, it takes a spark to produce a fire.

"In a word," Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium vitae, "we can say that the cultural change which we are calling for demands from everyone the courage to adopt a new lifestyle consisting in making practical choices—at the personal, family, social and international level—on the basis of a correct scale of values: the primacy of being over having, of the person over things. This renewed lifestyle involves a passing from indifference to concern for others, from rejection to acceptance of them. Other people are not rivals from whom we must defend ourselves, but brothers and sisters to be supported. They are to be loved for their own sakes, and they enrich us by their very presence."

So we change our culture by changing ourselves—by imitating Christ. We change our culture by changing our families, our parishes and communities—by imitating the Holy Family, by representing Christ to those who we meet and influence, by serving each other. Our Holy Father tells us that "the role of the family in building a culture of life is decisive and irreplaceable." And the most important contribution that married couples can make to building a culture of life is to first work at having a healthy and holy marriage and to forming children with faith and virtue.

Building up a culture is much more difficult than tearing one down, so we need to be patient and build strong foundations, central of which is strong families. And when we are overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task, we should remember Mother Teresa and her advice to "just begin…one, one, one."

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

Life Insight 4-26-02

The Gospel of Life Turns Seven

Seven years ago this month, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II issued his eleventh encyclical. Two years ago, on the fifth anniversary of its issuance, the Holy Father described this encyclical as "a document which I consider central to the whole magisterium of my pontificate." That eleventh encyclical is Evangelium Vitae, ("The Gospel of Life").

In the April 1995 edition of Life Insight, a newsletter produced by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro-Life office, it says eloquently that in Evangelium Vitae, "John Paul II shares with us his intimate and profound knowledge of God and of human nature by presenting two visions. The first depicts our contemporary culture of death. With photographic realism and extensive and explicit detail, he sketches in somber tones an accurate but chilling picture of modern society. Our callous and wanton actions, our motives, and our excuses are exposed in harsh relief.

"John Paul II also creates a vision of iridescent beauty: humanity as designed by God, the eternal loveliness of God imprinted on, breathed into, our human form. His portrayal of the mysterious love of God—love poured into every man, woman and child—stirs our hearts with a longing to be all that He wants us to be."

The U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life office also produced "talking points" to assist readers in understanding and discussing the encyclical with those who might challenge its teaching. An abbreviated version of those talking points follows:

Where does EV fit in the context of Church documents on abortion and euthanasia?

It is the single most authoritative pronouncement from the Holy See regarding the incomparable worth of the human person and the inviolability of human life, especially at its most vulnerable stages, the beginning and the end. "I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral" (57); "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder" (62); and "I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the Law of God" (65).

Are Catholics required to follow its teachings?

EV is not an exercise of the "extraordinary papal magisterium," that is, it does not define new doctrines infallibly. This does not mean that its teachings are fallible or that Catholics are free to disagree with them. The doctrines are, as the Holy Father states, "unchanged and unchangeable." They are scripturally-based, part of the very "heart of Jesus’ message" of life, expressed in collegial cooperation with all the bishops of the world (who provided counsel to the Pope), and are a clear and formal expression of John Paul II’s ordinary teaching responsibility as Pope, as successor of St. Peter.

Evangelium Vitae is not a simple declaration of teachings to follow, practices condemned and sanctions imposed. In a sense, the encyclical’s power and worth lie precisely in [that] like a loving parent, it tries to enlighten and persuade by moral argument rather than simply stating "because I told you so."

What’s new and different in EV compared to prior teaching on violence against human life?

This is the first encyclical to focus at length on the value and inviolability of human life. It emphasizes the immorality of abortion and euthanasia in particular, and speaks to the stunning array of contemporary attacks on life. The need and timing for EV arose out of the number and brutality of attacks against human life, and also the new "sinister" quality to them, described by the Holy Father as their occurrence within families, and in the name of "rights" and "freedom," with the approval of the state.

EV contains new and clearer teaching on the following subjects: the duties of Catholic legislators and public officials; the liceity of and conditions for supporting incremental pro-life legislation; the pain of the aborted woman, pressures which drove her to abortion, and an invitation to be healed and to join the cause for life; a call for women to bring their special gifts to the pro-life cause and articulate a "new feminism" that protects vulnerable life; and a clarification of the extremely narrow circumstances under which capital punishment may be justifiable.

What are we to do?

Nearly one-fourth of the encyclical is devoted to calling on each of us to transform society into a culture of life through evangelization, education, pastoral and personal witness, prayer and fasting:

What is urgently called for is a general mobilization of consciences and a united ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of life. All together, we must build a new culture of life…The purpose of the Gospel, in fact, is to "transform humanity from within and make it new." Like yeast which leavens the whole measure of dough…the Gospel is meant to permeate all cultures and give them life from within, so that they may express the full truth about the human person and about human life (95).

If we are ever to transform this culture of death into a new culture of life and love, we must understand and attack its origin and roots and not merely hack the weed from the ground up. This magnificent document not only exposes the origin and roots of the culture of death, it illuminates a path that will attack these roots and form a new culture of life and love. Every person is called to proclaim the "Gospel of Life". Reading and reflecting on this document would be a great start to this calling. I’d be happy to send a copy to anyone who contacts me at 402-477-7517 or gregschlepp@alltel.net .

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

Life Insight 4-19-02

President Bush Speaks Strongly Against Human Cloning

Last Wednesday, President Bush gave a powerful and eloquent speech on why human cloning is morally wrong and scientifically unnecessary and why it should be banned. The President’s address was part of a lobbying day set up by numerous groups (including the U.S. Bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat) opposed to all forms of human cloning. I was privileged to be able to travel to Washington, D.C. for this historic event.

The day began, for me, by attending the Nebraska Congressional delegation breakfast. This breakfast, established 40-some years ago, is typically attended by the entire Nebraska delegation (Senators Hagel and Nelson, Congressmen Bereuter, Terry and Osborne) and is the only event of its kind among all 50 states. Anyone from Nebraska who is visiting Washington, D.C. may attend this breakfast which is held every Wednesday morning and is an excellent opportunity to meet and communicate with our elected representatives.

From this breakfast, I went to a briefing sponsored by the lobby day organizers. The briefing presented various arguments against human cloning by celebrities, religious leaders, scientists, disability rights advocates, pro-life leaders, elected officials and representatives of the biotechnology industry. The scientists and biotech representatives also talked about the extraordinary results being achieved from morally acceptable research such as that using adult stem cells.

