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 II, July-December

Life Insight 12-20-02 A Sacred Gift So Defiled

Life Insight 12-06-02 An Anatomy of Ethical and Intellectual Incoherency

Life Insight 11-27-02 It's About Principle

Life Insight 11-22-02 Ignorance or Religious Bigotry?

Life Insight 11-15-02 Democrats Soul Searching Should Include Ditching Abortion

Life Insight 11-08-02 Church Teaching on End of Life Issues

Life Insight 11-01-02 Vote and Vote Well

Life Insight 10-25-02 Life Principles III

Life Insight 10-18-02 Life Principles II

Life Insight 10-11-02 Life Principles I

Life Insight 10-04-02 Women Deserve Better

Life Insight 09-27-02 Respect Life Sunday: 30 Years of Celebrating Human Life

Life Insight 09-20-02 Our Lady of Sorrows and Project Rachel

Life Insight 09-13-02 It's Religious Bigotry, Pure and Simple

Life Insight 09-06-02 A Story You Won't See in the Mainstream Media

Life Insight 08-23-02 Another Dagger in the Heart of Human Dignity

Life Insight 08-09-02 Bush Disassociates US from China's Reproductive Oppression

Life Insight 07-26-02 Capture the Romance with Natural Family Planning

Life Insight 07-12-02 Pro Life Federal Legislative Update

Life Insight 12-20-02

A Sacred Gift So Defiled

"A quiet revolution in birth control unfolds" proclaims a recent newspaper headline pointing out that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) had just approved its fifth birth control product in two years. The latest is "a noninvasive alternative to tubal ligation, a springlike device called Essure, which blocks the fallopian tubes…" What an incredibly sad contrast this pronouncement is with our recent celebration of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Virgin Mary, our model of purity and fidelity to the will of God.

The degradation of God’s sacred gift of sexuality in our society and even within our Church must surely cause Our Lady and Our Lord to weep. Dominant forces in society, such as Planned Parenthood, market sex education that treats teenagers like animals incapable of controlling their sexual urges. Other powerful institutions like entertainment and advertising shamelessly use sex to sell their products. The poisonous fruit of such degradation and exploitation is staggering. Here’s a sampling:

* Each year, teens view nearly 15,000 sexual references, innuendoes, and jokes. Television’s "family hour" contains more than eight sexual incidents per hour, four times more than in 1976 and the internet offers unparalleled, easy access to even hard-core pornography (data from "Unmasking Sexual Con Games", Boystown)

* Each year, nearly one million teenagers in the United States—about 10 percent of 15 to 19-year old females—become pregnant and 40 percent of these end in abortion.

* There are more than 25 kinds of sexually transmitted diseases. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 15 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases in the U. S. each year. At least 20 million Americans are infected with the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus (HPV) which causes over 95% of all cervical cancer in women.

Within the Church, a fair number of bishops, priests, theologians, Catholic colleges and health care institutions responded to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on birth control and marital love (Humanae Vitae) with ambivalence, if not bold rejection. As a result, most surveys indicate that 80 to 90 percent of self-professed Catholics use contraception, and many view the Church’s teaching on contraception, and sexual morality in general, as intrusive, restrictive, out of touch with reality. As one writer put it, if Catholics did an internet search for information on the Church’s teaching on sex, the key search word most would use is "no".

Such a perception could not be further from the truth—or more saddening. Fortunately, thanks largely to our present Pope, Catholics are beginning to be nourished with the natural and supernatural beauty, truth and meaning of our sacred gift of sexuality. So important is this teaching that our Holy Father spent the first five years of his pontificate (during his Wednesday audiences) teaching it.

Surely, most people would acknowledge that having a proper and healthy understanding of our gift of sexuality is central to our happiness and to a fuller and deeper appreciation of what it means to be a person and to love. And yet so few people take the time to prayerfully learn, live and proclaim this beautiful teaching. That must change if we desire a civilization of life and love.

There are many excellent resources to help with this task, including Church documents such as Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, Theology of the Body, Casti Connubii, Donum Vitae and the Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality. Most of these documents can be viewed online at http://www.cin.org/ftp.html or http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/cathteach.htm or obtained through my office. Some even have supplements to facilitate individual or group study.

There are also committed organizations that can help with this journey: Pope Paul VI Institute, 6901 Mercy Rd, Omaha, NE 68106, 402-390-6600, www.popepaulvi.com; Couple to Couple League, PO Box 111184, Cincinnati, OH 45211, 800-745-8252, www.ccli.org; One More Soul, 1846 N Main St, Dayton, OH 45405, 800-307-7685, www.omsoul.com; The Gift Foundation, PO Box 95, Carpentersville, IL 60110, 847-844-1167, www.giftfoundation.org.

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

Life Insight 12-06-02

An Anatomy of Ethical and Intellectual Incoherency

The Omaha World-Herald seems somewhat fixated on the controversy surrounding biomedical research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). This attention would be appropriate (given the profound ethical dilemmas some biomedical research presents) if the paper’s coverage of the research’s ethical dimensions was balanced and substantive. Unfortunately, I believe it has been neither.

What’s more, I propose that the World-Herald’s editorial opinions on aborted fetal tissue, embryonic stem cell and human cloning research demonstrate ethical and intellectual incoherency. Here’s my case:

On February 5, 2000, the World Herald wrote an editorial entitled "Hands Off Research" in which it opined in favor of UNMC’s research utilizing brain tissue from babies killed by abortion. However, its editorial support had this caveat: "As we have said before in this space, if it could be shown that the Medical Center’s research into these devastating diseases were contributing to an increase in elective abortions, it would be a different matter. That would be morally reprehensible."

A year later, the World Herald editorialized its support for embryonic stem cell research ("Developments Affirm Stem Cell Importance", 6/1/01) agreeing with the University of Nebraska bioethics committee that such research "should [have] internal safeguards but not flat barriers." It is clearly incoherent for the World Herald to say that research that increases abortions is "morally reprehensible" but research that directly and intentionally kills human embryos solely for research is morally acceptable.

Presumably, the World Herald would defend its position by pointing to one of the qualifications it included with its support for embryo-destructive research, namely that "the embryos are destined to be discarded anyway…" For clarification, the embryos referred to here are produced through in vitro fertilization, then frozen for future pregnancy attempts by infertile couples. If the couples decide against further pregnancies, one option for them is to thaw the embryos and allow them to die (hence the reference "destined to be discarded anyway").

The World Herald’s view that it’s ethically permissible to kill embryonic human beings for research as long as they are destined to die anyway is breathtaking in its ethical impoverishment. For one thing, just how does the newspaper define "destined to die anyway"? If it means the inevitability and close proximity to death, then why not conduct lethal experiments on terminally ill individuals or death row inmates just prior to their execution or on babies whose mothers have decided to abort them?

Furthermore, the newspaper’s view clearly makes no ethical distinction between allowing someone to die and killing him/her for the benefit of science. Under this rationale, there would be no ethical distinction between discontinuing extraordinarily burdensome life support from a patient (thus allowing them to die) and giving him/her a lethal injection.

In its 6/1/01 editorial, the newspaper also included this qualification for its support of embryo-destructive research: "no embryos [should be] created for research purposes." In other words, only human embryos "left over" and "unwanted" following fertility treatments should be destroyed for research; by no means should human embryos be produced solely for lethal research, right? Well, not exactly.

Only one year after writing this editorial, the World Herald wrote another editorial ("A therapeutic-cloning advance" 6-10-02) saying that "research on therapeutic cloning should be allowed to go forward". In other words, now they say researchers should be allowed to make human embryos solely for research and destruction (i.e. "therapeutic" or "research" cloning).

Curiously, the same editorial says the "notion of human therapeutic cloning that implants the embryo in a woman for growth shocks the conscience." It’s utterly mystifying how someone could believe that producing a cloned human embryo and implanting it for live birth shocks the conscience, but producing that same human embryo solely for lethal research is meritorious.

In two short years, the World Herald went from calling research that "contributes to an increase in abortions" morally reprehensible to supporting the production of human embryos solely to be destroyed as research material. Either that is a stunning example of the ethical slippery slope or, as I suspect, the World Herald’s editorial thinking is plagued with ethical and intellectual incoherency.

Sadly, such impoverished thinking seems to represent most of the University’s leadership and regents. I am hopeful that it doesn’t represent the majority of our state’s legislators or the people they represent. Let us pray and work so that it never does.

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

Life Insight 11-27-02

It’s About Principle

According to a front page story in the November 17 Omaha World Herald, "Scientists are using two-thirds fewer brain cells from elective abortions in their research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and they are hoping that will bring public furor over their work to an end." The article quotes Dr. Howard Gendelman, who directs the research, as saying "It’s time to come together as a community and decide, is this enough?"

