THE CONFERENCE:

Candidate Surveys

      (11/2008)

Legislative Issues

NCC/Publications:

  -NCC Statements &

   Current Issues

 -Medical Treatment

     Decision-making  

                      (1/06)

  -Bishops' Statements

    *Behavioral Health

     Statement (2/05)

  -Capitol 

   Correspondent:

    Columns-2008

    Past Columns

  *********

PRO LIFE:

Calendar of Events

Current Issues

NE Catholics for Life

  -NCL Newsletter

  -A People of Life

                Brochure

Life Insight: 

  Columns-2008

  Past Columns

Preg. Help Centers

Project Rachel

2008 PL Conferences

 -Lincoln Conference

 -Youth Conference

 -Scottsbluff Conf.

Printed Resources

*********

Education Issues:

The NFCSP

Education/Legislation

Action Alerts!!

Newsletter: 

 Parent Advocate

2008

Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience.  By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.

Life Insight 2003

By Greg Schleppenbach, Part I, January-June

Life Insight 6-27-03

Exorcising the Abortion Demon

"When they [brought the possessed boy to Jesus] the spirit caught sight of Jesus and immediately threw the boy into convulsions. As he fell to the ground he began to roll around and foam at the mouth" (Mk. 9:20). This quote has been very much on my mind lately as I observe what I believe are the convulsions of the abortion demon at the prospect of exorcism from our society. Some examples:

The NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America Foundation is launching a $3 million ad campaign that warns of a day when the Supreme Court overrules its infamous 1973 decision legalizing abortion. The advertising is timed to coincide with the enactment of a federal ban on partial birth abortions, as well as potential retirements that could affect the balance of power in the Supreme Court.

According to those who have seen the television ads, the music is ominous, the look on a woman's face is one of horror as the commercial opens to show a fictitious newspaper headline that reads ``Abortion outlawed, Court overturns right to choose.'' The ad then runs back in time, and ends with the declaration that `there's still time to protect your right to choose.''

According to a June 10 Associated Press article, the nation's largest pro-abortion organizations are planning a march on Washington next spring, calling it a first step toward organizing millions of voters for the 2004 presidential elections. Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that the last abortion rights march, which she claims brought 500,000 people to Washington in 1992, helped get voters to the polls that fall to defeat the first President Bush. ``Don't think this is not about mobilizing people for 2004,'' Michelman said. ``And we're in a much greater threat today than in 1992.''

Other organizers of the April 25 march include the Feminist Majority, National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. ``We refuse to be the generation that both won and lost reproductive rights,'' Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt said.

Nine pro-abortion groups, including NARAL Pro-Choice American and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, have formed a joint not-for-profit organization aimed specifically at opposing a potential Supreme Court nominee who does not support abortion. The group has $5 million to conduct a media campaign attacking any nominee who opposes abortion.

Pro-abortion Democrats (led mostly by "Catholic" Democrats) are increasingly brazen in their morally corrupt efforts to "go to the wall" in opposing President Bush's judicial nominees because they are pro-life.  Democratic senators (led by "Catholics" such as Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy and John Kerry) are currently filibustering three nominees to Appellate Court judgeships primarily because they are pro-life.

Sen. John Kerry told a campaign audience that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion and the Roe v. Wade decision. He also said he is prepared to block any of President Bush's pro-life nominees for judicial positions. "I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose…"

The cultural and moral fallout produced by the scandal of these "in-your-face" pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians is incalculable. It is essential that we pray for their conversion and for God’s mercy on their souls. It is also important that we pray for their Bishops to do what is right and just in challenging them to repent and thereby mitigate the terrible scandal they perpetrate.

There is no more fundamental issue facing humanity today than the question of who is a member of the human family. Public officials who would deny some humans from recognition and protection as persons are unfit for public office no matter how compassionate they may seem toward those they deem worthy of inclusion as persons.

One obvious way that we can have an impact on who serves us in public office is to vote only for candidates who will recognize and protect human life at every stage of development. Another practical action we can take is to show our appreciation to President Bush for nominating such candidates to the judiciary and to let him know just how important the selection of a Supreme Court nominee is to us. Through Project Rosebud you can send the President a single red rose with a personalized message encouraging him to appoint a pro-life nominee to the Supreme Court.  This can be done online at: www.afa.net/petitions/email/rosebud.html.

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

Life Insight 6-13-03

Third Times a Charm for PBA?

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 760) by a 2 to 1 bipartisan margin (282 to 139). The U.S. Senate adopted the bill earlier this year by a 2 to 1 margin as well. Nebraska’s two senators and three representatives all voted in favor of this ban and for this deserve our gratitude. This is the third time in eight years that the U.S. Congress has adopted a ban on partial-birth abortions. The first two times, President Clinton vetoed the bills and the Senate was unable to override the veto. This time, President Bush has promised to sign the bill into law.

The bill prohibits a procedure that is closer to infanticide than abortion. By definition, it prohibits any abortion in which the baby is delivered alive until "in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother," or if the baby is delivered head first, "the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," before being killed.

According to Doug Johnson of National Right to Life (June 4 press release), "it is well documented that partial-birth abortions are performed by the thousands, mostly on healthy babies of healthy mothers in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, and sometimes even later.  The New York Times, among others, has reported that this is conceded even by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers -- a trade association of abortion providers:  ‘In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons said.’"

"But what about Stenberg v. Carhart,?" you say. Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decide that such bans are unconstitutional when it struck down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion? Not exactly. The Court struck down Nebraska’s law for two main reasons: (1) it said the definition of partial birth abortion was too vague and therefore could prohibit other abortion procedures; (2) it did not contain an exception allowing the procedure when a mother’s health is endangered by the pregnancy. This federal bill remedies these two concerns of the Court by providing a more precise definition of partial-birth abortion and by incorporating Congress’s factual findings that partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

In Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court was required to rely on the very questionable factual finding of the district court that partial-birth abortion was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures. However, the great weight of evidence demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the woman’s health, poses significant health risks to the woman, and is outside the standard of medical care.

As the bill indicates, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, Congress "is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard" (Sec. 2(8)). Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings "and to enact legislation based on these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence" (Sec. 2(8)).

The "I’ve-never-seen-an-abortion-I-can’t-defend" crowd (i.e. Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Rights Action League, etc.) has already announced that they will file a legal challenge to the law the minute it is signed by President Bush. The challenge is likely to work its way back up to the U.S. Supreme Court where it is anyone’s guess whether it will uphold or strike down this law which represents the will of two-thirds of Congress and two-thirds or more of the American people.

Cardinal Bevilacqua, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities, commenting about this threatened court challenge said, "Nothing in our Constitution demands that unborn children must be subjected to a procedure so violent and painful. . . . To cloak the act in the Constitution is a national disgrace." Indeed, every abortion and every act of violence and degradation against human dignity is a national disgrace and another nail in the coffin of our humanity. Please pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten and guide the minds and hearts of our judges, elected officials and all persons who shape our public policy.

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

Life Insight 5-30-03

The Contraception Deception

Observers of wartime propaganda have pointed out that the first casualty of war is the truth. Who will ever forget Iraq’s information minister declaring on Iraqi television that American troops were not in Baghdad or in control of its airport while television images clearly exposed his lie? Truth is also the first casualty in culture wars. That is, verbal engineering (the redefining of terms) always precedes social engineering. William Brennan in his book Dehumanizing the Vulnerable said "Those who control language control thought, and eventually semantic corruption leads to the adulteration of thought itself."