Then it was off to the White House for the President’s speech. What an extraordinary experience it was to see the inner sanctum of this spectacular house and to be one of about 150 people to get to hear the President’s speech in person. The President did a masterful job of balancing strong support for the breathtaking—and good—advances in medicine with the essential constraint of objective moral parameters.

"Advances in biomedical technology", the President said, "must never come at the expense of human conscience. As we seek what is possible, we must always ask what is right, and we must not forget that even the most noble ends do not justify any means. Science has set before us decisions of immense consequences. We can pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose or we can travel without an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret. Science now presses forward the issue human cloning. How we answer the question of human cloning will place us on one path or the other."

The President gave a brief explanation of the cloning process and then enumerated the reasons why it should be banned. "Life is a creation, not a commodity", he said. "Our children are gifts to be loved and protected, not products to be designed and manufactured. Allowing cloning would be taking a significant step toward a society in which human beings are grown for spare body parts, and children are engineered to custom specifications; and that’s not acceptable."

The President then explained the difference between the two primary types of human cloning being discussed: "reproductive" cloning, which is the creation of a cloned embryo for implantation into a woman with the goal of a live birth; and "research" cloning, which involves the creation of cloned human embryos which are then destroyed to derive stem cells.

"I believe all human cloning is wrong", the President said, "and both forms of cloning ought to be banned, for the following reasons. First, anything other than a total ban on human cloning would be unethical. Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another…Secondly, anything other than a total ban on human cloning would be virtually impossible to enforce. Cloned human embryos created for research would be widely available in laboratories and embryo farms. Once cloned embryos were available, implantation would take place. Even the tightest regulations and strict policing would not prevent or detect the birth of cloned babies."

"Third, the benefits of research cloning are highly speculative…Yet even if research cloning were medically effective, every person who wanted to benefit would need an embryonic clone of his or her own, to provide the designer tissues. This would create a massive national market for eggs and egg donors, and exploitation of women’s bodies that we cannot and must not allow."

"I stand firm in my opposition to human cloning", he said. "And at the same time, we will pursue other promising and ethical ways to relieve suffering through biotechnology." The President then communicated his wholehearted endorsement of the Brownback/Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act (S. 1899) and strongly urged the United States Senate to pass this bill.

After the President’s speech I met with Senator Ben Nelson to urge his support for this bill. He told me that he absolutely will vote for this bill, which was great news. Senator Chuck Hagel (who is a co-sponsor of S. 1899) and Senator Nelson deserve a note of thanks for agreeing to support this critically important bill. The Senate hopefully will take up this bill sometime between now and the end of May. During this time, I urge all Catholics to pray that S. 1899 is adopted by the Senate.

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

Life Insight 4-12-02

Abortions Continue On Downward Trend in Nebraska

Last week, the State of Nebraska issued its yearly report of abortions in Nebraska revealing a drop in abortions for the third straight year. The number of reported abortions in 2001 (3,982) represents a decrease of 196 (4.7 percent) from the year 2000. But in the last three years, abortions have decreased by nearly 23 percent. Nationally, the number of abortions has been trending downward for the last several years, but the national decrease has been considerably smaller than Nebraska’s 23 percent decline.

Here’s the hard data from the 2001 report:

AGE

Nineteen of the abortions were performed on girls under the age of 15. More specifically, two of the girls were 13-years old and 17 of them were 14-years old. Eight hundred and eight abortions were performed on girls aged 15 to 19 years. Again, more specifically, 47 girls were 15-years old, 91 were 16-years old, 144 were 17-years old, 246 were 18-years old and 280 were 19-years old.

One thousand three hundred and sixty women who had abortions were in the 20-24 age category; 844 were in the 25-29 age category; 510 were 30-34 years old; 316 were 35-39 years old; 117 were 40-44 years old and 8 were older than 44. Over the last 20 years, the largest percentage of abortions has always been in the 20-29 age category, averaging about 55 percent of all abortions. The percentage of girls age 19 and under has steadily decreased from 34.8 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 2001, while the percentage of women age 30 and over has increased slightly from 22.7 percent in 1980 to 25.1 percent in 2001.

REASONS

Generally speaking, the reasons cited for having abortions have remained fairly constant during the over 27 years of statewide reporting. The number one reason for having an abortion has consistently been "socio-economic" (i.e. social or financial reasons). The so-called "hard case" reasons for having an abortion—rape, incest and mother’s life endangered by the pregnancy—comprised a combined total of 0.7 percent (that’s 7-tenths of one percent)!

There were 6 abortions performed because the mothers’ lives were allegedly endangered by the pregnancy (it must be noted that there is no medical condition that requires the direct and intentional killing of the unborn child to preserve the life of the mother). Eighteen women cited "sexual assault" as a (or the) reason for their abortions. And NO abortions were performed as a result of incest.

ABORTION METHODS

The vast majority of abortions (91 percent) are performed using the "suction-curettage" method. This method involves dilating the cervix and inserting a suction tube with a sharp tip into the uterus. The suction machine then tears the baby apart and sucks the pieces into a bag. Three thousand six hundred twenty five of our littlest brothers and sisters were brutally killed in this manner in Nebraska in 2001.

One hundred and twenty one unborn babies were destroyed by a chemical abortion method (either RU 486 or a similar procedure). With this method, the mother is given a powerful drug that essentially starves the unborn child; then days later is given another drug that prompts the uterus to expel the child. This procedure is used in pregnancies prior to 8-weeks gestation. This statistic does not include the potentially enormous number of unborn children destroyed by abortifacient contraceptives that work by preventing a newly conceived human being from implanting in the mother’s uterus.

The Dilation and Extraction (D & E) procedure was used to kill 233 unborn babies in Nebraska. This method, typically used in the 2^nd trimester of pregnancy, involves literally tearing or cutting the child to pieces and removing him/her piece by piece. Leroy Carhart, the Bellevue abortionist, described this procedure in gruesome detail during testimony in his court challenge of Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion. Speaking of partial birth abortion, the abortion report indicates that one of these procedures was performed in Nebraska in 2001.

MISCELLANEOUS

The report also indicates that 30.4 percent of women having abortions last year had had one or more previous abortions. Specifically, 809 women had 1 previous abortion; 256 had 2 previous abortions; 95 had 3; 32 had 4 and 19 had more than 4 previous abortions. The repeat abortion percentage has gone from mostly single digits in the 1970’s and 80’s to over 30 percent in the 90’s. Repeat abortions peaked in the mid-1990’s with a massive surge to well over 50 percent in 1993, 94 and 95 before settling back down into the mid to lower 30 percent range.