Dr. Gendelman’s question (perhaps suggestion is more accurate) is a breathtaking demonstration of the impoverished notion of principle and objective truth that pervades our culture. If the absurdity of his question is not evident, just apply it to some other contexts. Would it settle the death penalty debate if "the state" said it would reduce the number of executions by 65%? Would it have settled the slavery debate if "the south" agreed to limit slavery to a couple of states? Should civil rights activists be satisfied if racial bigotry and discrimination is reduced by 65%?

Interestingly, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., answered this question in his "I have a dream" speech: "There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, ‘When will you be satisfied?’ Listing examples of existing injustices he answers, "we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."

Dr. Gendelman’s disordered view of principle was matched last summer by one of his biggest cheerleaders, Nebraskans for Research (NFR), an organization with heavy ties to the university that formed in the aftermath of the fetal tissue controversy. NFR commissioned a survey of 800 Nebraskans which indicated that 70% of those interviewed support the fetal tissue research.

While one could argue about the accuracy of this result, the most egregious aspect of the poll was NFR’s arrogant and overreaching conclusions about it. The pollster who conducted the survey was quoted in NFR’s newsletter as saying, "The data suggest strongly the debate is over and it is time to move on." NFR’s executive director, Sanford Goodman, said about the poll that "the verdict is in. Clearly it is time for Nebraskans to move forward together in support of this important research."

In an editorial responding to a challenge for substantive and honest debate on controversial biomedical research, Mr. Goodman’s response was essentially, we’ve debated this for the last three years, and our survey shows most support the research so we win, you lose, now please shut up and let’s move on.

Again, if the chilling arrogance of this is not evident consider this suggestion in some different contexts: We’ve debated abortion for 30 years and some polls show a majority support at least some legal abortion so the debate should end. The death penalty has also been debated for many years and most people support it so perhaps the death penalty opponents should accept defeat and go home. Had the champions of civil rights and the abolition of slavery followed Mr. Goodman’s advice, it’s frightening to imagine where our nation would be today.

Ethical principles are not determined by popular opinion, but by objective reality. The attempt by Dr. Gendelman, the University and their apologists to compromise and violate fundamental ethical principles is beneath human dignity and will inevitably undermine it.

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

Life Insight 11-22-02

Ignorance or Religious Bigotry?

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority."

More rantings from the religious right you say? Nope. This quote comes from Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his 1963 "Strength to Love" speech. According to the book The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., The Boundaries of Law, Politics, and Religion, Rev. King refused to separate religious faith and moral considerations from politics, legal matters, and social reformism.

No one today that I’m aware of—certainly not the media or academia—suggests that Rev. King imposed his religion on the nation even though his religious faith was clearly the dominant factor animating his admirable work. Similarly, no one accuses the church of imposing religion on society when she lobbies for politically correct legislation in support of policies favoring the poor or in opposition to the death penalty or unjust wars.

But when the church opposes immoral, but politically correct, research involving aborted fetal tissue, embryonic stem cells or human cloning, the media and academia hypocritically accuse her (and her members) of imposing religion on society. A recent example is the 10-10-02 editorial by former Omaha World-Herald publisher Harold Anderson who said, "religion should not be a dominating factor in determining government policy—including…policy governing research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha."

What does Mr. Anderson think is the dominant factor behind support for welfare programs, civil rights protections and affirmative action? What does he think is the dominant factor in opposition to the war on Iraq, slavery or the death penalty? Isn’t the dominant factor here the principles of justice, freedom, human dignity and rights, preferential treatment for the poor and marginalized?

From where does Mr. Anderson think these principles come? Our Nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, says that we are "endowed by our Creator" with our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And which institution in our society is most responsible for instilling these principles and forming individuals with the virtues necessary to have a civilized, loving, and responsible society? The answer is obvious: the Church, which as Rev. King said, is "the conscience of the state".

The aforementioned principles are what motivate the Catholic Church (and other faith-driven bodies) to lobby for economic and social justice and in opposition to the death penalty or unjust wars. And these are the principles that motivate the Church to oppose abortion, euthanasia, and research involving aborted fetal tissue, embryonic stem cells and human cloning. So why is the Church imposing her religion when she lobbies on the second set of issues but not the first set?

Apparently, Mr. Anderson, and many like him, needs someone to explain the difference between legislating religious dogma (a violation of the establishment clause in our Constitution), and legislating principles that flow from religious tradition. When a Catholic legislator tries to pass a bill that would enshrine the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception or the Real Presence into law, then Mr. Anderson and his ilk should rightly cry foul.

When a Catholic (or any other) legislator proposes legislation to prohibit research using aborted fetal tissue, embryonic stem cells and human cloning his/her proposal is grounded in the scientific (not religious) dogma that a human being’s life begins at fertilization. Those, like Mr. Anderson, who try to marginalize this position as an imposition of religious dogma are either ignorant of science and our Constitution, or they are engaging in religious bigotry (i.e. don’t let those religious fanatics tell us what to do). Thoughtful public discourse deserves better than that.

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

Life Insight 11-15-02

Democrat’s Soul Searching Should Include Ditching Abortion Advocacy

In the shadow of the elections last week, there has been much talk about the Democratic Party needing to figure out what it stands for and where it will go from here. I would suggest that it start by ditching its abortion advocacy. The Democrats have become so identified with abortion that during a news program last week, one of the television pundits asked the question, "What do the Democrats stand for, except legal abortion?"

The Democratic leadership’s abortion advocacy has become increasingly strident since the Party took control of the Senate 18 months ago. During this time, five key pro-life bills have been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, only to be stalled by outgoing Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (who, incidentally, identifies himself as a Catholic).

Furthermore, several of President Bush’s judicial nominees have been rejected by the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, primarily (if not specifically) because they are pro-life. Sadly—and scandalously—this committee is headed by another pro-abortion Catholic, Sen. Patrick Leahy. Adding insult to injury, the Democratic National Committee has refused to remove a link on its website to a viciously anti-Catholic organization—the badly misnamed Catholics for a Free Choice—despite requests to do so from the head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But the most brazen act of all was Senator Daschle’s letter encouraging financial contributions to NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League), specifically to help NARAL elect candidates with pro-abortion positions. In the letter he says "[r]arely has so much been at stake for a woman’s right to choose [abortion] in a U.S. Senate Election. If you and thousands of other pro-choice Americans like you don’t act today by giving to NARAL’s Save the Senate Campaign, the U.S. Senate could fall into anti-choice hands…"

He continues in the letter: "As the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, I’ve stood up for a woman’s right to choose [abortion], and the pro-choice leadership of the Senate has made a difference by safeguarding women’s rights from the anti-choice [pro-life] agenda of the Bush administration."

Senator Daschle’s letter prompted Most Reverend Blase J. Cupich, Bishop of Rapid City, SD to write a response that was read at all Masses in his diocese. The response says that "since Senator Daschle has now decided to frame this year’s election uniquely as a referendum on abortion, he should know that there are citizens of good will in both parties who reject this extreme position and who cannot let it go unchallenged…[I]f the senator, as the leader of his party, wants to make abortion the single issue in this year’s election, then we are ready to let him and those who support him know this week and in the months and years to come where we stand."

In their document entitled "Living the Gospel of Life", the U.S. Bishops urge "those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin…No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life."

Currently, the U.S. Senate has 25 Catholic members, 14 of whom have pro-abortion voting records (and all 14 are Democrats). What’s more, most of these 14 are unapologetic and enthusiastic in their abortion advocacy. The House of Representatives is equally breathtaking in its number of pro-abortion Catholic members. There are currently 127 Catholic members (29% of all House members) of whom 61 have pro-abortion voting records (55 Democrats, 6 Republicans).

Included among these is Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is the likely candidate to become the Democrat’s next minority leader in the House. Like their Senate counterparts, Rep. Pelosi and several other Catholic representatives have been among the most vociferous cheerleaders for legal abortion in the House. The scandal brought about by these Catholic members of Congress is immeasurable. Their spiritual conversion should be in our daily prayers.

The November 5 election, of course, changed Congress significantly. The House had a net gain of four to six pro-life seats. The Senate had a net gain of two pro-life members (with one more possible in the Louisiana run-off) and switched to a more pro-life friendly Republican control. In those states that replaced a pro-abortion senator with a pro-life one (Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri) the abortion issue played a key role. In Missouri, for example, abortion was the second most cited issue on the minds of voters and of those who cited it, 80% voted for the pro-life candidate.