The verbal engineering preceding the push for legal abortion was clearly exposed in an editorial in the September 1970 issue of California Medicine: "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continued whether intra-or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put forth under socially impeccable auspices."

Ten years prior to this editorial, a related agenda was underway (led by Planned Parenthood) to redefine the beginning of human life to facilitate society’s acceptance of contraception. As authors Marshall and Donovan point out in Blessed are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood, such verbal engineering was necessary because of the invention of the intrauterine device (IUD) which operates primarily by preventing a conceived embryo from implantation in the womb.

Planned Parenthood (PP) knew darn well that this constituted an abortion, not contraception, as evidenced by Dr. Abraham Stone at PP’s 1952 international conference: "The mechanical and chemical methods currently employed…that would prevent ovulation [the monthly release of eggs in a woman] or fertilization merely prevent life from beginning…Measures designed to prevent implantation fall into a different category. Here there is a question of destroying a life already begun." ("Blessed are the Barren", pg. 291)

Planned Parenthood also knew that many people would reject contraception if they knew that it could operate as an abortifacient instead of a contraceptive. In 1962, Dr. Mary Calderone, PP’s medical director said that "if it turns out that these intrauterine devices operate as abortifacients, not only the Catholic Church will be against them, but Protestant churches as well." (Ibid. page 292)

Consequently, PP turned to verbal engineering to counter this problem. They worked to arbitrarily change the definition of conception and pregnancy from fertilization to implantation. This way, those devices that can operate by preventing implantation of a conceived embryo could be called "contraception" instead of abortion. It’s strategy worked and in 1965, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology embraced this new definition in the first issue of its publication Terminology Bulletin, which stated "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum".

Clearly, this redefining of conception was ideological, not scientific as was pointed out by Dr. J. Richard Sosnowski, head of the Southern Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a member group of ACOG, in his 1974 presidential address: "I do not deem it excellent to play semantic gymnastics in a profession…It is equally troublesome to me that, with no scientific evidence to validate the change, the definition of conception as [fertilization] was redefined as the implantation of a fertilized ovum. It appears to me that the only reason for this was the dilemma produced by the possibility that the intrauterine contraceptive device might function as an abortifacient." (ibid, page 293)

In addition to the IUD, the birth control pill and other hormonal contraception can operate in an abortifacient manner. According to the manufacturers of these drugs, they can operate in three ways: 1. To prevent ovulation. ; 2. To make the cervical mucous hostile to the advancement of the sperm or 3. To make the lining of the womb non-receptive to the implantation of a conceived embryo should the first two mechanisms fail to prevent conception. The first 2 mechanisms are contraceptive, the third is abortifacient.

According to an excellent article by Walter Larimore, MD and Joseph Stanford, MD in the Archives of Family Medicine (2/9/00), some studies on hormonal contraceptives reported a breakthrough ovulation rate of 40-60 percent. That means "the pill" failed to prevent ovulation 40-60 percent of the time. And since the cervical mucous becomes "fertile" when a woman ovulates, the second contraceptive mechanism of "the pill" (mentioned above) likely fails in these cases as well.

Therefore, to the extent these studies represent reality, this means that a significant amount of the time that hormonal contraceptives (such as the pill) are used by fertile and sexually active women, they are causing early abortions instead of preventing conception. Sadly, few women are aware of this possibility because too many physicians have bought into the "semantic corruption" of the culture of death.

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

Life Insight 5-23-03

Schadenfreude

"Sinners have long cherished the fantasy that William Bennett, the virtue magnate, might be among our number. The news over the weekend—that Bennett’s $50,000 sermons and best-selling moral instruction manuals have financed a multimillion dollar gambling habit—has lit a lamp of happiness in even the darkest hearts." These were the opening words in a May 4 column by Michael Kinsley in Slate magazine. Kinsley was a former co-host of CNN’s Crossfire program and was writing about a report that Bennett had placed $8 million in bets over the last 10 years.

Sadly, Kinsley’s words represent a significant segment of our society that is gleeful to see Bennett, who has written and lectured extensively on the topic of virtue, admit to a vice. Gleeful is not an overstatement. Kinsley went on to say, "If there were a Pulitzer Prize for schadenfreude (joy in the suffering of others), Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green of the Washington Monthly would surely deserve it for bringing us this story."

Clarence Page, a syndicated columnist, wrote on May 8, that he "would be delighted to let Bennett…gamble all he wants without a peep of protest, if he would just give Sen. Rick Santorum and other modern-day puritans a spirited Bennett-style lecture on the virtue of staying out of other people’s personal business." Sen. Santorum had recently spoken in support of Texas’ anti-sodomy law saying that if the courts overturn it, then states would have no standing to prohibit all kinds of other sexually disordered behavior (e.g. polygamy, bigamy, incest).

How does this relate to the life issues? It is a concrete example of at least a couple of the destructive dynamics that foster our culture of death. The first dynamic is the notion that those who promote and teach virtue are self-righteous, pompous, judgmental, and sinless puritans. I think it’s fair to say that this notion is a product of moral relativism which asserts that there are no moral absolutes. All behavior and opinions are equal and anyone who suggests some behavior is morally superior/inferior is self-righteous and judgmental.

One national commentator suggested, correctly I believe, that Mr. Bennett’s detractors wish to not only discredit him personally, but primarily wish to discredit what he advocates: virtue and objective truth. Most people who have acquiesced to a certain lifestyle or proclivity chafe at the suggestion that their behavior is objectively disordered or sinful. Rather than embracing the more difficult task of overcoming the sinfulness, they embrace efforts to normalize the behavior and oppose and even vilify those who resist.

This is clearly exemplified in the case of abortion. It is quite common for those who have had or have encouraged an abortion to become more supportive of its legality. They believe that the more legitimized and accepted abortion becomes, the less guilty they will feel about their abortion. Anyone who suggests that abortion is objectively and gravely sinful is quickly marginalized as a religious, anti-choice, anti-woman extremist.

Second, is the notion that one has to be sinless in order to advocate against sinful behavior; that someone’s past or even present struggles disqualify them from advocating for a higher standard of behavior, for an objective distinction between right and wrong—for virtue. This notion is all too present in many parent-child relationships where parents conclude that their past mistakes (usually in the sexual realm) disqualify them from expecting and facilitating a higher standard for their children—lest they be hypocrites.

A hypocrite, however, is someone who doesn’t believe or even try to practice what he/she preaches, not someone who believes and tries to practice what he/she preaches but occasionally fails to do so. The true judge of a person’s character is whether they are trying to achieve a higher standard of virtue, not whether they succeed.

Virtue is desirable and true because it is objectively linked to our nature and, therefore, our happiness as human beings made in the image and likeness of God. This truth is not falsified when we fail to live it. Indeed, our fallen human nature means we cannot achieve perfection on earth—we can only strive for it. It is important to the building of a culture of life and love that we recognize that striving for virtue in our selves, our family and our culture is not dependent upon our perfection.

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

Life Insight 5-16-03

Abortions Continue Steady Decline in Nebraska

Nebraska law requires the reporting of certain information related to abortions. Every year a report of this information is produced and distributed by the Nebraska Health and Human Services System. The recently released report for 2002 revealed that 3,775 surgical abortions were reportedly performed, which is 5 percent fewer than in 2001 and the lowest number since 1975. Abortions in Nebraska have declined 27 percent over the last 5 years.