Two abortionists performed 83 percent of all abortions (3294) in Nebraska in 2001 with 1 abortionist performing 685 abortions and two others performing a total of three abortions.

Please pray for an end to this unspeakable attack on our smallest and most defenseless brothers and sisters. If you feel called to do more than pray, please start by helping your parish pro-life coordinator implement pro-life activities in your parish. Those wishing to receive a complete copy of the 2001 abortion report may request one by calling the Nebraska Health and Human Services System at 402-471-2241 or ask your parish pro-life coordinator.

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

Life Insight 4-5-02

The Annunciation: The Pro Life Feastday

"Do not fear, Mary. You have found favor with God. You shall conceive and bear a son and give him the name Jesus. Great will be his dignity and he will be called Son of the Most High…Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be since I do not know man?’ The angel answered her: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; hence, the holy offspring to be born will be called Son of God’…Mary said: ‘I am the servant of the Lord. Let it be done to me as you say.’" (Lk 1:30-33, 34-35, 38)

With these words, the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. The eternal Son of God became a human being not at His birth in Bethlehem, but within the womb of Mary. Jesus began His earthly existence in the same way as each of us: as a one-celled embryo that at 8 weeks gestation became a fetus and at birth an infant and so on to adulthood.

As the Second Vatican Council asserted, "By His incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being" (Gaudium et spes). Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life points out in one of his columns that the Fathers of the Church wrote on the theme that "Christ redeemed us by assuming all the different aspects of our life on earth, including our childhood, our life of work, our family life, our sufferings, and our death."

"Would it long be possible", Fr. Pavone asks, "for believers, who meditate on the unborn child who was God, to fail to see that unborn children are made in God’s image? Would it be likely that those who ponder that our Almighty Protector was a baby in the womb will fail to see that babies in the womb deserve protection? Would it happen that Christians, who acknowledge that their Lord and Brother was an embryo and fetus, will fail to see that every embryo and fetus is a brother and sister in the Lord?"

As demonstrated in the public debate over the use of embryonic stem cells, some people believe that the embyos who are destroyed to obtain their stem cells are not human beings (or at least not human beings worthy of legal protection as persons). For Christians, the event that followed the Annunciation should tell us otherwise. Luke 1: 39-41 says that immediately after the angel Gabriel left her "Mary set out…in haste into the hill country to a town of Judah, where she…greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby [John the Baptist] leapt in her womb."

Now, it probably took Mary a few days to get to Judah, certainly less than the 6-7 days it takes for the new embryo to travel down the fallopian tube to the uterus. Therefore, Jesus most likely had not even implanted in Mary’s womb and was less developed than the embryos being killed and harvested for stem cells when the also-unborn John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth’s womb at the presence of his Lord and Savior.

How can any Christian who accepts the Divinity of Jesus and the reality that He redeemed us by assuming every aspect of human life on earth, not assign the same dignity at every stage of development to the creature He made in His image and likeness?

Fr. Pavone draws another beautiful analogy by referring to "the mystery of Mary’s freedom, her ‘Fiat’—‘Let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk. 1:38). This is freedom of choice which serves the truth, as opposed to ‘pro-choice’ which claims to create its own truth. This is choice at the service of life, rather than the perverted choice to take life. This is the moment when Mary gave her body to the One who would bring life to the world by saying ‘This is My Body,’ forever undoing the sin of those who justify abortion by saying, ‘This is my body!’"

Please plan to attend Mass (or at least make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament) on Monday, April 8, The Feast of the Annunciation and spend some time reflecting on this wondrous mystery of the incarnation and on the miracle of human life at every stage and in every condition of its existence.

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

Life Insight 3-29-02

Pro Life Legislation in Congress 2002

What follows is a summary of some of the pro life-related legislation being debated in the United States Congress.

Senate to Debate Human Cloning – It now appears that the Senate will vote on human cloning in April, probably toward the end of the month. The House of Representatives has already approved (July 31, 2001) the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (HR 2505) which bans all cloning of human embryos. An identical bill has been introduced in the Senate (S. 1899) and is in committee. Two other bills have been introduced that would allow the cloning of human embryos for experimentation and destruction, but would prohibit them from being implanted in a woman’s uterus for live birth. Action: Urge Senator Ben Nelson to support S. 1899 (Sen. Chuck Hagel is already a co-sponsor of the bill).

Born-Alive Infants Protections Act to House Floor – On March 12, the House considered the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175) under suspension of the rules (no amendments, two-thirds vote for passage) and passed the measure by voice vote. On March 14, H.R. 2175 was placed on the Senate's legislative calendar. H.R. 2175 ensures that all infants who are born alive (following a "botched" abortion) are treated as persons for purposes of federal law.

SCHIP Coverage for Unborn Child – In a proposed rule published March 5, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would revise the definition of "child" in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to mean "an individual under the age of 19 including the period from conception to birth." Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 43 (March 5, 2002), 9936-9. Under this definition, states may elect to extend eligibility to unborn children for health benefits coverage under SCHIP.

The program is administered by the states to provide health care for children of low-income parents who do not qualify for Medicaid. Several states have already obtained waivers to include prenatal care in their programs. The proposed rule would bypass the need to go through the waiver process state by state. In support of the rule, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson cited the "medically obvious" truth that "child health care must include the prenatal stage." At issue are "the undeniable health needs throughout the life cycle" ("Letters to the Editor," Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2002, A21).

Child Custody Protection Act – This legislation makes it a federal crime to transport a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion with the intent of circumventing the parental involvement law of the girl’s home state. On February 7, the Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476) was debated and approved by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. On March 20, the full Judiciary Committee approved the bill, 19-yes, 6-no. H.R. 476 is expected on the House floor after the Easter recess. In 1998 and 1999, this measure passed the House by substantial margins but was stalled in the Senate.

Funding UNFPA – The foreign operations spending bill normally specifies the amount of the U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its international "family planning" activities. This year’s bill sets a ceiling of $34 million for UNFPA, but sets no minimum amount, giving the president discretion to determine the amount of funding between zero and $34 million. In January the president delayed a decision on releasing U.S. funds for UNFPA because it continues to support China's coercive population control program. Action: Urge the president to provide zero funding for the UNFPA.