As Susan Wills, Esq. from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat said in Life Issues Forum (11-8-02), "Pro-life gains on November 5 in the House and Senate are breathing new life into key pro-life initiatives". In addition to the likelihood of pro-life judicial nominees getting a fair hearing, Mrs. Wills cites returning Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott as promising to move the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act through the Senate: "I will call it up, we will pass it, and the president will sign it. I’m making that commitment—you can write it down."

Other pro-life bills that passed the House and are awaiting Senate consideration are as follows: a comprehensive ban on human cloning; the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act protecting the conscience rights of individuals and entities in health care to decline involvement in abortion; the Child Custody Protection Act, protecting parents’ rights in states with parental involvement laws by making it a crime for someone else to take their minor daughters across state lines for an abortion; and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which provides legal remedies for killing an unborn child in the commission of a federal crime, paralleling laws in a majority of states, including Nebraska.

Of course not all Democrats are pro-abortion. The Nebraska Legislature is a good case in point, as most of the strongest pro-life leaders over the years have been Democrats. Likewise, not all Republicans are pro-life and many who are pro-life on abortion and euthanasia/assisted suicide are regrettably in favor of the death penalty—sometimes staunchly so. But on the issue of abortion, the Democrats, I believe, would go a long way in rejuvenating their party if they included the unborn among the "little guys" they purport to represent.

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

Life Insight 11-8-02

Church Teaching on End of Life Issues

In the shadow of All Souls Day, it is appropriate to reflect on the Church’s teaching on end-of-life care issues. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator." (CCC #2277).

The Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia (1980) says "No one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or for herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care; nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such action."

Most Catholics probably know that the Church is opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide, but probably do not know how this teaching impacts medical-treatment decisionmaking at the end of one’s life. To help Catholics understand Church teaching in this area, the Nebraska Bishops issued a document several years ago entitled: "Medical-Treatment Decisionmaking: Moral Guidance and Considerations from Catholic Teaching."

This document sets forth several guidelines for decisionmaking. For example,

	It is consistent with Catholic teaching that each person has a right to make his or her own health-care decisions, [or designate another to do so in the case of incapacitation] always in accord with responsible stewardship for the gift of life and other sound moral principles."
	While responsible stewardship for one’s own life and for lives in one’s care is morally obligatory, this does not mean that all possible treatments, procedures or interventions must be used in all circumstances. One is not morally obligated to use ethically extraordinary means to prolong life in this world—that is, treatments, procedures or interventions which are useless (offering no reasonable hope of benefit) or the burdens of which are excessive. Ethically extraordinary means are morally optional."
	If a particular treatment, procedure or intervention is necessary or useful for the preservation of life or restoration of health, there is a moral obligation to use it, unless, in the particular situation at hand, it is analyzed and judged to impose burdens which are disproportionate to the expected outcome. (The burdens might include severe physical pain, psychological repugnance, intense anxiety or fear, excessive expense, severely disabling effects, excessive risks, etc. Moreover, while the extent of burdens is analyzed and judged primarily from the perspective of the patient, such analysis and judgment can also consider burdens experienced by family members and by the community as a whole, e.g. excessive expense).
	A treatment, procedure or intervention judged to be ethically ordinary, and therefore morally obligatory, may subsequently become ethically extraordinary, and therefore morally optional, as a result of changes in circumstances. Just because a treatment, procedure, or intervention is initiated does not mean that it cannot be withdrawn or stopped at a later time.
	When it is not immediately clear that a treatment, procedure or intervention is or has become disproportionately burdensome, it is not an entirely open question whether or not such a measure must be employed or continued. The preservation of life must receive the benefit of doubt.
	Nutrition and hydration (food and fluids) should be provided as part of a patient’s normal care, even when the assistance of medical technology is necessary. The circumstances of a patient’s condition, however, may affect the moral obligation of supplying nutrition and hydration in this way, that is, non-orally. The presumption must be in favor or medically assisted nutrition and hydration, unless or until such means are clinically useless or until [its] benefits…are clearly outweighed by the burdens.

Those who are interested in getting a copy of this document can contact my office at 402-477-7517 or print it off of our website at www.nebcathcon.org. My office also has a packet of information on advance directives that is available free of charge.

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

Life Insight 11-01-02

Vote! And Vote Well

Next Tuesday, November 5 is the general election day in our country. Election officials are predicting a low voter turnout. Sadly, low voter turnout is commonplace throughout our country. Here in Nebraska, election officials report that roughly one in five registered voters (20 percent) voted in this year’s May 14 primary election. If one considers the fact that fifteen percent of eligible voters (18 or more years old) in Nebraska are not even registered to vote, the percentage of eligible voters who voted in this last election (and most elections) is shameful, to say the least.

Voting is a privilege and duty as citizens and Christians. In their 1999 Statement on Political Responsibility, the U.S. Bishops said, "For Catholics, public virtue is as important as private virtue in building up the common good. In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation. Every believer is called to faithful citizenship, to become an informed, active and responsible participant in the political process."

Voting is also an opportunity as the U.S. Bishops pointed out in their document Living the Gospel of Life: "We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity [more fully] to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts."

It is not only important to vote, but to vote well. That is, we should determine our votes not just with information, but with well-formed consciences. As the Bishops’ document says, "Catholic teaching offers a consistent set of moral principles for assessing issues, platforms and campaigns. Because of our faith in Jesus Christ, we start with the dignity of the human person. Our teaching calls us to protect human life from conception to natural death, to defend the poor and vulnerable, and to work toward a more just society and a more peaceful world."

The bishops tell us that the Catholic approach to voting well "begins with moral principles, not party platforms. The directions for our public witness are found in Scripture and Catholic social teaching." The bishops cite several key themes "at the heart of our Catholic social teaching": Life and Dignity of the Human Person, Call to Family, Community and Participation, Rights and Responsibilities, Option for the Poor and Vulnerable, Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers, Solidarity, Care for God’s Creation.

The bishops then refine these themes to the following moral priorities:

Protecting Human Life

"Human life is a gift from God, sacred and inviolable. This is the teaching that calls us to protect and respect every human life from conception until natural death. Because every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, we have a duty to defend human life in all its stages and in every condition. Our world does not lack for threats to human life…Yet as we wrote in our 1998 statement "Living the Gospel of Life," ‘Abortion and euthanasia have become pre-eminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all the others."

Promoting Family Life

"God established the family as the basic cell of human society. Therefore, we must strive to make the needs and concerns of families a central national priority…Tax, workplace, divorce and welfare policies must be designed to help families stay together and to reward responsibility and sacrifice for children."

Pursuing Social Justice

"In accord with God’s plan for human society, we are called to commit ourselves to protect and promote the life and dignity of the human person and the common good of society as a whole. We must always remember God’s special concern for the poor and vulnerable, and make their needs our first priority in public life."

Practicing Global Solidarity

"Since the human family extends across the globe, our responsibility to promote the common good requires that we do whatever we can to address human problems wherever they arise around the world. As a very wealthy and powerful nation, the United States has a responsibility to help the poor and vulnerable, promote global economic prosperity and environmental responsibility, foster stable and peaceful relations among nations, and uphold human rights in the world community."

More often than not, neither of the candidates we must choose between for various offices fully embodies all of these priorities of the Church. So does a Catholic voter make a well-formed choice by adding up a candidate’s positions that comport with Church teaching and award their vote to the candidate with the most points? Not exactly.

The bishops teach in "Living the Gospel of Life" that a candidate’s position on direct attacks against human life (such as abortion and euthanasia) should carry more weight than other issues affecting human dignity. "Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.

"If we understand the human person as the ‘temple of the Holy Spirit’—the living house of God—then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation…Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights…As Pope John Paul II reminds us, the command never to kill establishes a minimum which we must respect and from which we must start out…"

The various positions of candidates in most major contests appeared in the October 11 issue of the three diocesan newspapers and is available online at www.nebcathcon.org. I urge Catholics to avail themselves of this information. I also urge Catholics to offer a Rosary novena starting on Monday, October 28 for a Godly outcome to the elections. Finally, don’t forget to vote and to vote well.

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

Life Insight 10-25-02

Life Principles III

How a person defines happiness or the meaning of life is typically the driving force behind whether that person respects human life or devalues it. Last week’s column outlined four different levels of happiness (or meanings of life) as presented by Fr. Robert Spitzer in his book, Healing the Culture. Simply stated those four levels are: Level 1: Instant Gratification—the seeking of pleasure and possession. Level 2: Personal Achievement—the seeking of ego gratification. Level 3: Good Beyond Self—the seeking of love and contribution to others, society, etc. Level 4: Ultimate Good—the seeking of perfect or ultimate Truth, Love, Justice, Beauty, and Being (i.e. God).