That’s the silver lining to the dark cloud of 3,775 innocent human beings killed by abortion—and the dark cloud of an equal or larger number of women and men whose hearts and souls have been wounded.

Here are the details of the report:

A copy of this report can be obtained free of charge by contacting the Nebraska Department of Regulation and Licensure at 402-471-2241.

Surely the devil celebrates the violence and destruction of innocent human life represented by these statistics. But I think he celebrates even more the deadening of the consciences and the hardening of hearts of those who participate in this violence and destruction. Let us pray that God’s amazing grace will penetrate the hearts and minds of these individuals and bring about a civilization of life and love.

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

Life Insight 5-9-03

Poor Choice Not Pro Choice

It’s a commonly known axiom that the person who defines the terms of the debate typically wins the debate. Advocates of legal abortion know this axiom well and have mastered it. Clearly the kingpin in the abortion advocate’s deceptive vocabulary is the term "choice". The ugly and destructive term "abortion" has been masterfully replaced with the empowering and positive term "choice". With such a simple verbal substitution, those who advocate a right to the indefensible act of destroying innocent human beings prior to birth are transformed into advocates of choice and reproductive freedom.

David Reardon, PhD, founder of the Elliot Institute, wants to replace that masterful, but deceptive term, "pro-choice", with an equally masterful—but totally accurate and truthful—term: "poor choice". "Would you please join me in an effort to erode the power of the "pro-choice" mantra?" Dr. Reardon asks in his latest newsletter The Post-Abortion Review (April-June 2003). "Just substitute these two words [poor choice] into every place where "choice" or "pro-choice" would be used by poor-choicers".

Dr. Reardon knows as well as anyone how poor a choice abortion is. In 1988, he founded the Elliot Institute to conduct original research and education on the impact of abortion on women, men, siblings, and society. His work has been at the forefront in exposing the psychological, physical and spiritual aftermath of abortion.

"Poor-choicers pound away at this mantra of ‘choice’", says Dr. Reardon, "in an unrelenting effort to enthrall their listeners with a warm, fuzzy desire to protect the ideal American liberty without ever actually weighing the cost of the choice that is being offered—an ugly, dangerous abortion. Abortion is not a liberating, healthy choice. In most cases, women who submit to abortions only do so in response to the pressures of circumstance (or other people). Often, they simply feel that they have ‘no choice’ but the poor choice of abortion."

"The simple truth," he continues, "is that for most women, abortion costs much more than the $400 collected by their abortionists. Millions of women are paying for their abortions each day in the form of intractable heartache, clinical depression, anxiety, substance abuse, self-destructive behavior, impacted guilt, increased difficulties with marriage and parenting, infertility, miscarriage, and premature births leading to disabilities in their later born children—to name just a few of the many complications commonly linked to abortion."

By any objective, rational analysis, abortion—that is, mothers having their own offspring destroyed—is a poor choice. In fact, it’s a disastrous choice. Can anyone name any other problem that society suggests can be overcome by killing innocent human beings?

In addition to the term "poor-choice" being more truthful than "pro-choice" its "similarity in sound to ‘pro-choice’ is especially powerful in linking the two ideas," says Dr. Reardon. "After hearing the phrase ‘poor-choice’ often enough, even abortionists will begin to struggle with ‘poor-choice’ popping into their heads when they are trying to say pro-choice!"

The term "poor-choice" also compliments the "women deserve better" message that is being used by pro-life organizations to highlight the fact that abortion represents an abandonment of women; a failure of society to address the problems that drive women to the violence of abortion. "Used together," says Dr. Reardon, "these slogans emphasize the fact that those of us who are opposed to abortion really do care about women. We really do believe that abortion is a poor choice and women deserve better."

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

Life Insight 5-2-03

Fetal Homicide Laws Expose the Lie of "Choice"

Fetal homicide laws must surely cause severe headaches to the spin doctors in the public relations firms hired by the abortion industry and its advocates. Fetal homicide laws (found in more than half the states, including Nebraska) recognize the unborn (at various stages of development) as persons in cases where the mother wants the child, and is assaulted causing the death of the child (e.g. a drunk driver or an attacker). Nebraska’s law (enacted last year, and a civil penalties version enacted this year) recognizes the unborn as persons in these situations from the time of conception.

The recent discovery of the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn child (named Connor) in San Francisco Bay is a good case in point. Laci’s husband, Scott Peterson, was charged with two counts of homicide because California is one of the states with a fetal homicide law. California’s law has been interpreted by its courts to apply to "fetuses" only after seven or eight weeks of development (Laci was 8 months pregnant when she disappeared last December).

Fetal homicide laws cannot apply to the unborn in the context of abortion because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings establishing abortion as a Constitutional right that cannot be unduly infringed. At the same time, the Supreme Court never said that states could not recognize and protect the unborn as persons outside the context of abortion. Consequently, no fetal homicide law has been struck down as unconstitutional, even though it is morally incoherent to treat the unborn as persons in one context and not the other.

Abortion advocates don’t quite know how to respond to such laws, let alone their application in cases such as the Peterson’s where the public can see two separate dead bodies. The president of a New Jersey chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW) reacted indignantly to the double murder charge saying: "If this is murder, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder."

She later backed away from the statement after receiving much public criticism and a damage control conversation with the national office of NOW. Ultimately, NOW’s national office discretely declined to comment on their New Jersey chapter’s comments or fetal homicide laws in general "out of respect for [Peterson’s] family and what their going through."

But the consternation and outright hostility of abortion advocates toward fetal homicide laws is clear. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) referred to such laws in a fundraising letter as threatening "a woman’s right to choose." In Nebraska, abortion advocates opposed our fetal homicide law in favor of a proposal to simply increase the penalties to existing laws for those who attack a pregnant woman and cause harm to her "fetus." Even though these laws do absolutely nothing to restrict abortion, abortion advocates are scared to death at the prospect of recognizing the unborn as persons in other contexts.

It must be pointed out, as I did in a recent debate with an abortionist, that such laws are totally consistent with the abortion rhetoric of "choice". The abortionist stated during the debate that the mother alone should decide when the fetus becomes a "baby" (i.e. has value as a person). This was a perfect set up for me to ask her if she supports fetal homicide laws. Of course not, she replied.

"But wait a minute," I said. "You just said that the woman alone decides when the fetus becomes a baby. To be true to this "pro-choice" belief you must fight just as hard for the rights of women who believe the unborn are persons (and want recognition of this in the case of fetal homicide) as you do for the rights of women who do not have this belief (and seek an abortion)." She had no coherent response. Of course, how could anyone coherently defend the proposition that the value of a human life (i.e. personhood) is dependent upon whether the human being is wanted (in the case of fetal homicide) or not (in the case of abortion)?

The fact that she and other abortion apologists refuse to recognize the choice of women who want their unborn babies recognized as persons (when they are killed against their will) is proof that "pro-choice" is a lie.

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

Life Insight 4-25-03

Pray Think and Act

A little more than a year ago, I inaugurated Nebraska Catholics for Life (NCL) to create a direct channel of prayer, education and action between my office and individual Catholics. NCL is not a new pro-life organization, it is simply an avenue for Catholics to be affiliated with the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities (the official pro-life program of the Catholic Church in the United States) and to better understand the Church’s teachings and approach to pro-life issues.