Assisting Suicide - On November 6, 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum in which he determined that assisting suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" for prescribing, dispensing, or administering federally controlled substances. This applies to any state, including Oregon, which has had a physician-assisted suicide law in effect since 1997. This memorandum overturns the June 5, 1998 opinion issued by then-Attorney General Janet Reno. On November 7, 2001, the state of Oregon filed a lawsuit challenging the authority of U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft to issue his memorandum and also filed a motion to temporarily prevent the federal government from implementing the order. A restraining order was issued. On November 20, 2001, U.S. federal judge Robert E. Jones extended the restraining order for at least four more months.

Mandated Contraceptive/Abortifacient Coverage – On January 22, 2001, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (S. 104). The measure has 42 cosponsors and was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. This measure would require group insurance plans under federal law to provide coverage for prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the FDA; this requirement includes drugs and devices that are abortifacient. The bill provides no conscience protection either for individuals or institutions. A similar bill also was introduced in the House (H.R. 1111). On September 10, 2001, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chaired by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) held a hearing on S. 104. The measure is still pending in committee.

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

Life Insight 3-22-02

Animals Afforded More Protection Than Unborn Humans

The Nebraska Legislature will soon enact a law that will make it a felony to commit multiple acts of cruel mistreatment of animals. Currently, it is a Class II misdemeanor for the first offense of neglecting, abandoning or cruelly mistreating an animal and a Class I misdemeanor for subsequent offenses.

According to the Introducer’s Statement of Intent, LB 79 was introduced to draw a distinction between the act of neglecting or abandoning an animal and cruelly mistreating one. Hence, LB 79 (which was amended to and is now a part of LB 82) would make the cruel mistreatment of animals punishable as a Class I misdemeanor and a Class IV felony for subsequent offenses.

I have no problem with making multiple acts of cruel mistreatment of animals a felony. Animals are a part of God’s creation put under the stewardship of mankind and, as such, deserve to be treated in a humane fashion. Likewise, I have no problem with laws that make it unlawful to kill endangered species. It’s worth noting here that endangered species laws and most likely animal cruelty laws apply to the unborn (or unhatched) offspring of animals.

I raise this issue only to point out the fact that animals (even prior to birth) are afforded more legal protection than unborn humans slated for abortion. For example, during the height of the debate over banning partial-birth abortion in Nebraska, I called the Humane Society and the Sheriff’s office and described the partial-birth abortion procedure as though it was being performed on animals. Both told me that they would consider it unlawful cruelty to animals.

Even if one believes that prenatal human beings are something less than persons (e.g. a "form" of human life, or "potential" persons), aren’t they at least equal to, if not greater than, the value of animals? Isn’t dismembering, chemically burning, or partially delivering and then sucking the brains out of a prenatal human being at least equivalent to the cruel mistreatment of animals? Having laws that allow abortion, but prohibit animal cruelty or killing endangered species would answer that question in the negative.

Another interesting aspect to this bill is that in the Introducer’s Statement of Intent it says, "studies indicate a link between animal abuse and violence against people." I called the introducer’s office to get the citations for those studies and was given the following website sources: http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lk_home ; http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_fact_sheets_link ; www.psyeta.org/sa/sa5.3/Ascione.html and www.hsus.org/ace/11462.

The American Humane Association website said "Research confirms a strong correlation between violence against animals and violence toward humans. It is now widely recognized that perpetrators of violent behavior are more likely to have participated in violent acts against both children and animals, and that the seeds of their behavior were planted in early childhood—often being passed down through similar behavior by a parent or other significant adult."

This and the other websites cite a number of studies to back up this correlation. For example, a 1997 conducted by Northeastern University, et.al., found that over a 20 year period, a group of 153 animal abusers were five times more likely to commit violent crimes than a matched group of 153 non-animal abusers. Another study (1985) found that "…a child who learns aggression against living creatures is more likely to rape, abuse and kill other human s as an adult". And a 1986 study reported that 48% of convicted rapists and 30% of convicted child molesters admitted perpetrating acts of animal cruelty in their childhood or adolescence.

What’s my point with all of this? To point out that if there is a strong correlation between cruelty to animals and violence against people, it seems eminently reasonable to conclude that killing prenatal human beings through abortion leads to further violence against other human beings. Only spiritual blindness could prevent us from seeing this connection—and the injustice of abortion.

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

Life Insight 3-15-02

Hail Mary Full of Grace, Pray for Us Sinners

Recently I received an e-mail that read as follows:

"Imagine what might happen if every Catholic in America would pray a Rosary on the same day! We have an example from October of 1573, when Europe was saved from the invasion of the mighty Turkish fleet. Europe was saved by the praying of the Rosary by all Christians.

So…on Good Friday, let’s all pray a Rosary for the intention of ending abortion. If possible please pray your Rosary between noon and 3:00 pm. If you have e-mail, please e-mail this message to every Catholic on your address list, and ask them to pass it along to every Catholic on their lists. If you don’t have e-mail, please ask every Catholic you know to join in this effort. Let’s unite in praying one of the most powerful prayers—on one of the holiest days—for this increasingly urgent intention. Thank you! God bless you! P.S. After you have e-mailed or shared this message, please write it on you calendar so that you won’t forget."

I couldn’t tell who originated the e-mail because it had been forwarded one or more times, but thought it was a good idea and so I forwarded it on to all the parish pro life coordinators on my e-mail list. Several days later I received a note in the mail from a woman in Nebraska. The note contained the same e-mail message with a handwritten message below.

"Dear Greg, Can you help us spread the word? This is a project of my 16-year old son. He believes God has called him to do this project. He wants no credit. Can you help spread the word through e-mails, personal contacts, and maybe a mention in you column? Thanks for your help!"

I receive so many e-mails from around the country related to pro-life activities, I just assumed this e-mail came from some activist in another part of the country. I was deeply moved and impressed to find out that it was initiated by a 16-year old boy from Nebraska. What beautiful and inspiring faith (and humility) he has!

There is great temptation to dismiss or subordinate spiritual activities in favor of temporal activities, even in our pro-life efforts. I fell to this temptation when I first began as Director of Pro-Life Activities for the three dioceses. I was much more inclined to promote "doing" over "praying".

It didn’t take long, thanks be to God, for me to see that the pro-life battle is first and foremost spiritual, not intellectual. A poignant example of this is that as many, if not more, mothers have decided against abortion after seeing individuals praying at the abortion center in Lincoln as they did when individuals engaged in "sidewalk counseling". Prayer and sacrifice MUST form the foundation of all our pro-life efforts.

I strongly urge all Catholics to accept the invitation of this 16-year old—and of the Holy Spirit—to pray a Rosary on Good Friday for an end to abortion. Let’s include in this intention the healing of women who are exploited and harmed (spiritually, emotionally and physically) by the abortion industry.