Having explored these four basic levels of happiness (or meanings of life) Fr. Spitzer explains how the level of happiness/meaning of life a person chooses will impact other key cultural concepts. For example, how a person views the meaning of life will obviously affect how that person views success, quality of life (or self-worth) and love. Someone whose happiness/meaning of life revolves around pleasure and possession (level 1) will clearly view success, self-worth and love very differently from someone whose happiness/meaning of life is determined by their contribution to others (level 3) or by their pursuit of ultimate Truth, Love, Justice, Beauty, and Being (level 4).

It is equally clear that a person’s view of happiness/meaning of life, success, self-worth, and love will combine to influence one’s view of suffering. "Everyone needs to see purpose in suffering (i.e. to see some good for self, others or the culture in that suffering)," Fr. Spitzer states. "A purposeless experience of pain and negation generally leads to a sense of bewilderment, depression and sometimes even despair. But if we see purpose in that pain…if we see a positive horizon for self or others, we not only develop resilience, we can actually move beyond the suffering to new heights of freedom, commitment love and self-transcendence.

"Suffering then, is frequently our most poignant moment of decision. The choice we make about it could steep us in bitterness or raise us to new meaning. It could close us to others and to the human community or it could open us to new horizons of the common good and common purpose. It could blind us to everyone else’s needs, or it could lead us to a new vision of others, and to a new level of compassion. Suffering can change the whole course of our lives. It can shut us down or liberate us."

Fr. Spitzer points out how our view of happiness, success, self-worth, love and suffering influences our view of ethics. "If I, for example, have a Level 3 purpose in life (desiring to use my time and talents to contribute to as many facets of the world in as many ways as I can) I will likely have a corresponding Level 3 view of self-worth, love and suffering," says Fr. Spitzer. "This, in turn, will motivate me to acquire habits which will help me to achieve this contributory objective (and to avoid pitfalls to achieving it). The ancients called these good habits ‘virtues.’ The pitfalls they called ‘vices’ or ‘deadly sins.’ The more one loves contribution, and the people to whom one contributes, the more one will love the virtues (habits) that help to promote this…[and be] wary of the vices which threaten it."

A person’s combined view of happiness, success, self-worth, love, suffering and ethics now influences whether he/she views freedom as "freedom from" or "freedom to". "’Freedom from’", says Fr. Spitzer, "tends to resist commitment. If, for example, I believe that my purpose and happiness in life will come almost exclusively from admiration, control and comparative advantage…I am likely to view freedom as something which will promote ego-gratification. Anything which will enhance my control, autonomy and admiration will be viewed as liberating. I will also view hindrances to control as disempowering. Hence, I will see freedom as escape from constraint and the promotion of independence. This promotion of independence can make me view others as problems."

"Freedom for" on the other hand, views commitment as empowering. "If, for example, I have a Level 3 purpose in life, I will be living essentially for the net positive effect I can make to others and the world," says Fr. Spitzer. "I will have certain objectives in mind to promote these good effects. These objectives form the basis of my commitments. Commitment, therefore, does not feel disempowering (as it does in the Level 2 perspective). It feels liberating. I do not wish to escape constraint, but rather to engage in whatever discipline is required to actualize my dreams."

Finally, Fr. Spitzer turns from how the levels of happiness influence an individual’s vision, desire, and conviction to how they influence the culture. "The culture (which transmits our societal values, virtues, and goals) is perhaps most influenced by the concepts of ‘person’, ‘rights,’ and the ‘common good.’ The concept of ‘person’ is the most important because the notion of ‘rights’ and ‘common good’ are directly dependent on it. The way the culture views ‘person’ is the way it interprets ‘rights’ and ‘common good.’ Narrow notions of ‘person’ lead to equally narrow notions of ‘rights’ and the ‘common good.’"

I think it’s pretty obvious, as Fr. Spitzer points out, that these ten central cultural concepts (happiness, success, self-worth, love, suffering, ethics, freedom, person, rights and common good) "control everything we believe within the culture—how we think of ourselves, how we treat one another, and how we recognize one another." It is equally obvious that a society which is dominated by a Level 1 or 2 view of happiness/meaning of life, will devalue human life in its most dependent or vulnerable stages. For further information on Fr. Spitzer’s book and the Life Principles, call the Center for Life Principles (toll free) at 877-345-5433 or go to its website at www.lifeprinciples.net.

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

Life Insight 10-18-02

Life Principles II

In last week’s column I presented the different ways in which we define something—appearance, powers, conditions, and perfection of powers—in order to point out that our society’s definition of personhood is dangerously superficial and inadequate. For example, most individuals who support abortion or embryo-destructive research base their position (at least in part) on the observation that early stage human beings don’t "look like" human beings.

Of course, what they mean is that when a human being (at it’s embryonic stage) is comprised of a "clump of cells", he/she doesn’t look like a baby. But, then again, a baby doesn’t look like a teenager and a teenager doesn’t look like an adult, but we rightly recognize that a baby and a teenager are no less human beings or persons than an adult human being. It is dumbfounding to me how our society can recognize that it was wrong to use physical appearance to deny personhood (and freedom) to slaves and then not see that we are doing the same thing to prenatal human beings.

The bottom line, as pointed out by Fr. Spitzer in his book Healing the Culture and his Life Principles presentations is that "the guiding force of a culture is its definition of person. This definition will determine whether the culture is positive or negative." "Why," Fr. Spitzer asks, "would individuals in our culture sometimes inadvertently or intentionally fail to see the intrinsic dignity of the person and treat that human being as if he or she were something less?" His answer is that the "problem is not mental or educational. It is occurring in the heart. That is, we sometimes make our judgments about others based on the meaning of life we have come to accept for ourselves."

In further answering this question, Fr. Spitzer explains that there are four different meanings in life (or levels of happiness) that have generally been accepted throughout history, starting with the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Those four levels are:

Happiness 1 or Immediate Gratification: This level of happiness is essentially material or physical. It results from physical pleasure and possession such as eating one’s favorite food, driving a new car, having a massage and anything that relieves hunger, thirst, or pain. "It’s chief drawback," says Fr. Spitzer, "is superficiality, which often generates boredom for those who limit themselves to this level…Materialism and pleasure are enough to satisfy the body, but they fail to reach the deepest parts of the human consciousness. Most persons who attempt to live entirely at the level of Happiness 1, singlemindedly pursuing possessions and pleasure, eventually experience intense feelings of emptiness…"

Happiness 2 or Personal Achievement/Ego: This level of happiness "involves the creation, through personal achievement or success, of a robust sense of self-esteem. In adults, Happiness 2 "comes from…activities that, for example, make one seem more successful, better looking, or more powerful than others. These satisfactions are ‘higher’ than Happiness 1, for they are not purely physical; they chiefly involve the ego."

"If Happiness 2 becomes exaggerated", says Fr. Spitzer, "most people will find it to be unbearable, for one will invest virtually all of one’s self-worth in comparison, in continuously struggling to be better than others. Serious problems begin to emerge as one discovers that continuously improving success (which is required in order to gain continuous comparative advantage) is almost impossible to sustain."

Happiness 3 or Good Beyond Self: Although it is difficult to break out of the comparison game of Happiness 2, Fr. Spitzer says that one can achieve a higher level of happiness (level 3) by "making a difference to someone or something beyond myself." Level 3 means moving out of myself [level 2] and investing myself in something that will enhance humanity. Love is the most obvious manifestation of Happiness 3. "Human beings have a drive to make their lives matter, to make a difference, and when they do, they are happy", says Fr. Spitzer. If, however, "we get to the end of life and find that we have given nothing to humanity, we will plumb the depths of despair."

Happiness 4 or Ultimate Good: The third level of happiness still does not exhaust the scope of human desire, as humans not only desire the imperfect love, goodness, truth, beauty and being they experience in this world. Humans also desire a supernatural or unconditional, perfect and ultimate love, goodness, truth, beauty and being. In the context of faith this would be called a desire for God. "But even if one does not have faith," says Fr. Spitzer, "one can treat it as an awareness of a seemingly unconditional horizon surrounding human curiosity, creativity, spirit and achievement…this particular desire differentiates humans from all other animals."

To provide a Scriptural example, our Lord said that the first of all the commandments is to love the Lord your God with all our hearts, with all our souls, with all our minds and with all our strength and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself (Mk 12:28-31). St. Augustine in his Confessions explained this ultimate happiness in this way: "You made us for Yourself, and our hearts find no peace until they rest in You."