In a quarterly newsletter, NCL members are asked to pray, think and act in order to help build a new culture of life and love. Each newsletter contains some form of prayer for the cause of life (PRAY), a couple of educational topics (THINK), and concrete, reasonable activities (ACT). The educational topics are usually presented in a concise, quick reference format that makes it usable for defending and proclaiming the truth about life and love.

Building a new culture of life and love starts by transforming ourselves and those

around us. We cannot give what we do not have, so we must fill our reservoir through prayer and study—and then act. Nebraska Catholics for Life is intended to help Catholics fill their reservoirs and prompt them to action. My goal for NCL is to help members and ultimately all Catholics to:

In the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities (revised in 2001), the Bishops "call for individual Catholics and the many institutions and organizations of the Church to unite in an unprecedented effort to restore respect and legal protection for every human life—to be what the Holy Father asks us to be: a people of life and people for life (The Gospel of life, no. 78)."

Everyone has God-given talents or abilities that can and should be put to the service of this "unprecedented effort". And there are certainly countless ways for individuals to engage in, and contribute to, this effort. Joining NCL and helping with pro-life activities in your parish would be a good start. To join NCL, simply contact my office (402-477-7517) for a brochure or go online to http://www.nebcathcon.org/ncl.htm.

"It is our hope and expectation", say the Bishops in the Pastoral Plan, "that in focusing on the need to respect and protect the lives of the innocent unborn and those who are disabled, ill, or dying, we will help to deepen respect for the life of every human being."

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

Life Insight 4-18-03

The Scandal of Pro-Abortion "Catholic" Politicians

Certainly history will write that one of the worst moral scandals in late 20^th and early 21^st centuries was the enshrinement and defense of legal abortion on demand by Catholic public officials. Starting with Justice William Brennan, the Catholic mastermind of the Roe v Wade decision, and sustained by scores of pro-abortion Catholic politicians, it seems unlikely that 30 years of legal abortion and 40 million aborted children would have been possible without the support of Catholic public officials.

Currently, there are 25 members of the U.S. Senate who are identified as Catholic. Fifteen of these typically vote pro-abortion. Their names (followed by party and state) are: Lisa Murkowski (D-AK), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME), Jack Reed (D-RI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

The ten senators who typically vote anti-abortion are: Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jim Bunning (R-KY), John Breaux (D-LA), John Sununu (R-NH), Pete Dominici (R-NM), Mike DeWine (R-OH), George Voinovich (R-OH), Don Nickles (R-OK), Rich Santorum (R-PA).

In the U.S. House of Representatives, there are currently 125 members who identify themselves as Catholic. The number of members who typically vote pro-abortion and anti-abortion are roughly split in half with slightly more having pro-abortion or mixed voting records.

Sadly, it is not only that these pro-abortion politicians vote to support legal abortion, many of them are unapologetic cheerleaders for legal abortion. Many of them have used their leadership positions to keep abortion legal by, among other ways, bottling up pro-life legislation and fighting against judicial nominees who have any history that might indicate opposition to Roe v Wade. Many have even made keeping abortion legal a significant component of their campaign promises, while attacking their opponent’s pro-life position. If that’s not scandal, then scandal does not exist. And it is incomprehensible to me that many of these "Catholic" officials haven’t even been publicly admonished by their Bishop in order to mitigate this scandal.

In the document "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 Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life."

"Today, Catholics risk cooperating in a false pluralism", the Bishops continue. "Secular society will allow believers to have whatever moral convictions they please—as long as they keep them on the private preserves of their consciences, in their homes and churches, and out of the public arena. Democracy is not a substitute for morality, nor a panacea fro immorality. Its value stands—or falls—with the values which it embodies and promotes. Only tireless promotion of the truth about the human person can infuse democracy with the right values. This is what Jesus meant when he asked us to be leaven in society.

"American Catholics have long sought to assimilate into U.S. cultural life. But in assimilating, we have too often been digested. We have been changed by our culture too much, and we have changed it not enough. If we are leaven, we must bring to our culture the whole Gospel, which is a Gospel of life and joy. That is our vocation as believers. And there is no better place to start than promoting the beauty and sanctity of human life."

Let us pray for mercy on the souls of—and the conversion of—those public officials who support the destruction of prenatal human lives. Let us also pray for courageous spiritual leaders who will confront and correct them, for the good of their souls and for the good of the whole body of Christ.

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

Life Insight 4-11-03

Surprise, Mom, I’m Pro Life

A couple of weeks ago, I received a call from Elizabeth Hayt, a reporter with the New York Times newspaper. She was doing a story on the increasingly pro-life views of young people (i.e. teenagers and college students). She called to ask me for the names of some college students whose pro-life views were based more on secular arguments. She had already talked to students whose views were religiously influenced. I gave her a few leads.

Normally with such calls I am inclined to give the information, wish them well, and go about my business. This time, perhaps because it was the ultra-liberal New York Times, or perhaps it was my own ego, I asked her how she got my name. "I did a Google search on the internet under the topic of pro-life", she said. I wish I had probed further to find out how she picked me out of what must have been hundreds if not thousands of contacts she would have gotten from that internet search.

I then asked her what was the impetus for this topic. She told me that she’s a pro-choice, liberal feminist and after watching President Bush’s State of the Union address with her young son, he told her that he’s against abortion. Naturally, given her ideological leanings, she was surprised (and probably disturbed) to discover her son's anti-abortion beliefs. 

She told me that she knew he didn't learn this from her and she checked out his school and was reassured that he didn't learn it there.  Her conclusion was that he was getting it from "the culture".  This apparently intrigued her enough to write the story entitled, "Surprise, Mom: I’m Anti-Abortion" which appeared in the Sunday March 30 edition of the New York Times.  

In the article Ms. Hayt quotes a couple of high school students whose pro-life views are at variance with the views of their parents. "I don’t believe in abortion under any circumstances, including rape," said one girl. "I think it would be better to overturn Roe v Wade." Another girl said "It’s more about the baby’s rights than the woman’s rights."

Ms. Hayt also cites a couple of polls demonstrating the shifting of public opinion on abortion among college students. The University of California at Los Angeles surveyed 282,549 students at 437 schools last fall revealing that the percentage of students who believe abortion should be legal dropped from 67 percent a decade ago to 54 percent today. Similarly, a New York Times/CBS News poll in January found that among people 18 to 29, the share who agree that abortion should be generally available to those who want it was 39 percent, down from 48 percent in 1993

Ms. Hayt’s experience with her son and the pro-life trend featured in her story are cause for great hope. I wish that I had thought to tell her that the most likely reason her son is pro-life is because of a peculiar phenomenon know as natural law. God our Father has lovingly written the truth about life on the heart of every person—believer and non-believer alike.

As our Holy Father said in Evangelium Vitae (#2) "Even in the midst of difficulties anduncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree."

Even our nation’s Declaration of Independence acknowledges this natural law when it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (emphasis added).

Let us pray that this beautiful, self-evident truth written on each person’s heart may resonate above the sin and darkness that aggressively seeks to squelch it.