And while we’re at it, since Senator Ernie Chambers desecrated Rosaries by cutting the crucifixes off and then distributed these to the other state senators, let’s also include his conversion in our Good Friday praying of the Rosary. To assist meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary, my office has some pro-life reflections available. Requests can be made by e-mail (gregschlepp@alltel.net) or phone (402-477-7517). Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Unborn, pray for us!

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

Life Insight 3-8-02

Pro Life in Pro-Active Mode for a Change

Many pro-life efforts over the last three decades, for various reasons, have been reactive in nature: we learn of a new attack against human life (or a twist on an old one) and we react. Since it is impossible to anticipate and prevent every new form of attack against human life, a certain degree of reaction will always be necessary and important.

There is, however, an attack against human life that we have an opportunity to forestall—assisted suicide and euthanasia. Although the state of Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1994, the prediction that many other states would quickly follow suit hasn’t happened, thanks be to God. In fact, not only have dozens of bills (and a few ballot initiatives) to legalize assisted suicide/euthanasia been defeated (including a few such bills in Nebraska), several states have passed legislation banning these practices. And, in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld New York and Washington states’ bans on assisted suicide/euthanasia.

Furthermore, numerous initiatives have sprung up around the country to address the underlying problems with end-of-life care that can drive individuals to become interested in assisted suicide or euthanasia. As the public becomes more aware that one need not choose between a long, painful death and assisted suicide; that we have the ability to effectively address the physical, emotional and spiritual pain and other indignities that can accompany terminal illness, interest in assisted suicide/euthanasia diminishes substantially.

In this state, the Nebraska Coalition for Compassionate Care (NCCC) was formed, with the assistance of my office, to address end-of-life issues. Specifically, NCCC’s goals are:

To ensure that all Nebraskans are aware of and have access to compassionate, comprehensive and quality end-of-life care, which includes addressing a person’s physical, emotional, spiritual and social needs
To prevent the practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide

One aspect of the first goal is identifying and overcoming barriers that prevent individuals from receiving good quality end-of-life care. To this end, NCCC is sponsoring a conference on March 21 entitled "Overcoming Barriers to End-of-Life Care". The conference is structured to be an interactive discussion for families, health care providers, policy makers, clergy and any interested persons in order to identify barriers to end-of-life care and solutions for overcoming those barriers. As one of the NCCC Board members quipped at one of our meetings, "If you are mortal, this conference is for you!"

The conference is co-sponsored by the Nebraska Medical Association, Nebraska Hospice Association, Nebraska Health and Human Services System, Nebraska Hospital Association and several health care facilities from around the state. It will be held at the Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln. Cost for the day is $75.00 (which includes lunch) and continuing education credit is available. Registration brochures may be obtained through my office by phone (402-477-7517) or e-mail (gregschlepp@alltel.net).

I strongly encourage those interested in forming a new culture of life and love to participate in this conference. The more successful the proactive efforts of the Nebraska Coalition for Compassionate Care are in overcoming barriers to good end-of-life care in Nebraska, the greater is the likelihood that we will prevent a further encroachment of the culture of death.

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

Life Insight 3-01-02

Unconventional Pro-Life Activities

"In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the ‘culture of life’ and the ‘culture of death’…[w]e have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism…Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad, vicious circle: When the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving presence." ("The Gospel of Life" Pope John Paul II, #21)

Our Holy Father is telling us here that the biggest culprit behind the numerous attacks against human life is spiritual poverty: our society’s unhealthy understanding of, and relationship with, God our Creator. After all, if we don’t know our Creator well, we’re not likely to understand the purpose and sacredness of the creature (man) He made in His image and likeness. When we don’t understand the purpose and sacredness of human life, we’re more likely to abuse it, which draws us even further away from God. Hence, the vicious circle mentioned by the Holy Father.

To attack this "deepest root" of the culture of death, we must, therefore, "think outside the box" when it comes to pro-life activities. Traditional pro-life activities of education and action (marches, letter-writing, pregnancy-assistance, etc.), while effective in convicting some people, aren’t as likely to resonate with individuals who have an unhealthy understanding of, and relationship with, God and His Church. My experience as a pro-life leader has demonstrated to me that even the most compelling intellectual argument can be dismissed or rationalized by such individuals.

Therefore, activities that foster spiritual growth must form the foundation of all pro-life activity. I tell every parish pro-life coordinator that before any other activity is pursued, a foundation of prayer and sacrifice must be established. Some suggestions for establishing such a foundation are "Intercessors for Life", regular Mass intentions, and holy hours for life. "Intercessors for Life" asks parishioners to offer some form of prayer and sacrifice each week for the cause of life. And since there is no more powerful prayer than the Mass, offering Masses on a regular basis for the cause of life will surely convert our culture of death.

I’m embarrassed to admit that I didn’t fully appreciate the importance and power of this spiritual foundation when I became the state pro-life director 11 years ago. I was much more focused on pro-life education and action because I thought that the pro-life struggle was an intellectual one. I’ve learned over the years that, at its core, it is a spiritual struggle.

Now when I am asked about how one can contribute to the cause of life I say, first "bloom where you’re planted". For example, if you are a parent or have any influence over the formation of children, your most important pro-life activity is to make sure you are forming them with virtue and faith. Forming the next generation to know, live and proclaim our faith will transform the culture of death to a culture of life and love.

Similarly, the most important pro-life activity for our clergy is to inspire people to seek a deeper relationship with God and His Church—to sanctify the laity. If we Catholics (individuals, families and institutions) really know and live our faith, we will transform the culture of death to a culture of life and love.

More generally, the most important pro-life activity (and responsibility) for every Christian is to represent Christ to those within our sphere of influence. We must serve Christ by serving not only those we choose, but anyone in need. We must embody and demonstrate the love, compassion, forgiveness and truth that Christ embodied.

If we engage in these more unconventional pro-life activities, we will attack the deepest root of the culture of death, our traditional pro-life activities will be more fruitful, and we will form a new culture of life and love.

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

Life Insight 2-22-02

Amazing Grace, Awesome Conversion

Last week I received a phone call that made my day—in fact it made my week, month and year. A young post-abortive woman who had heard me talk about pro-life activities on a radio program called to tell me about her experience of conversion and healing through Project Rachel. Hers is a powerful story of sin, grace and conversion that needs to be told so that it might serve to stimulate other conversions. After all, the pro-life movement must be about more than just restoring legal protection to all human life. It must ultimately serve our larger responsibility as Christians to bring about the salvation of souls.