Clearly, our society is largely stuck in Happiness 1 and 2 and the key to cultural change, according to Fr. Spitzer, is helping our society to advance to level 3 and 4. Next week’s column will present how Fr. Spitzer applies these four levels to key cultural concepts such as success, quality of life, and suffering and how this impacts our society’s view of abortion and euthanasia.

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

Life Insight 10-11-02

Life Principles I

On Saturday, October 26^th, the annual Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities convention will be held in Lincoln at the Cornhusker Hotel. One of the presenters, Camille De Blasi, will give a training session entitled "Healing the Culture: A Commonsense Philosophy of Happiness, Freedom and the Life Issues". This session is based on a book of the same name written by Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. (with contributions by Miss De Blasi).

While anything related to philosophy might be intimidating to some, Fr. Spitzer and Miss De Blasi do a very understandable job of explaining philosophical principles and applying them to everyday experiences of love, quality of life, suffering, success, happiness and rights. They have packaged this approach to understanding why our society devalues and attacks human life into various educational models known as Life Principles. Over the next few weeks, I’ll give you a glimpse of these Life Principles and hopefully whet your appetite to come to the convention on October 26^th.

"Although people want to be happy," says Miss De Blasi in the introduction to the Life Principles video series, "we seem to lack a cultural roadmap to set us on the right path…Because the meaning of life and the meaning of happiness go hand in hand, an underdeveloped sense of happiness can easily lead to incomplete views of what it means to be a person. History has shown that narrow understandings of human personhood eventually lead to narrow views of freedom and rights. Our culture may be undermining its own attempts at achieving the common good by relying on a rather bleak definition of human personhood—one which seems disinterested in those who are weak, vulnerable, or in need."

"The Life Principles opens the door to a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world we live in by offering insight into the meaning of human personhood, love, quality of life, and suffering. This deeper vision enhances our understanding of freedom and human rights. Such insight is invaluable when making decisions about the life and death issues we face today."

Fr. Spitzer begins his instruction in the Life Principles by discussing how to define something. "The way we understand what we are as persons affects the way we approach every social issue," he says. "’Person’ is the most controlling notion we have for what goes on in our culture, hearts and souls." For such principles in defining something, he turns to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who identified four such principles: appearance, powers, conditions and causes and perfection of powers.

Now don’t let the name Aristotle freak you out. Understanding what follows won’t be difficult, I promise! To illustrate each kind of definition, Fr. Spitzer uses the simple example of an acorn. Imagine that you have to define what an acorn is to someone who cannot see and doesn’t know what an acorn is. Defining it by its physical appearance clearly doesn’t provide an adequate definition; it doesn’t define the nature of the acorn. To describe it as small, roundish and hard could be to describe a rock. To get to the nature or deeper definition of the acorn, you must describe its powers or activities.

For example, the acorn can absorb water and nutrients that cause it to grow in a very ordered process that eventually results in growth above the ground (obviously a rock cannot do this). These activities or powers get us closer to the nature of the acorn, but do not fully explain it. The powers tell us "what" an acorn can do, but not "how" it can do these activities. To more fully understand these activities or powers, one must understand the conditions outside those powers that make the powers work (turn them on).

There are conditions for both the acorn’s existence and activities. The main condition for its existence would be the oak tree. No oak trees, no acorns. The main conditions for its activities are soil with a proper pH, proper nutrients, water, and sunlight. "The more [we] know about the conditions necessary for the power to become active," says Fr. Spitzer, "the more [we] know about the power of the acorn and, therefore, about the acorn’s nature."

But even knowing the "what" and "how" of the acorn is still not a complete definition because it embraces only the acorn’s past and present. The powers and conditions of the acorn could also apply to a piece of corn or a bean. Aristotle recognized that one more component is necessary: it’s perfection of powers, or, what it was meant to be. For the acorn, this would be a fully developed oak tree (obviously the corn and bean do not share this perfection of powers).

There now, that wasn’t so bad was it? Obviously, this explanation is useful in helping to understand the true nature or definition of a human person. Most people who do not believe that an unborn child is a person will base that opinion on the appearance definition (e.g. the early embryo does not look like a human being). But as I explained above, using physical appearance to define something is the worst and most incomplete definition. An early human embryo’s physical appearance is nearly indistinguishable from other mammal embryos, but their nature, perfection of power and value is clearly different.

Of course a human being at its embryonic stage of development doesn’t look like an adult human any more than an acorn looks like an oak tree. But to get to the real and complete definition of a human person, one must look beyond its physical appearance to its powers, conditions and causes, and perfection of powers. Using this more complete definition, it is clear that a human being at its one-cell stage has the same nature and value as the human being at its adult stage.

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

Life Insight 10-4-02

Women Deserve Better

"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society—so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."

"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who…drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

Most who read these quotes probably assume that they come from some typical anti-abortion leader or organization. Not so. They come from Mattie Brinkerhoff, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, respectively. All three were leaders in the early feminist movement, and were unambiguously opposed to abortion. They recognized abortion as society’s abandonment of women.

Certainly, abortion represents a grave injustice toward our unborn brothers’ and sisters’ right to life. But it also represents a failure of society to follow our Lord Jesus’ command to love one another as He has loved us. True love never pits mother against child as though an unborn child is a problem to be solved by killing him or her. True love recognizes that a lack of resources and support for pregnant women are the real enemies and that we must be willing to sacrifice, be inconvenienced, and be willing to carry some of the responsibility in order to compensate for this lack of resources and support.

If the pioneers of the feminist movement were so opposed to abortion, how did the modern movement become so pro-abortion? According to Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, "Larry Lader, a man concerned with population issues, hooked up with Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who had seen botched abortions, and reasoned that legal abortions would be safe. They began NARAL, originally the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws."

Dr. Nathanson, after performing 60,000 abortions, later became pro-life (and Catholic) and has provided insights into how the abortion movement became the centerpiece of the 70’s women’s movement. Again quoting Ms. Foster, "After years of unsuccessfully lobbying state legislatures and governors to overturn…antiabortion laws…Lader and Nathanson decided to change strategies…[noticing] that the women’s movement was an emerging, powerful and vocal force…[with a goal of] equality in the workplace."

"Lader and Nathanson convinced the leadership of the ‘70’s women’s movement that having children held women back in the workplace. If women wanted to be educated like men, hired like men, paid like men and promoted like men, then they would need to control their fertility…they would need to function as men in the workplace." This mentality that abortion equals women’s rights has become so firmly entrenched that the current president of NARAL, Kate Michelman, said "abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s…right to participate fully in the social and political life of society."

There certainly is much evidence (e.g. women and children are in the largest and fastest growing poverty group) to suggest that legal abortion has NOT advanced women’s social or economic standing in society. But even if such an advance could be linked to abortion, it is the ultimate insult to women to suggest that in order for them to have equal standing with men in society, they have to be like men—and the price tag for this equality is their dead children.

Pro-lifers must be certain to never contribute to the pitting of mothers against their children by only defending the rights of unborn children while neglecting, in word or deed, the fact that abortion also abandons women—that women deserve better than the failure and violence of abortion. As the pioneers of the feminist movement said repeatedly and eloquently: being pro-life means being pro-woman and being pro-woman means being pro-life. For more great information on the feminist case against abortion check out www.feministsforlife.org or www.womendeservebetter.net or contact my office at 402-477-7517.

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

Life Insight 9-27-02

Respect Life Sunday: 30 Years of Celebrating Human Life

Thirty years ago this October, the United States Bishops launched their Respect Life Program and designated the first Sunday in October as Respect Life Sunday. The objectives of this program are two-fold: (1) to raise the consciousness of American Catholics regarding ways to promote respect for human life, and (2) to motivate people to establish a just social order in which the rights of all men and women are assured and protected.

For 30 years, the U.S. Bishops’ national office has produced a Respect Life packet filled with articles on various attacks against human dignity. It also contains program and liturgical ideas and resources for celebrating and rebuilding a culture of life and love. These packets are typically distributed to the pastor and pro-life coordinator in every parish in Nebraska.

This year’s packet contains articles on the new Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, the assault on Catholic health care, the new eugenics: cloning and beyond, natural family planning, understanding and respecting our sacred gift of sexuality, global trafficking in persons and an inspiring story of parenting a Down syndrome child. Each of the articles offers additional resources for further study. Contact your parish pro-life coordinator or my office (402-477-7517) for copies of these excellent articles.

I challenge Catholics to use Respect Life Sunday as an opportunity to truly celebrate human life, to rediscover a sense of awe for life. It is so easy to get bogged down with the struggles of life, to focus on the negative aspects of life and human interaction. It is easy to see life as a burden, to see others as a burden and to lose sight of the incomparable worth of the human person.