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

Life Insight 4-4-03

Pro Life Legislative Update

The following is a summary of some of the pro-life-related legislation working its way through our state Legislature and through the U.S. Congress. For background, after a bill is introduced into the Nebraska Unicameral, it receives a public hearing. If voted out of committee, the bill goes through three rounds of debate (known as General File, Select File, and Final Reading) by the entire Legislature (49 senators). To advance to Select File and Final Reading, and to be enacted, the bill needs at least 25 votes.

Nebraska Legislation

Federal Legislation

For more information on these and other pro-life-related bills call me for a summary (402-477-7517) or go online to www.nebcathcon.org (state) or nchla.org/report.html (federal).

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

Life Insight 3-28-03

Begotten Not Made

"Woman gives birth to own grandkids" read the headline to an Omaha World-Herald story (10-20-02) about a woman who served as a surrogate mother to the twin daughters of her daughter. Another story about in vitro fertilization (producing human embryos in a petri dish) and surrogate motherhood appeared a few weeks ago in the Lincoln Journal-Star (3-9-03). These stories are about bringing forth new life; they speak of the miracle of life. So what could possibly be wrong with that?

Given the good end of new human life and the intense sorrow that often accompanies the inability to conceive or bear a child, who wants to be the one to point out that the good end of having children cannot be achieved by any and all means? Certainly, it is praiseworthy to seek ways to overcome infertility (and moral means do exist), but there are limits to acceptable methods for conceiving a child.

A 1987 Vatican document, entitled Donum Vitae, explains those limits. Generally speaking, it teaches that if a given medical intervention assists the marriage act to achieve pregnancy, it may be considered moral; if the intervention replaces the marriage act in order to engender life, it is not moral.

"Human beings bear the image and likeness of God," says John Haas, PhD., S.T.L. in his article "Begotten Not Made" (1999 Respect Life Program). "They are to be reverenced as sacred. Never are they to be used as a means to an end, not even to satisfy the deepest wishes of an infertile couple. Husbands and wives ‘make love,’ they do not ‘make babies.’ They give expression to their love for one another, and a child may or may not be engendered by that act of love. The marital act is not a manufacturing process, and children are not products. Like the Son of God himself, we are the kind of beings who are ‘begotten, not made’ and, therefore, of equal status and dignity with our parents."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The ‘supreme gift of marriage’ is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged ‘right to a child’ would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right ‘to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,’ and ‘the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.’"

Unfortunately, most Catholics are not aware of the Church’s teaching that many reproductive technologies (such as in vitro fertilization or IVF) are immoral, and some have used them in attempting to have children. As Dr. Haas points out, "[i]f a couple is unaware that the procedure is immoral, they are not subjectively guilty of sin. Children conceived through this procedure are [obviously] children of God and…[l]ike all children, regardless of the circumstances of their conception and birth…should be loved, cherished and cared for."

Why is IVF immoral? In vitro fertilization requires obtaining eggs from a woman and sperm from the man and joining them in a petri dish to produce embryos that are implanted in the woman. Clearly, in vitro fertilization eliminates or replaces the marriage act as the means of bringing about new human life. This is not what God intended. God designed one context worthy of the dignity of the conception of a new human being: the loving act of intercourse between a husband and wife.

God designed this act with two essential and inseparable elements: unitive and procreative. That is, the marital act must unite husband and wife in one flesh (unitive) and it must be a total (unimpeded) gift of self which is always open to the possibility of new life (procreative). God’s very life as a relationship of persons (the Trinity) provides the model for this teaching. The love between Father and Son is so real and without limit that another Person proceeds from this union of love: the Holy Spirit.

Fortunately for those who experience infertility, there are morally acceptable interventions to overcome this problem. For example, Dr. Haas points out that "surgery can overcome tubal blockages in the male or female reproductive system which prevent fertilization from taking place. Fertility drugs may also be used, with the caution that large multiple pregnancies may put mother and infants at risk."

There is also an exciting new field of natural procreative technologies (NaProTechnology), which seeks to uncover the origin of a person’s infertility and overcome it (unlike artificial reproductive technologies which merely circumvent the problem with great cost and little success). NaProTechnology was founded by Dr. Thomas Hilgers at the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha (402-390-6600 or www.popepaulvi.com).

Theologian Msgr. William Smith, with his inimitable wit, summed up quite cogently the sexual practices of late 20^th Century mankind with this paraphrased statement: For 30 years (following the sexual revolution), society has done everything possible to have sex without babies. Now, with artificial reproductive technologies, society is doing everything possible to have babies without sex. As we contemplate the Annunciation of our Lord, let us ask Mary, model of purity and of submission to God’s will, to pray for us.

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

Life Insight 3-21-03

The Everyday Apostle II

In last week’s column I introduced the book, "The Everyday Apostle", by Fr. Edward F. Garesche. This marvelous tool helps individuals to represent Christ to others, and thereby attack the deepest root of the culture of death: our culture’s impoverished relationship with God our Creator. The book, which is obtainable through Catholic bookstores or from Sophia Institute Press (1-800-888-9344), provides easy, commonsense ways to draw others to Christ.

This week I will focus on Fr. Garesche’s suggestions for the home and the workplace.

"Home," says Fr. Garesche, "is a little commonwealth, where each one…[m]other and father…down to the youngest child…has his share in making or unmaking the peacefulness and holiness of home." Our daily and common speech is how we most influence the environment of our home.

Parents are cautioned to be aware of the example they set in their speech. Father points out how parents, wanting their children to avoid their own shortcomings and sins, will correct their children’s uncharitable remarks. "But has not the lad heard you for years dwelling on the faults of your friends?", Father asks. "Can one brief gust of studied sermonizing avail to sweep away that heavy, brooding cloud of innumerable daily acts and words? It is worthwhile, then…to give some care and thought to how we may carry on this Apostleship of the Home."

"First," he says, "there are things we should not speak of at all…slander and rash judgment…little sneers, discreditable anecdotes, left-handed compliments ("I always liked that person, but")". He also warns us against "forever praising men whose only claim to praise is that they have succeeded in getting name and fame, or lands and gold…" [I]t is a crime to let the little ones hear us singing our psalms to mammon day after day, as though worldly fortune were the last end of man. Will not they, too, become little idolaters and give incense to the god of gold? Do we not sometimes forget that what we most praise will be what our sons and daughters will very likely most desire in the days to be?"

What should we talk about? Fr. Garesche’s answer borrows from St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians: "’Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever, just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things’ and speak of them in the kind commerce of family talk." More practically, Father suggests that if we would read more Catholic newspapers and books to give us more food for thought, "our lips would blossom easily enough into worthy and Catholic speech abroad and at home."

Fr. Garesche also calls us to conduct ourselves in a holy way in our workplace with this haunting scenario: "Suppose that a Catholic spends ten, twenty, or fifty years of his life in the closest kind of daily and hourly contact with all sorts and conditions of men, and that at the end of that long time of constant opportunity, he cannot point to any deliberate or consistent work for the spreading abroad of the truth of Christ. Can that man by any stretching of the meaning of words be properly said to have discharged his Christian duty of being the salt of the earth and light of the world?"

His first suggestion is to be on guard for the example we set, pointing out that the world "keep[s] a sharper watch on Catholics (who, as they know perfectly well, profess the hardest and loftiest religion in the world) to see whether they make at least some decent effort to live up to their exalted principles." As with our speech/actions in the home, he focuses on at least avoiding "anything unworthy of our Catholic principles…" Specifically, he mentions avoiding profanity, uncharitable talk, bearing false witness, acrimonious criticism, unsavory rumors, "lip-worship" of worldly success, and defamation of the Church and Her priests.