Her abortion story is, sadly, a familiar one. Young and single, she got pregnant and couldn’t bear to tell her devout Catholic parents, who she thought would "kill her" if they found out. So, rather than confront her parents, she had an abortion—a decision that she lived, and suffered with, for 12 years before seeking help through Project Rachel just a few months ago. Here is what she had to say in a letter describing her Project Rachel experience:

"I contacted one of the priests that I was referred to by Project Rachel. I was scared to death to even make the call, let alone talk about my past abortion with a priest that I didn’t even know. I thought that the priest was only going to lecture and condemn me about the horrible sin I’d committed. The opposite couldn’t have been more true. The priest that I spoke with only had forgiveness and understanding to offer me. It was so wonderful to finally be able to tell my story to someone who not only wanted to listen, but also wanted to offer me the grace and forgiveness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

"The priest I spoke with not only understood what I was going through, but offered me so many ways that I can spiritually begin to heal myself, as well as ways to ask forgiveness from my child up in heaven and to come to some type of closure with God, myself and my aborted baby. I always thought that the Catholic Church only condemned people who had abortions, so I was afraid to seek reconciliation for fear of what the priest might say to me.

"I also thought that I committed the unspeakable and unforgivable sin that God could never forgive. I thank God for the ministry of Project Rachel, and my hope is that every woman suffering from a past abortion will get the courage to call and talk to one of the priests that are so willing to offer peace and reconciliation to women who need God’s grace and help in their lives."

When she recounted her story to me over the phone, I couldn’t help but feel immense joy at her conversion; that she had overcome her fear and made the call to Project Rachel and found hope and healing. I also couldn’t help but recall the beautiful and profound story of the Prodigal Son that our Lord told to communicate God’s immeasurable love and forgiveness—His longing for us to return to Him.

Another thought that came to mind as she told her story was the sad and too familiar reality that she thought it would be "easier" to have an abortion than tell her parents that she had gotten pregnant. Certainly, it is common and understandable for young people in trouble to exaggerate the negative response they expect from their parents. The vast majority of parents, while being upset and disappointed initially, will react with love and support to prevent worsening the problem with abortion.

But clearly, as in this girl’s case, there is a need for parents to communicate unambiguously to their children that no matter what they do, they can come to their parents and expect love and forgiveness. Perhaps this could be accomplished by reading and reflecting together on the parable of the Prodigal Son. I believe it is possible for parents to both instill virtue in their children and be clear that if their children stumble and fall, they will be welcomed home with love and open arms. That is, after all, the example Christ gave us.

Speaking more practically, this woman heard the invitation to hope and healing through Project Rachel because of the financial generosity of numerous benefactors, to whom I, and those helped by Rachel, are eternally grateful. This generosity has allowed us to advertise Project Rachel in yellow pages, on the radio and billboards and in our Catholic Churches throughout Nebraska. Last year, my office sponsored a major statewide advertising promotion of Project Rachel including statewide radio ads which resulted in a about a 10-fold increase in the number of calls to Project Rachel.

I would like to build on this success and further spread this message of hope and healing through another round of radio and perhaps television ads this year, but I need financial assistance to do so. If interested in making a contribution to this effort, which may be tax deductible, please send your contribution, indicating it is for Project Rachel, (payable to the Nebraska Catholic Conference) to my office at 215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 410, Lincoln, NE 68508.

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

Life Insight 2-15-02

When a Cloning Ban Doesn’t Ban Cloning

Cloning has long been the fodder of science fiction, but a few years ago it moved into the realm of non-fiction with the cloning of "Dolly" the sheep. Immediately following the production of Dolly, some individuals announced plans to clone human beings while others announced efforts to ensure that such cloning would be made illegal. The ensuing debate over the cloning of humans has been fraught with scientific and moral confusion.

Cloning is a way of producing a genetic twin of an organism, without sexual reproduction (uniting of sperm and egg). The method used to produce Dolly is called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT). With this method, the nucleus of a body cell ("somatic cell") is transferred into an unfertilized egg whose nucleus has been removed or rendered inactive. Then a stimulus (electrical or chemical) is used to initiate development of a resulting embryo, which is an almost exact genetic twin of the creature that supplied the somatic cell.

Some scientists would like to use SCNT or other cloning techniques to grow human embryos to about the two or three hundred cell stage for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells for research or medical treatments. This is generally referred to as research cloning (or "therapeutic" cloning by its proponents). Proponents of research cloning think that stem cells harvested from embryos cloned from an individual’s own body would make the best match for therapies.

Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Worcester, Mass. announced last November (2001) that it had gotten cloned human embryos to grow to about the 6-cell stage. Its goal is to get cloned human embryos to live at least to the two to three hundred-cell stage so it can harvest their stem cells.

Other scientists would like to use the cloning techniques to produce human embryos for the purpose of implantation (into a woman’s uterus) and live birth. This is generally referred to as "reproductive" cloning. Although most scientists currently oppose "reproductive" cloning, a handful of them believe it is morally justifiable and intend to pursue it.

Most of the confusion about human cloning emanates from the proponents of research cloning (whether scientists or politicians). They know that most people oppose cloning human embryos, whether for the sole purpose of research and destruction or for "reproductive" purposes. Hence some are engaging in verbal deception (e.g. referring to the human embryos they clone as "cells") in order to dehumanize the human beings produced from cloning.

The absurdity of this deception is made evident by the fact that most who want to clone human beings for research purposes oppose implanting these cloned beings in a woman’s uterus for gestation and live birth (i.e. "reproductive" purposes). Well, if these cloned "cells" aren’t embryos, why would they oppose implanting them into a woman’s uterus since only human embryos will grow into adult humans?

On the national level a bill (HR 2505) that would ban the cloning of human beings whether for research or "reproductive" purposes has passed the House of Representatives with the support of all three Nebraska representatives (Bereuter, Terry and Osborne). The same bill has been introduced in the Senate as S. 1899 (formerly S. 790) and is likely to come up for debate in February or March. Senator Chuck Hagel is a co-sponsor of this important pro-life bill and deserves our thanks. Senator Ben Nelson has not yet taken a position on this bill and needs to hear our respectful urging to do so. Since regular mail is slow to Washington, D.C. right now, it would be best to mail a letter to his local office at 287 Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 68508, or fax your letter to him in D.C. at 202-228-0012 or e-mail him at senator@bennelson.senate.gov.