Our Holy Father reflects on this value in his encyclical "The Gospel of Life". "Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God." He goes on to recall the words of the Second Vatican Council: "By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being. This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who ‘so loved the world that he gave his only Son’ (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person.

The task of restoring a sense of awe and respect for all human life can seem overwhelming, if not impossible, especially in light of the constant and increasingly horrifying attacks against the sacred dignity of human life and love. One may be tempted by the devil to despair, to lose hope, or at least to shrug off one’s responsibility with the false conclusion that one person can’t really make a difference against such a culture of death.

Mother Teresa, who was regularly asked how her seemingly tiny efforts, compared to the enormous poverty in India, could possibly make a difference, had this to say to all of us:

"I never look at the masses as my responsibility. 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. Jus 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."

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

Life Insight 9-20-02

Our Lady of Sorrows and Project Rachel

Last Sunday, September 15, was the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, an appropriate time to focus on the spiritual and emotional sorrows of those who have had or been involved with abortion. In his encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem, 21, our Holy Father said the following appropriate words:

"As we contemplate this Mother [our Lady of Sorrows], whose heart ‘a sword has pierced’ (cf. Lk 2:35), our thoughts go to all the suffering women in the world, suffering either physically or morally. In this suffering a woman’s sensitivity plays a role, even though she often succeeds in resisting suffering better than a man. It is difficult to enumerate these sufferings; it is difficult to call them all by name. We may recall her maternal care for her children, especially when they fall sick or fall into bad ways; the death of those most dear to her; the loneliness of mothers forgotten by their grown-up children; the loneliness of widows; the sufferings of women who struggle alone to make a living; and women who have been wronged or exploited. Then there are the sufferings of consciences as a result of sin, which has wounded the woman’s human or maternal dignity: the wounds of consciences which do not heal easily. With these sufferings too we must place ourselves at the foot of the Cross."

Abortion certainly "wounds the woman’s human or maternal dignity" creating "wounds of consciences which do not heal easily." It is for this reason that Project Rachel’s message of forgiveness, healing and hope is so critical to the formation of a new culture of life and love. Project Rachel takes its name from Jeremiah 31:15-17: "In Ramah is heard the sound or moaning, of bitter weeping! Rachel mourns her children, she refuses to be consoled because her children are no more. Thus says the Lord: Cease your cries of mourning, wipe the tears from your eyes. The sorrow you have shown shall have its reward, says the Lord…there is hope for your future."

By calling the toll free line (800-964-3787), post-abortive women (and men) will be given a confidential referral of their choice to either a specially trained clergy person or counselor. Project Rachel provides both psychological and spiritual healing through counseling and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It communicates to post-abortive women and men that abortion is not an unforgivable sin and that God’s mercy and love are limitless to those who seek it with sincerity.

As I have come to better understand the roots of the culture of death—the deepest of which is spiritual poverty—I have grown in my appreciation for the vital role Project Rachel plays in overcoming this spiritual poverty and forming a culture of life and love. By facilitating spiritual reconciliation and healing, Project Rachel perhaps best embodies our true mission as Christians in the pro-life movement: the salvation of souls.

The ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is not merely ending the legality of abortion and other attacks against human life and love. It is digging out the evil roots that sprout these attacks against life and love and replacing them with spiritually and culturally healthy roots of authentic love, freedom, fidelity, sacrifice, generosity, compassion, holiness and heroic virtue, ultimately to help bring about the salvation of souls. Only then will we truly achieve a culture of life and love.

Please provide spiritual support to Project Rachel by praying that post-abortive women and men will hear God’s call to receive His mercy, love and healing. If you wish to support Project Rachel in a financial way, there is a great way you can do so. A friend of mine, Jean Timmerman, has produced a CD with all original music dedicated to Mary Joy, her daughter that she lost to miscarriage. Jean is donating all the proceeds from this CD to Project Rachel. Anyone wishing to get a copy of the CD and support Project Rachel at the same time can contact my office at 402-477-7517 or gregschlepp@alltel.net. The suggested donation for the CD is $15.00. I am deeply grateful to God and to Jean Timmerman for this most generous contribution to the cause of human life and love.

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

Life Insight 9-13-02

It’s Religious Bigotry, Pure and Simple

Anyone who follows the abortion debate has surely heard it numerous times: "Those who oppose abortion are just trying to force their religious opinion on everyone else." Their argument goes like this: the assertion that human life begins at conception is a religious opinion and therefore, to afford legal protection to unborn children would be to enshrine religious doctrine in law, thus violating the so-called separation of church and state.

The latest application of this fallacious argument has been to the organizers of the newly formed Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research. The Coalition was formed to bring together leaders in the fields of science, medicine, ethics, religion, business, and politics for the purpose of facilitating a constructive and civil public discussion on the science and ethics of biomedical research involving human beings.

The Coalition bases its opposition to human cloning and research involving fetal tissue from induced abortions or embryonic stem cells on ethical arguments that are based on science and reason, not faith and politics. Nonetheless, the knee-jerk reaction of those who support this research has been to ignore the rational arguments and simply attack the group as being religiously or politically motivated.

Of course, the goal of these detractors is quite transparent: Use religious bigotry to marginalize anyone who disagrees with their view of the human person and of academic freedom. Again, if these detractors can convince the public that the assertion that embryos are persons is simply a religious belief, then perhaps the public will conclude that such a belief cannot be enshrined in law.

This view is absurd on at least a couple of levels. First, if the point at which human life begins is a matter of religious opinion, then the view that human life doesn’t begin (or deserve legal recognition) until viability or birth or in some cases several months after birth, is as much a religious belief as the view that human life begins at conception.

Second, and most important, the view that human life begins at conception IS NOT A RELIGIOUS BELIEF BUT IS A BIOLOGICAL FACT!!! For example, the embryology textbook used at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha says this about the beginning of human life:

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male…sperm unites with a female [egg] to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." A zygote is defined as "the beginning of a new human being."

Elsewhere, the textbook says: "Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, some important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 6th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998, p. 2, p. 18] [emphasis in original].

My office has produced a four-page document that includes these quotes as well as quotes from numerous other biology textbooks and scientific sources. The document is available online at http://www.nebcathcon.org/educational_info.htm or it can be obtained free of charge by contacting my office at 402-477-7517.

I urge all who read this to get a copy of my document and duplicate and distribute it widely. Then, the next time someone tries to dismiss the view that human life begins at conception (or fertilization) as being religious doctrine, confront them with the facts and with a spirit of charity, love, humility, and patience.

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

Life Insight 9-6-02

A Story You Won’t See in the Mainstream Media

Defenders of legal abortion have long claimed that early abortion is safer than childbirth—a claim that is easy to make, but difficult to defend. In order to compare complications or deaths from childbirth with abortion, there needs to be accurate statistics on both. While there are fairly accurate statistics on childbirth, there are very poor and incomplete statistics on abortion.

For example, unlike Nebraska, a number of states don’t even have mandated abortion-reporting requirements. The only abortion statistic information in those states typically comes from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (an organizational relative of Planned Parenthood). The bottom line is, with or without abortion reporting requirements, how motivated is an abortion facility going to be to report abortion complications and deaths? And in fact, when media outlets have investigated abortion-related deaths they have found actual deaths/complications to be far higher than the official reports.

Not surprisingly, studies claiming to prove that abortion is safer than childbirth are often uncritically accepted by the mainstream media, while studies showing the opposite are dismissed or marginalized as politically or religiously motivated. Such is the case with a recent study published in the latest issue of the Southern Medical Journal, indicating that women who have abortions are at significantly higher risk of death than women who give birth. Here’s a study you won’t see reported in the mainstream media.

According to an article by the lead author, David Reardon, Ph.D., director of the Elliot Institute, "the researchers in this study examined death records linked to Medi-Cal payments for births and abortions for approximately 173,000 low income California women. They discovered that women who had abortions were almost twice as likely to die in the following two years. They also discovered that the elevated mortality rate of aborting women persisted over at least eight years. Over the eight year period studied, women who aborted had a 154 percent higher risk of death from suicide, an 82 percent higher risk of death from accidents, and a 44 percent higher risk of death from natural causes."

Dr. Reardon points out that this is the second large record-based study to find elevated mortality rates among women following an abortion. In 1997, a government-funded study of maternal deaths in Finland revealed that in the first year following an abortion, aborting women were 252 percent more likely to die compared to women who delivered and 76 percent more likely to die compared to women who had not been pregnant. "Many of the extra deaths", he says, "were due to suicide."