"Even if we were to do or say nothing positive and definite on the subject of our Catholic Faith," Fr. Garesche says, "but were to content ourselves with avoiding the evils and abuses we have been pointing out, we would have accomplished a great deal in the way of a true apostleship. For the world at large, used as it is to hear all manner of slander and criticism and the common malice and uncharitableness that make up so much of the speech of men, will be struck with wonder at the spectacle of a man or woman whose talk is quite innocent of all offense, and will be moved by that rare and singular effect to esteem and inquire into our Faith, which is the motive of so much self-restraint and careful reverence for the laws of God."

A Catholic friend told me recently how she experienced this phenomenon at work. She was approached by a co-worker seeking her counsel on a moral issue because the co-worker saw her as a person of deep faith. My friend said this perception was not due to her verbal sharing of our Faith, but rather to her conducting herself according to the principles of our Faith. Her behavior spoke louder than words and opened up a door for her to share Christ.

As we contemplate the call to be "everyday apostles", let us always be inspired by the words and life of Mother Teresa who said we can do no great things, only small things with great love.

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

Life Insight 3-14-03

The Everyday Apostle

Rebuilding our culture of death into a culture of life and love is a daunting task. The attacks against life and love are numerous and are growing in number and severity. We seem to make some progress against one form of attack only to see another attack pop up. The problem is, we tend to attack the "weed" from the ground up with little understanding of and focus on the root beneath it. As any gardener/farmer knows, this approach is temporary and superficial.

I have written many times (because this point deserves repetition) about this root as explained by our Holy Father in his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae". The "heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man", he says, is "the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism."

"Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate," he says, "easily fall into a sad, vicious circle: When the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving presence."

If the root of the attacks on human life is our culture’s impoverished relationship with God, our Creator, then attacking this root and rebuilding a culture of life and love requires enriching our culture’s relationship with God. How do we do this? Do we need to be Scripture scholars? Have an advanced degree in theology or philosophy? Thankfully, the answer to these questions is no.

The simplest way to enrich our culture’s relationship with God (besides prayer and fasting) is to imitate His Son Jesus to those we encounter in our everyday life: family members, friends, co-workers, acquaintances and strangers. A marvelous tool to help us with this task is a book called "The Everyday Apostle: Commonsense Ways to Draw Others to Christ" by the late Fr. Edward F. Garesche. A promotional commentary printed on the back of the book says: "This book helps bring to life the old saying, ‘Preach the gospel daily, and if necessary, use words.’ Fr. Garesche has provided us practical and effective advice on doing just that. This book will give you a lifetime of ideas for helping others find eternal life."

Our everyday conversation—in the car, on the street, in offices and homes—is one way to draw others to Christ. Sadly, Fr. Garesche points out, while we have a readiness to communicate about worldly matters such as money, influence, opportunities, sports, etc. we "carefully avoid every mention of sacred things" which could draw people to Christ. For example, he says, most would consider another no true friend who lets them stake their money on a rotten venture and never says a word. Yet so many avoid "meddling" with friends, family, and others about behavior that jeopardizes something far more important: their eternal souls.

So often, many individuals may want to engage someone in a matter of faith or morals, but decline to because of a fear of not being prepared to articulate or defend a particular teaching. Father’s response is that God "gives us these duties, these opportunities, these suggestions of His grace…as we are, not as we might, or could or would, or should have been. It is to us with our imperfections, our shortcomings, our insufficiencies, our ignorance…that He has given in charge the welfare of our brother’s soul, perhaps even his soul’s salvation. For the one word that he will take may be one that only we could give him. He may be waiting for our word of counsel, teaching, or admonition."

There is far more of this book—and topic—than I can jam into one column and so I will continue it in next week’s column. In the meantime, buy the book and begin reflecting on how you can better represent Christ to others, "make disciples of all nations" and thereby contribute significantly to rebuilding a culture of life and love. The book should be available at your local Catholic bookstore or by calling Sophia Institute Press at 1-800-888-9344.

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

Life Insight 2-28-03

Prayer and Sacrifice for Life

"Lord, take pity on my son, who is demented and in a serious condition…I have brought him to your disciples but they could not cure him. In reply Jesus said, ‘What an unbelieving and perverse lot you are! How long must I remain with you? How long can I endure you? Bring him here to me’. Then Jesus reprimanded him, and the demon came out of him. That very moment the boy was cured.

"The disciples approached Jesus at that point and asked him privately, ‘Why could we not expel it?’ ‘Because you have so little trust,’ he told them. ‘I assure you, if you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you would be able to say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it would move. Nothing would be impossible for you. [Certain kinds of demons do] not leave but by prayer and fasting." [Matthew 17: 15-21]

This passage from Sacred Scripture provides a foundation for all efforts to drive the demon of death from our culture and to rebuild a culture of life and love. That foundation is prayer and fasting. As with the disciples, we are tempted to emphasize our own measly efforts to change the culture and to dismiss the power of God’s grace that comes from prayer and fasting.

Someone once gave me this helpful metaphor to understand the interplay between prayer and action: The spreading of God’s truth (through thought, word and deed) is like planting seeds. Praying and fasting (which brings God’ grace) provides the water and nutrients that cause the seeds to sprout and grow.

As we approach Lent, I encourage Catholics to consider offering extra prayers and fasting for the cause of life. Specifically, prayer and fasting could be offered for any or all of the following intentions: the conversion of abortionists (or more narrowly, the abortionists in Nebraska); for the conversion of pro-abortion legislators; for spiritual renewal and greater holiness in our society; for an end to contraception and a greater understanding and reverence for the sacred gift of sexuality; for holy and healthy marriages and families.

Individuals can commit to prayer and fasting for the cause of life in a concrete way by participating in Intercessors for Life. Intercessors for Life is an initiative my office sponsors to create a powerful foundation of prayer and fasting for the pro-life efforts in Nebraska. There is a special card (available through my office at 402-477-7517) that can be filled out indicating the day and time of each week that you’ll offer prayer and a place to indicate what your fasting commitment will be. Those who wish to participate in this critical and powerful initiative to change our culture may contact my office for this card or to simply let me know that you’ll participate.

One excellent prayer suggestion for Lent is the "Meditations for Pro-Life Stations of the Cross" by Priests for Life. It is available from my office or can be accessed online at http://www.priestsforlife.org/prayers/stationsofthecross.html. Another excellent prayer suggestion is "A Journey to Calvary: The Way of the Cross for the Terminally Ill" produced by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office. It is also available from my office or online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/liturgy/99lltgd.shtml .

The deepest root of the culture of death is spiritual poverty (i.e. a poor relationship with God, which leads to a poor regard for the dignity of human life made in His image). Prayer and fasting is the simplest and yet most powerful tool available to attack this root. And this Lent is a good time for each of us to establish a habit of using this tool as a contribution toward rebuilding a culture of life and love.

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

Life Insight 2-21-03

Catholics in Political Life

A few months ago, I wrote a column lamenting the number of Catholics in Congress who violate natural moral law and support (or even champion) legal abortion or other direct attacks against innocent human life. Those Catholic politicians (or Christians in general) who oppose abortion, or other such attacks against human life, are derided for imposing their religious doctrine on society.