Other bills have been introduced nationally and in Nebraska (LB 1067) that claim to "ban human cloning" but which do no such thing. These bills do not ban the cloning of human embryos, they only ban the implantation of the "product of somatic cell nuclear transfer into a uterine environment so as to initiate a pregnancy". Some might ask, "If we can’t get a total ban on cloning human beings, isn’t it better to at least have a ban on "reproductive" cloning. The answer is no, for the following reasons:

Should such bills become law, for the first time in history, our government would define a class of human beings it is unlawful not to destroy. By only making it unlawful to implant the cloned human embryo, scientists would continue to be able to produce human beings through cloning, but would be required to destroy them (i.e. they would be prohibited from allowing them to survive to maturity).
Many experts—some of whom serve on the President’s Council on Bioethics—have persuasively suggested that such bans would be ineffective even in preventing cloning for live birth. The bizarre and difficult aspect of cloning, the part that will take months or years of further research, is the act of producing viable embryos by this procedure. Once this is achieved, transferring an embryo to a woman’s womb will take mere seconds and would be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent. And once that happens, how would the birth of cloned children be prevented?

To be effective and just, a bill that purports to ban human cloning must ban the use of cloning techniques to produce human embryos, not merely ban their gestation and birth once produced.

As Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Pro Life Activities said in a letter to U.S. Senators: "Creating human life in the laboratory by cloning should be condemned because it reduces human beings to mere products of a manufacturing technique. When cloning is done to attempt a live birth, the child is produced and wanted not for his or her own sake, but because he or she will carry traits that someone else values and wants to replicate. When cloning of human beings is done to pursue medical research, the utilitarian reduction of human life to a mere instrument is even more complete, for a new human being is produced solely to be destroyed for his or her cells and tissues."

For further information on this topic, go online to www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic or www.cloninginformation.org or contact my office at 402-477-7517.

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

Life Insight 2-8-02

The Unmasking of "Pro-Choice"

On its face, the term "pro-choice" is dishonest. Those who support legal abortion know that abortion is repugnant to most people, so they can’t appear to be "pro-abortion". Instead they walk the rhetorical tight rope between celebrating the "right" to abortion and claiming to want its use to be rare. Hence, the term "pro-choice". The ultimate silliness of this term was displayed on a Libertarian Party bumper sticker that proclaims: "I’m pro-choice on everything."

One wonders if the producer of this slogan realizes that if the "pro-choice on abortion" mentality was applied to "everything", there would be no laws prohibiting harmful or undesirable behavior, only hollow rhetoric and equally hollow programs trying to make harmful behavior "safe, legal and rare".

Recent public policy events, locally and nationally, reveal that not only is the term "pro-choice" dishonest, but so is the philosophy behind it. The recent events I’m referring to are the legislative debate of the "fetal homicide" bill (LB 824) in Nebraska and President Bush’s decision to cover unborn children under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The philosophy I’m referring to is that the woman is the ultimate arbiter of the moral status of the unborn. Women, we are told by "pro-choice" advocates, should be trusted to be their own "moral agents".

Both LB 824 and the Bush decision would do just that: recognize, protect and support a woman’s choice to regard the human being growing in her womb as her child—as a person. LB 824 would recognize and protect the humanity of the unborn child at all stages of gestation by establishing specific crimes of homicide for killing an unborn child, outside the context of abortion (e.g. assault, drunk driving, etc.). The Bush decision would extend health insurance coverage under the CHIP program to unborn children. This would allow pregnant women to get prenatal health care more quickly, increasing the likelihood of having a healthy baby.

If "pro-choice" on abortion is about respecting the mother’s decision about the moral status of the prenatal human being growing inside her, then it seems logical that "pro-choice" advocates should just as strongly support and protect a woman’s choice for life as they do a woman’s choice for abortion. But they don’t. They vehemently oppose President Bush’s decision as a backdoor attempt to ban abortion. And they either oppose fetal homicide legislation outright or they try to change it to merely increase the penalty for attacking a woman if she is pregnant and the child dies as a result of the attack.

Policy measures like those just mentioned put "pro-choice" advocates in a quandary. If they oppose them outright, they appear to be "pro-abortion" by not supporting and protecting a mother’s choice to give moral (and personhood) status to the life growing in her womb. On the other hand, if they allow any recognition and protection of unborn life as a separate human being or person (even outside the context of abortion), they undermine the basis of the abortion license—the dehumanization of prenatal human beings.

This quandary is inevitable given the moral and intellectual incoherency upon which the United States Supreme Court based its abortion decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (i.e. that we don’t know if the unborn are persons, so go ahead and kill them).

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

Life Insight 2-01-02

Fetal Tissue/Fetal Homicide Bills Meet Different Fates

On Wednesday, January 16, the Nebraska Legislature failed—for a third straight session—to advance legislation aimed at stopping the use of fetal tissue from induced abortions in research. The bill, LB 462, would have prohibited state funds or state-funded facilities from being used for research involving such fetal tissue.

The first attempt to pass such legislation occurred in 2000 with LB 1405. In 2001, the bill was revised and introduced as LB 462 and, after several hours of debate, was "tabled" (postponed) until this year’s legislative session. What makes each of these failed attempts so hard to swallow is that this legislation has always had more than enough votes to pass under normal circumstances.

Twenty-five votes (a simple majority of the 49 senators) are normally needed to enact legislation in Nebraska. However, the rules of the Legislature allow any senator to "filibuster" bills (endless amendments and debate). Stopping a filibuster, which is called a "cloture vote", requires 33 votes. Both LB 1405 and LB 462 had several votes more than the 25 needed to pass, but neither could muster the 33 votes needed to stop the filibuster. Each time, Senator Ernie Chambers has led the filibuster.

FOR CLOTURE (LB 462):

AGAINST:

The following senators voted for the cloture motion (to halt the filibuster) and to allow a vote on advancement of LB 462 (district number in parenthesis):

Raymond Aguilar (35), Thomas Baker (44), Kermit Brashear (4), Jon Bruning (3), Carroll Burling (33), Jim Cudaback (36), Doug Cunningham (18), "Cap" Dierks (40), "Pat" Engel (17), Philip Erdman (47), Mike Foley (29), Paul Hartnett (45), Jim Jensen (20), Jim Jones (43), Bob Kremer (34), Doug Kristensen (37), Chip Maxwell (9), Vickie McDonald (41), Dwite Pedersen (39), Don Preister (5), Mark Quandahl (31), Pam Redfield (12), Jennie Robak (22), Ed Schrock (38), Adrian Smith (48), Elaine Stuhr (24), John Synowiecki (7), Gene Tyson (19), Floyd Vrtiska (1).