Similarly, in this California study, "[d]uring the first four years, higher rates of death from suicide and heightened risk taking behavior were the most pronounced area of difference," Dr. Reardon said. "In later years, deaths due to natural causes rose. This may reflect longer term damage that increased rates of depression, anxiety, and self-neglect can inflict on women’s cardiovascular and immune systems."

Dr. Reardon expressed particular concern about the higher rate of deaths from suicide among aborting women. "The Finland study revealed a seven fold increased rate of deaths from suicide among aborting women", he said. "Suicide is a leading cause of death among young women. In an Elliot Institute survey of women complaining of post-abortion distress, 56 percent reported suicidal feelings and 28 percent actually attempted suicide, with over half of these attempting suicide more than once."

"The explanation for higher suicide rates," Dr. Reardon believes, "can be found in another Elliot Institute study of 1076 women faced with unplanned pregnancies that was published earlier this year in the British Medical Journal. It revealed that subsequent long-term clinical depression was more common among those who had abortions.

"Yet another Elliot Institute study", he said, "published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry this year revealed that aborting women are significantly more likely to require subsequent psychiatric treatments compared to delivering women. This study examined Medi-Cal payments for outpatient psychiatric care over a four year period. Abortion was most strongly associated with subsequent treatments for neurotic depression, bipolar disorder, adjustment reactions, and schizophrenic disorders."

Ultimately, the claim that abortion is safer than childbirth—and the rejection of any contrary assertion—is a sad attempt to rationalize the killing of innocent human beings. We must pray and fast for the softening of hearts so that God’s light of truth, love and mercy will penetrate and transform the heart and soul of our nation.

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

Life Insight 8-23-02

Another Dagger in the Heart of Human Dignity

At the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Conference I attended recently, one of the speakers urged the pro-life movement and all people of faith to recognize that certain types of biomedical research, such as human cloning and embryo-destructive research, represent a whole new frontier of attacks on the dignity of human life.

How so? Abortion and euthanasia, he said represent the taking of human life made in God’s image. However, human cloning and genetic manipulation of embryos, for example, represent the making of human life in our own image or by our own design.

This effort by man to be the Author of Life (i.e. to be God) was best exemplified by Dr. Richard Seed, a Chicago physicist who wants to clone human beings. In an interview on cloning in World magazine (1/17/98) he said: "We are going to have almost as much knowledge and almost as much power as God. Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God." Apparently man hasn’t learned much since the Garden of Eden, when our first parents fell victim to the temptation of the devil to be like God.

These biomedical attacks against prenatal human beings are also different from abortion in another important way. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 abortion rulings (Roe v. Wade and Doe v Bolton) stripped the unborn child of rights only in the context of abortion. These abortion rulings did not prevent the recognition and protection of prenatal human beings (whether at the embryonic or fetal stage) outside the context of abortion.

This reality is evidenced by the more than 25 states (including Nebraska) that have fetal homicide laws that recognize and protect the unborn as persons when a pregnant mother and her unborn child are the victims of illegal activities (such as assault, drunk driving, murder, etc.).

Since the legality of abortion in no way prevents the protection of prenatal human beings in other contexts, failing to protect them from destructive research or from being produced through human cloning would plunge yet another dagger into the heart of human dignity. Specifically, such failure would further advance the view of prenatal human beings as objects to be used for the benefit of other humans.

Dr. William Hurlbut, a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, described the threat of biomedical research without limits with these eloquent words: "The inviolability of human life is the essential foundation on which all other principles of justice are built, and any erosion of this foundation destabilizes the social cooperation that makes possible the benefits of organized society. Medicine is especially vulnerable to such effects since it operates at the intrinsically moral interface between scientific technique and the most tender and sensitive dimensions of personal reality in the vulnerable patient. As we descend into an instrumental use of human life we destroy the very reason for which we were undertaking our new therapies; we destroy the humanity we were trying to heal."

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of people of faith recognizing and responding to this new threat to human dignity. A new development in Nebraska that will assist all people in better understanding the scientific and ethical dimensions of biomedical research is the formation of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research (NCER). This coalition of leaders in science, medicine, religion, ethics, business and politics was formed to be a statewide advocate for biomedical research that protects the life, dignity, and rights of every human being at each developmental stage.

Steve Doran, MD, a neurosurgeon and president of NCER who is on the clinical faculty at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, summarized quite well the philosophy behind NCER: "We believe passionately in the miracle and promise of biomedical research. But we believe just as passionately that research and medicine must, above all, never violate the first and most basic principle of medical ethics: do no harm."

The Coalition has produced excellent position papers on human cloning, human embryonic stem cell research and fetal tissue research that explain the science, ethics and public policy dimensions of these practices in understandable terms. These papers and other useful information can be obtained on NCER’s website at www.ethicalresearch.net or by calling toll free to 866-290-9500.

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

Life Insight 8-9-02

President Bush Disassociates U.S. from China’s Reproductive Oppression

On July 22, President Bush announced his decision to deny all funding ($34 million) to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) because of its ties to China’s coercive abortion and sterilization program. Since 1985, the federal government’s annual foreign operations appropriations bills have contained the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that provides that no U.S. funds "may be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."

Predictably, the "contraceptives R us" crowd, the abortion lobby, so-called women’s groups and much of the mainstream media have portrayed the President’s decision as nothing more than politically pandering to his right wing supporters. Thoraya Obaid, executive director of the UNFPA went so far as to declare that "women and children will die because of this decision".

To start with, a bit of background on China’s coercive one-child per couple policy and the UNFPA’s involvement with it is needed. Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute and a long-time student of China’s one-child policy spent a year living in China (1979-80) and observed first hand every aspect of this draconian policy—including witnessing women being escorted to the "commune clinic…[where] they were aborted and sterilized." The policy, still in force today, "requires IUD’s for women of childbearing age with one child, sterilization for couples with two children (usually performed on the woman), and abortions for women pregnant without authorization," says Mosher.

After a three-year investigation of China’s policy, another report (featured in the 1/7/85 Washington Post) confirmed Mosher’s experience: "Publicly, [Chinese leaders] claim to rely on the powers of persuasion and education, exercising a policy of voluntary consent…But a closer and longer look reveals a very different picture. China…is curbing its population growth, but its success is rooted in widespread coercion, mass abortion and intrusion by the state into the most intimate of human affairs…What emerges from more than 200 interviews spaced over three years with officials, doctors, peasants and workers in almost two-thirds of China’s 20 main subdivisions is the story of an all-out government siege against ancient family traditions and the reproductive habits of a billion people."

Since his original trip in 1979, Mr. Mosher has made periodic trips into China and has commissioned others to undertake such investigations—most recent of which was September of 2001. "Today, the Chinese family planning program continues to be carried out against the popular will by means of a variety of coercive measures," Mosher said in testimony last year before the U.S. House’s International Relations Committee.

"Despite official denials and intermittent efforts to discourage some of the more blatant manifestations of…bodily coercion, coercion continues to be, as it has been from the late 1970’s, an integral part of the program. Mandatory IUD insertions, sterilizations, and abortions continue…Articles in the Chinese media openly speak of the need for coercion in family planning, and senior officials continue to endorse the policy as currently practiced."

As for the UNFPA’s involvement in China, according to the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment’s fact sheet on this subject, "The UNFPA has been deeply involved in the China program from the beginning. UNFPA officials participated in the State Family Planning Commission. In 1983, the UNFPA gave China’s family-planning minister, Qian Xinzhong, the first U.N. population award. In 1985, the U.S. Agency for International Development concluded that ‘the kind and quality of assistance provided by UNFPA contributed significantly to China’s ability to manage and implement a population program in which coercion was pervasive.’"

Mainstream media stories have repeatedly referred to the U.S. commission sent by President Bush and a similar one sponsored by the British government. Both commissions reportedly found no evidence that the UNFPA facilitates forced sterilizations and abortions in China. The main problem with these commissions is obvious: both were announced and expected by the Chinese government and the UNFPA which obviously minimized if not eliminated the chance of uncovering coercive practices and the UNFPA’s involvement in them.

The systemic problem with the UNFPA is that it views the problem of poverty as being caused primarily by too many people, rather than by economic underdevelopment or corrupt governments. Consequently, its solution to the problem is fewer people, even to the point of acquiescing to, if not cooperating in, brutal and coercive programs like that in China.

What is most outrageous and hypocritical in this debate is that organizations claiming to advocate for "reproductive freedom" are protesting the President’s decision to defund an organization that has clear ties to the most brutal regime of reproductive oppression in the world. Such protests provide further evidence that pro-abortion organizations claiming to be for "reproductive freedom" do not want real freedom, they want fewer people, and are willing to ignore or even support brutal oppression to achieve this goal.