What’s a Catholic to do? Avoid running for (or involvement in) public office? No way says the "Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life" released last month by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The document is addressed to Bishops, who have the responsibility of forming the consciences of Church members; to Catholic politicians, and to all lay members of the faithful whose Baptism calls them also to participate in the political life of democratic societies.

According to this document, it is precisely the role and responsibility of the Christian laity to "infuse the temporal order with Christian values" while respecting "the nature and rightful autonomy of that order." This role of the laity to take Christ into the world includes voting and "involvement in political life" and must be guided by a properly formed Christian conscience. St. Thomas More, patron of statesmen and politicians, was cited as an example of a Catholic who taught by his life and his death that "man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality."

Cardinal Ratzinger, president of the CDF, says that the primary purpose of the document is to "recall certain fundamental principles" necessary to form a Christian conscience "which must govern and inform the social and political involvement of Catholics in pluralistic and democratic societies." According to summary by the U.S. Conference of Bishops, these principles "can be summed up as respect for the dignity of the human person and a commitment to the common good."

More specifically they would include the promotion of such public goods as respect for all human life, protection and promotion of the family, parents’ freedom to educate their children, society’s right to protect minors, the right to religious freedom, the fostering of a just economy and the work of peace. They would exclude whatever violates the respect for the dignity of the human person including abortion and euthanasia, the violation of the rights of the embryo, and modern forms of slavery such as drug abuse and prostitution.

Contrary to the ignorant rantings of the dominant culture, these principles do not emanate from Catholic doctrine, but are rooted in human nature itself and belong to the natural moral law. The document makes clear that one "does not have to profess the Catholic faith to know these truths; natural reason can and should discover them on its own."

This concept is the basis of our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which states that "[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In other words, it is false for a Catholic or anyone else to suggest that in promoting the ethical truths of the natural law one is promoting Catholicism in a denominational way.

It is essential to a healthy democracy that Catholics and other people of faith understand this point and not be intimidated into disengaging from the realm of political affairs. "The Catholic Tradition has much to offer the societies of today in building and strengthening modern culture", the document says. "The fulfillment of this task by Catholics in political life is urgent, and one in which Catholics should feel no inferiority."

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

Life Insight 2-14-03

Upcoming Pro-Life Legislation

The beginning of a new year also brings a new legislative session in Nebraska and in Washington, D.C. The following are some of the primary pro-life bills that my office supports.

Ban on human cloning (LB 602): Introduced by Sen. Adrian Smith, this bill would prohibit three things: 1) Using somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning technique) to make human embryos for any reason; 2) Deriving any product (e.g stem cells) from cloned embryos produced outside Nebraska; and 3) Implanting a cloned human embryo produced outside Nebraska into a women’s womb. This bill has 35 co-sponsors (out of 49 senators) which gives it a good likelihood of being enacted.

Ban on destructive embryo research (LB 566): Introduced by Sen. Mike Foley, this bill would prohibit any research that destroys or injures human embryos.

Ban on using fetal tissue from induced abortion (LB 512): Senator Dwite Pedersen introduced this bill (similar to previous years) which would prohibit public institutions, funds or employees from being involved with the use of fetal tissue from induced abortion.

Wrongful death action for unborn children (LB 294): This bill, introduced by Sen. Mike Foley, is a follow-up to the enactment last year of a fetal homicide law. The fetal homicide law makes it a criminal act of homicide to kill an unborn child in the commission of an illegal act (e.g. assault, drunk driving, etc.). LB 294 would make the act of killing an unborn child in this way subject to civil penalties (i.e. monetary damages) as well.

Repeal of school notification of parental notice law: Also introduced by Sen. Mike Foley, this bill would repeal a problematic provision in our state’s parental notification for abortion law. This provision requires schools to annually distribute written information to all seventh through twelfth grade students explaining the requirements for parental notification as a condition for obtaining an abortion. The main problem with this provision is that some schools are going beyond its intent and providing specific information about how to circumvent parental notice by utilizing the judicial bypass provision. Judicial bypass involves going to a judge for permission to have an abortion and was intended for those girls who come from abusive homes. Many school districts do not like having to follow this controversial requirement and have expressed unofficial support for this bill.

On the federal level the initial legislative focus will be on banning human cloning and partial-birth abortion. The cloning ban (Senate bill is S. 245, House bill is HR 234) is nearly identical to the cloning ban introduced in our Nebraska Legislature. The partial-birth abortion bill has not yet been introduced, but it was re-written to correct the issues cited by the U.S. Supreme Court when it struck down Nebraska’s law. More information on state or federal legislation can be obtained by contacting my office at 402-477-7517.

On Thursday, February 20, Nebraska Right to Life is sponsoring its annual Legislative Day at the State Capitol in Lincoln. This event provides an excellent opportunity to learn more about the state pro-life legislation mentioned above and to personally urge your state senator to support this legislation. The day begins at 9:00 am with remarks from the senators who sponsored these bills, followed by an opportunity for participants to meet with their own senator. At 1:30 pm, a public hearing will be held at the Capitol (Room 1113) on the bills dealing with cloning (LB 602), embryo-destructive research (LB 566), and aborted fetal tissue (LB 512).

One of the critical ways we can help to build a culture of life and love is to engage in the legislative process. The Legislative Day is an excellent opportunity to so engage, but for those who can’t participate, please take a few minutes to send a note to your state senator and urge him/her to support these important bills. Their address is State Capitol, PO Box 94604, Lincoln, NE 68509-4604. If you don’t know your senator’s name, give me a call at 402-477-7517.

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

Life Insight 2-7-03

Pro-Life Leader’s Actions Reveal Planned Parenthood Violations

My friend and colleague Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, has been tested by fire over the last few months. As has been reported (in some cases misreported) by news media, Julie was accused of illegally accessing the voice messages of some Lincoln Planned Parenthood employees. The charge was recently dismissed following Julie’s decision to enroll in a pretrial diversion program.

By entering this program, which is not an admission of guilt, Julie will avoid the lengthy and costly ordeal of defending herself in a trial. The program involves a fee and 80 to 100 hours of community service work. According to a statement by her attorney, "[t]he publicity generated by the charge has needlessly damaged her reputation and has traumatized her family. They have endured much stress and uncertainty over this situation since August, 2002, when the police investigation began. Enrolling in Pretrial Diversion to have the charge dismissed was a welcome choice in order to restore tranquility to their lives."

The attorney’s statement provides the following explanation of what happened based on disclosures from the police investigation: "from April 2002, until August, 2002, Ms. Schmit-Albin received numerous e-mails from an anonymous source, providing her with inside information regarding activities at Planned Parenthood. After the e-mail communications ended, a police investigation revealed the identity of the anonymous sender as John Keller, a former employee of Planned Parenthood. While communicating with Ms. Schmit-Albin, Keller repeatedly refused to identify himself, even upon explicit requests to say who he was.

"The information he provided included the names and phone numbers for most of the Lincoln Planned Parenthood employees. He also provided a voice mail access code and encouraged Ms. Schmit-Albin to use it to listen to phone messages. She flatly refused to do so. Additionally, he claimed to have access to keys to the Lincoln Planned Parenthood facilities and offered to give them to Ms. Schmit-Albin. She again refused his offer. Throughout the e-mail communications, it was apparent that the anonymous sender had unrestricted access to all of the phones and computers at Planned Parenthood, as well as access to the Planned Parenthood facilities themselves.