If one of these individuals is your state senator, please send them a note of gratitude and urge him/her to make sure that UNMC follows through, and quickly so, on its pledge to find other sources of tissue.

The following senators voted against the cloture motion:

Chris Beutler (28), Patrick Bourne (8), Curt Bromm (23), Pam Brown (6), Dennis Byars (30), Ernie Chambers (11), Matt Connealy (16), George Coordsen (32), Carol Hudkins (21), Ramon Janssen (15), Dave Landis (46), Don Pederson (42), Marion Price (26), Ron Raikes (25), Diana Schimek (27), Nancy Thompson (14), Roger Wehrbein (2), William Wickersham (49). Senator Lowen Kruse (13) was present but did not vote. Senator Deb Suttle was excused but has previously expressed opposition to LB 462.

If one these individuals is your state senator, please send them a note respectfully expressing your disappointment and also urge him/her to make sure that the pledge to secure other sources of tissue is aggressively pursued and fulfilled. Letters can be addressed as follows: District #, State Capitol, PO Box 94604, Lincoln, NE 68509-4604.

While LB 462’s defeat is very disappointing, a couple days later, the Legislature voted 40-5 to advance LB 824 to the second stage of floor debate. LB 824, referred to as the Homicide of the Unborn Child Act, will recognize and protect the humanity of the unborn child at all stages of gestation and establish specific crimes of homicide for killing an unborn child, outside the context of abortion. For further talking points on this bill go to LB 824 or contact my office.

Senators who voted to advance this bill were the following: Aguilar, Baker, Beutler, Bourne, Bromm, Brown, Bruning, Burling, Byars, Connealy, Coordsen, Cudaback, Cunningham, Dierks, Engel, Erdman, Foley, Hudkins, Janssen, Jensen, Jones, Kremer, Kristensen, Kruse, Maxwell, McDonald, Dwite Pedersen, Don Pederson, Preister, Quandahl, Redfield, Robak, Smith, Stuhr, Suttle, Synowiecki, Thompson, Tyson, Vrtiska, Wehrbein.

Voting against advancement were Senators Chambers, Landis, Price, Raikes, and Wickersham. Sen. Schimek was present but did not vote. Excused were senators Brashear, Hartnett, and Schrock.

While it has cleared the first hurdle, LB 824 still faces a difficult challenge, with two more stages of floor debate. Senator Ernie Chambers has been filibustering the bill, as he does most all pro-life-related legislation. If your senator voted to advance LB 824, contact him/her to express thanks and to encourage him/her to be unwavering in support of this bill. If your senator voted against LB 824, contact him/her to express disappointment and to respectfully encourage him/her to reconsider that position.

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

Life Insight 1-18-02

The Revised Pastoral Plan and Nebraska Catholics for Life

Last November (2001), the U.S. Bishops approved a revised version of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities. The Pastoral Plan is the pro life program of the Catholic Church in the U.S. and was established in 1975 to focus attention on the practices of abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. The revisions respond to our Holy Father's 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) in which he calls for "a precise and vigorous reaffirmation of the value of human life and its inviolablility, and at the same time a pressing appeal addressed to each and every person, in the name of God: respect, protect, love and serve life, every human life" (no. 5).

The revised Pastoral Plan speaks to the expanding legacy of Roe v. Wade. A legacy that has produced the deaths of roughly 40 million unborn babies, has spiritually and emotionally traumatized millions of women and men and has coarsened our society’s regard for human life. A legacy in which Americans have come to rely upon abortion as a backup for contraceptive failure as was bluntly acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling.

A legacy that gave us a more recent Supreme Court ruling expanding the abortion liberty beyond killing in utero to killing babies in the process of being born (Stenberg v. Carhart). A legacy in which the littlest members of our human family (human embryos) are viewed, in the words of Mary Tyler Moore, as no different than goldfish; mere research material that can be killed and scavenged for the benefit of other humans.

The new Pastoral Plan condemns violence in the name of the pro-life movement as "indefensible" and "an offense against God's command: you shall not kill. It also addresses the issue of capital punishment saying that "[o]ur witness to respect for life shines most brightly when we demand respect for each and every human life, including the lives of those who fail to show that respect for others...In so doing, we can help to make "unconditional respect for life the foundation of a new society."

One of the most significant revisions, in my view, is a reference to the connection between contraception and abortion. The bishops point out that "as acceptance and use of contraception have increased in our society, so have acceptance and use of abortion...Tragically, our society has fallen into a mentality that views children as a burden and invites many to consider abortion as a 'backup' to contraceptive failure."

Another significant point mentioned is the fact that some "contraceptive" means sometimes also act as abortifacients (i.e. they don't prevent conception, they prevent a conceived child from implanting in the mother's womb). The bishops conclude this section with this essential admonishment: "An end to abortion will not come from contraceptive campaigns but from a deeper understanding of our human sexuality, and of human life, as sacred gifts deserving our careful stewardship."

The bishops use this document to renew their "call for individual Catholics and the many institutions and organizations of the Church to unite in an unprecedented effort to restore respect and legal protection for every human life--to be what the Holy Father asks us to be: a people of life and a people for life.

Elsewhere in this newspaper you will find a full-page ad communicating the initiation of Nebraska Catholics for Life (NCL). This was timed to coincide with the issuance of the revised Pastoral Plan and the 29th anniversary of the Supreme Court's abortion rulings (January 22). NCL is not a new pro-life organization, it is simply a membership affiliation with the Bishops' Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities in Nebraska. It will allow my office to communicate directly with Catholics interested in knowing more about Catholic teaching on life issues and in being equipped with the tools to help build a new culture of life and love.

Catholic individuals have been instrumental in the formation of national, state and local right to life organizations, the purpose of which is to bring together people of all faiths (or no faith) in addressing the problems of abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. These organizations carry out important functions, some of which the Pastoral Plan and NCL cannot do (e.g. political activity). The formation of NCL is not intended to diminish or obscure these important efforts, but to enhance them by communicating the complete teachings of the Church on life issues to Catholics. I strongly urge all Catholics to join Nebraska Catholics for Life.

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

Life Insight 1-11-02

What Do You Mean By "Pro-Life"?

The public debate in Nebraska over fetal tissue and embryonic stem cell research has highlighted a need to clarify what it means to be "pro-life". Research using fetal tissue from induced abortions (like that conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center) involves immoral cooperatio