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

Life Insight 7-26-02

Capture the Romance with Natural Family Planning

I think it’s safe to say that there is no other Catholic Church teaching more misunderstood or ignored than her teaching on sexual morality. It is a mark of our culture’s impoverished view of God, His Church and what it means to be a person that so many dismiss this teaching as restrictive, intrusive, oppressive, repressive, etc.

After all, if we truly believe that God is our Creator, we must acknowledge that He knows best what will make us happy and fulfilled as creatures made in His image and likeness. The truth and meaning of His awesome gift of our sexuality—as communicated through His Church—is intended to make us truly happy, fulfilled and free, not the opposite.

Hence, it is a source of profound sadness that so many Catholics dismiss this teaching and fail to experience the awesome beauty that comes with understanding and embracing the true nature of the human person. How sad it is that so few Catholics realize that God intended the relationship of love between husband and wife to mirror the relationship of love between God the Father and God the Son. A love that is total and holds nothing back; a love that binds them together as one; a love so real and without limit that another Person proceeds from this union of love being poured out and received: the Holy Spirit (or with husband and wife: a child).

The week of July 21-27 is designated as National Natural Family Planning Week by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This week coincides with the anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae. This document upholds and proclaims the Church’s consistent teaching on human sexuality and marital love and reaffirms that contraception is a grave violation and diminishment of this sacred gift.

Natural family planning (NFP), on the other hand, is a very effective way to postpone (when necessary) or achieve a pregnancy that also respects God’s design that marital love be always unitive and open to life. In addition to respecting God’s design for our sexuality, NFP involves no health risks from potentially harmful birth control drugs or devices and by teaching women an awareness of normal fertility patterns, can alert them to possible medical problems.

One of the most significant benefits reported by NFP couples is that it has a positive effect on their marriages. Mary Shivanandan summarizes this positive effect in the booklet "An Introduction to Natural Family Planning". This positive impact, she says, "begins with acceptance, and even wonder, at the way the human body is made…The woman gains a new respect for herself and often finds that her husband has a new supportive attitude: ‘My husband respects me as a person in my own right. He accepts my fertility as part of me.’

"This new-found confidence contrasts with what one woman explained about how she felt using contraceptives: ‘I was required to sacrifice my health…I felt as if I were an object and not an equal partner in our marriage.’ Couples using NFP accept their fertility not as a nuisance or even a disease, but as a gift.

"When the physical pleasures of sexual intercourse are a couple’s primary focus, the woman can feel used. NFP treats the woman not as a sexual object, but as the unique person she is. NFP does not downplay the importance of sexual union and sexual pleasure. Through the practice of periodic abstinence NFP helps couples to find other ways in which to be attentive to each other in each cycle…NFP can reignite the romance of dating for a married couple…When spouses love one another enough to abstain and be more considerate of each other, both become more secure in their relationship.

"Periodic abstinence is difficult at times. It also brings its own reward. Men find they can direct sexual urges in the service of love and not be controlled by it. Only if a man is in full possession of himself can he love his wife well…The nature of married love is total self-giving. If one is controlled by sex or withholds part of himself or herself (his or her fertility), that person cannot give totally to another.

"When NFP is adopted as a lifestyle, fertility is regarded as a gift and children are valued and welcomed. A sense of awe at their power to procreate strikes many couples during the fertile time. One couple remarked that ‘NFP opened our hearts to children…Children are a gift, a blessing, not a burden.’

"NFP instruction puts the emphasis on a couple’s shared responsibility not only for having children, but also for managing their combined fertility. Taking joint responsibility for fertility means that both spouses accept the challenge of abstinence during the fertile phase if they wish to avoid pregnancy. NFP requires couples to communicate. It helps them talk about many things that may have been difficult to talk about before, including their sexuality.

"Many couples say that an NFP lifestyle deepens their faith in God. ‘(NFP) involved us with the Truth…We experienced…the conversion point in our lives.’ NFP is not without challenges, but as one husband said, ‘it is clear to me that working together through the tough times strengthens and enriches our marriage.’ And as another spouse says, ‘The value I experience in NFP is in the long run…It forces you to place your immediate choices in the context of spouse, children, family and Creator."

Take a break from the treadmill of life this week and prayerfully study the beautiful and life enriching teachings of the Church on human sexuality. For some suggested documents/materials go to my website at http://www.nebcathcon.org/bpppla.htm, call my office at 402-477-7517, contact the Family Life office at 402-488-2040 or talk to your local NFP instructor. Not only will you enhance your life, your marriage, your family, and your faith, you will help form a new culture of life and love.

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

Life Insight 7-12-02

Pro Life Federal Legislative Update

No Agreement on Cloning Debate Process in Senate. On Tuesday, June 11, it appeared that an agreement might be reached on how to proceed with the Senate cloning debate. However, the following day, negotiations broke down when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) insisted on a process that would put the Brownback/Landrieu "Human Cloning Prohibition Act (S. 1899) at a distinct disadvantage. S. 1899 would ban all cloning of human embryos and is supported by the Catholic Church and pro-life organizations.

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), the Senate Majority Leader, no longer considers himself bound by his pledge to bring the cloning issue to the Senate floor which will make it very difficult to get a vote on this bill in the Senate. The House passed the bill last year by a margin of more than 100 votes which included the support of all 3 Nebraska representatives. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) has pledged to continue to find some way to get a vote on this bill. Sen. Chuck Hagel is a co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Ben Nelson supports the bill, but is not a co-sponsor.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Reintroduced. On June 19, a bipartisan group of cosponsors reintroduced the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965). This measure was previously approved by the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. The first two bills were vetoed by President Clinton and the third was stalled when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Stenberg v. Carhart opinion (6/28/2000), in which it declared Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban law unconstitutional. In response to the Court's ruling, the new bill uses a more precise definition of partial-birth abortion (the high court said Nebraska’s definition was too vague) and incorporates Congress's factual findings that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman. In regard to the health question, the Supreme Court in Carhart was required to accept the erroneous factual findings of the lower trial court. Congress, however, possesses an independent authority to reach findings of fact.

Senate Approves Use of Military Facilities for Abortion. On June 21, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization bill (S. 2514), the Senate voted, 52-yes, 40-no, to approve the Murray-Snowe Amendment that would allow military health facilities to be used to perform abortions for any reason. On May 10, the House voted 202-yes, 215-no, to reject a similar, but narrower, proposal (Nebraska’s three reps voted no). Under current law, military health care facilities may not be used to perform abortions except when a mother’s life is in danger and in cases of rape or incest (10 USC 1093). The differences between House and Senate defense bills will be resolved in conference committee. Both Senators Hagel and Nelson voted against this pro-abortion amendment.

Patenting Ban Set Aside. On June 13, during Senate floor consideration of the terrorism insurance measure (S. 2600), Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and John Ensign (R-NV) offered amendments to ban patents on human organisms. This action was prompted by the granting of a patent on a human cloning technique and its products. The "product" of human cloning is a human embryo, which means that the recipient of this patent has ownership rights over the human embryos produced by its cloning technique.

Unfortunately, on June 14, Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, filed a motion on S. 2600 to prevent the consideration of these amendments. Daschle’s motion was adopted on a vote of 65-31. Sen. Chuck Hagel voted against Daschle’s motion, Sen. Ben Nelson voted for it.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act – A campaign is underway attacking the right of Catholic hospitals and other health care institutions to refuse to perform or promote abortion. In response to these threats, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 4691, S. 2008) clarifies and strengthens conscience protection language found in current law (42 U.S.C. 238n). It expands the definition of the term "health care entity" and extends protection to entities refusing to provide coverage of, or pay for, abortion. The measure has 51 cosponsors including Representative Lee Terry from Omaha.

For a more complete report on pro-life legislation pending in Congress, go online to http://nchla.org/legisdisplay.asp?ID=95 or contact my office at 402-477-7517. It is essential to the formation of a culture of life and love that we thank our elected representatives when they cast pro-life votes, and challenge them (with due charity) when they do not.

Contact information for our members of Congress is: Sen. Chuck Hagel, 248 Russell Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510, 202-224-4224, Chuck_Hagel@Hagel.senate.gov , Sen. Ben Nelson, 720 Hart Bldg, 202-224-6551, senator@bennelson.senate.gov , Rep. Doug Bereuter, 2184 Rayburn HOB, Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-4806, Rep. Lee Terry, 1513 Longworth HOB, 202225-4155, talk2lee@mail.house.gov , Rep Tom Osborne, 507 Cannon HOB, 202-225-6435.

| Back to Top |