"The police investigation did not reveal any evidence to suggest that Ms. Schmit-Albin herself intercepted any telephone communications. The prosecution's theory was that she aided and abetted Keller's commission of unauthorized voice mail access. To convict her, it would be necessary to prove that she actually knew Keller was committing a crime. It would also be necessary to prove that, knowing that he was committing a crime, she encouraged him to do so.

"The police investigation did not reveal any evidence to prove either actual knowledge that a crime was occurring or any encouragement. Rather, the police investigation revealed that Ms. Schmit-Albin expressed serious concerns when Keller anonymously provided her with a voice mail access code and told her to use it. She responded, saying she would not use the voice mail access code and that she did not wish to do anything that would be illegal. The most reasonable inference that can be drawn from all of the information available is that Keller, by providing detailed information anonymously, was in all likelihood a Planned Parenthood employee with unrestricted access to all phones, computers and other information at Planned Parenthood."

Most of the information that Julie received from Mr. Keller related to potential health violations which she forwarded to state health officials and to members of the news media. As a result of this information, state health officials put Planned Parenthood's abortion facility in Lincoln on probation, starting Oct. 15, after finding violations they said could harm the "health, safety or security" of patients. Planned Parenthood’s other clinics—four in Omaha and another in Lincoln—were also in violation of various state rules and regulations governing health clinics. The clinics were given 90 days to correct the problems.

Violations included not separating clean and dirty laundry and not properly sanitizing patient gowns and bed linens, placing the machine used to sterilize instruments in the same room as the laundry, failing to follow the manufacturer's protocol for mixing an antibiotic, allowing staff to give injections and medications without the training required by state regulations, and not having a program for preventing, controlling and investigating infections and communicable diseases, including infections acquired at the clinics. This is inexcusable carelessness from an organization that claims to be about women’s health.

Given the unsolicited information Julie received from the former Planned Parenthood employee, she tried to do the right thing by conveying potentially dangerous health conditions to the department of health. And she paid a heavy and unjust price to her reputation—not in small part due to the sloppy, if not biased, reporting by many of the news organizations. Julie is a very dedicated and hard working leader in the pro-life cause and she deserves our prayers and support as she recovers from this difficult ordeal.

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

Life Insight 1-31-03

Form Your Children Well

Having attended the national March for Life and related events in Washington, D.C. and the local Walk for Life in Lincoln last week, I have young people on my mind. Why? Because of the 7000 people who attended the Vigil Mass at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, of the more than 100,000 who attended the March for Life in D.C., and of the several thousand who attended the Walk for Life in Lincoln, half or more were young people.

This, along with recent public opinion polls showing a significant shift toward the pro-life position among college students, must send shivers down the spines of defenders of legal abortion. And it should. Demographically, the numbers are not favorable to the culture of death. After all, who is having children? Certainly not those who are ensnared in the culture of death (identified by sexual license, contraception, abortion, assisted suicide, and a perverted view of freedom as the ability to do whatever I want).

The couples having the most children are those who seek to live and proclaim a culture of life and love. This reality generates hope since these children will play a large role in determining the future direction of our nation educationally, socially, and politically. Unfortunately, the culture of death knows this reality and is working hard—and with great success—to undermine the virtue of children.

The entertainment industry (television, movies, music) certainly plays a central role in the corruption of virtue with most programs, movies, and songs featuring utterly gratuitous sexual license and perversion. And how about video games (I wish I had a dollar for every hour spent by children playing video games)? The violent and generally dark themes of many video games certainly don’t foster virtue.

The internet (while a marvelous tool for communication and education) is also being used insidiously by peddlers of pornography. Many such peddlers prey upon unsuspecting individuals by choosing website names that are very similar to wholesome sites in hopes of ensnaring someone by mistake (e.g. Whitehouse.gov is the White House web site, WhiteHouse.com is a porn site). Many advertisers, too, have joined in on the corruption of virtue by using exploitative sexual images to market products.

The culture of death and corruption of virtue has also slithered its way into our educational system. Contraception-based (and virtue-less) sex education at the primary and secondary educational level and ideological agendas (typically pro-abortion, pro-sexual license and perversion and anti-religion) at the collegiate level have had a significant impact in undermining virtue among young people.

For example, Feminists for Life pointed out while initiating its college outreach program several years ago that a 1996 Gallup poll described the impact of college on women’s attitudes toward abortion as "revolutionary." Women with a high school education were more pro-life (47%) than pro-abortion (37%). However, women who completed college overwhelmingly supported abortion. Fortunately, this phenomenon is changing, and college students are retaining their pro-life views.

The bottom line is that since the culture of death is not reproducing, it must corrupt the children of those who are in order to sustain a culture of death. Parents need to be vigilant in fighting such corrupting influences. They also need to counteract the many forces of corruption by making sure they form their children well in all the virtues and in our Catholic faith. Catholic schools and religious education is an important part of this formation, but ultimate responsibility falls on parents, who are suppose to be the primary educators of their children. By working hard to maintain healthy and holy marriages, families and children, parents make the most significant contribution they can toward building a culture of life and love.

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

Life Insight 1-24-03

Modern Day Magi

On the first Epiphany, the three Magi celebrated our Saviour’s birth by bringing generous gifts to the Christ child. More than 2000 years later, many Catholic parishes in Nebraska imitate this act of generosity and reverence for the sacredness of human life. Over the last several years, throughout Advent or in some cases on the Feast of the Epiphany, parish pro-life coordinators, religious education or Catholic school representatives sponsored efforts to collect material assistance for pregnant mothers in need.

Of the 25 parishes reporting to date, nearly 3000 items and more than $1,600.00 was collected and distributed to pregnancy-help centers throughout Nebraska. Since there are more than 380 parishes in Nebraska, I’m quite confident that much more than this was actually collected, but have not yet reported. This material assistance provides a big boost to many of the 26 pregnancy-help centers in Nebraska.

These centers, which are operated staffed and funded by pro-life individuals, provide or facilitate housing, instructional programs, provision of maternity and baby clothes, furniture and other necessities, adoption through licensed agencies, parenting classes, job training, medical care including pregnancy testing, prenatal and obstetrical care, social services, including counseling, arrangement for transportation, child health care, and financial help before and after birth.

Since most of the media’s attention in the abortion debate focuses on political action, the extraordinary work of these pregnancy-help centers often goes unnoticed. But these centers are where the rubber meets the road for the pro-life movement’s vision that being truly pro-life and pro-woman means attacking the problems that drive women to the violence of abortion, not attacking the unborn children of these women.

The late Robert Casey, former Governor of Pennsylvania summarized this stark contrast well with these eloquent words: "The fundamental question posed by abortion is this: Once a child has been conceived, what is the proper response of a good society—of America at her best? If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we, as a society, rise to that challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround the mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home or at the abortion clinic?"

As we continue to reflect on 30 years of legal abortion, we need to recognize the heroic work being done by the mostly volunteer staff of these pregnancy-help centers. They give their time, money and hearts to both mother and child by providing them with material assistance and protecting them from the violence of abortion. They calm the fears and provide hope, love and true freedom to frightened and often desperate women.

Below are the names, towns, and phone numbers of the 26 pregnancy-help centers in Nebraska. If you can, please support them financially and/or with your time and talent.