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 2004

By Greg Schleppenbach, Part I, January-June

Most current:

Shameless Distortions and Fairy Tales (6/18/04)

Gen Y: Hope for Our Future (6/4/04)

Culture of Death Dislikes Moral Clarity (5/28/04)

Bishops Challenge Pro-Abortion "Catholic" Pols (5/21/040

A Two-Edged Sword (5/14/04)

A Second Glimpse at Pure Evil (5/7/04)

March Against Women's Lives (4/30/04)

Artificial Nutrition and Hydration (4/23/04)

A Glimpse of Pure Evil (4/16/04)

Two Pro Life Bills Enacted on the Annunciation (4/9/04)

Courts Begin Review of Federal PBA Ban (4/2/04)

Nebraska Abortions Increase in 2003 (3/26/04)

Blest is the Fruit of Your Womb (3/19/04)

Roe and Doe Seek to Overturn Roe and Doe (3/12/04)

72 Hours to Erase Last Night? (3/5/04)

Clone and Kill Now Reality (2/27/04)

Pray and Fast for a Culture of Life and Love (2/20/04)

The Inspiring Beauty of Heroic Virtue (2/13/04)

Can A Single Issue Disqualify a Candidate? (2/06/04)

One Vote Could Doom Cloning Ban (1/30/04)

It's a Matter of the Heart and Will (1/23/04)

Scriptures Directly Illustrates God's Pro Life Message for Us All (1/16/04)

The Case Against Human Cloning (1/9/04)

Life Insight 6-18-04

Shameless Distortions and Fairy Tales

Newspapers and broadcast news programs over the last couple of weeks have featured numerous stories, editorials and even cartoons trying to exploit President Reagan’s illness and death to expand public funding of stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos. "Ronald Reagan had not passed from this life for 48 hours before proponents of human embryonic stem-cell research began to suggest that such ethically questionable scientific work should be promoted under his name," said William P. Clark, President Reagan’s national security adviser, in a June 11 editorial in the New York Times.

"Ronald Reagan’s record," Clark continued, "reveals that no issue was of greater importance to him than the dignity and sanctity of all human life." President Reagan said in 1983 that "My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land. And there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

"One of the things he regretted most at the completion of his presidency in 1989, he told me, was that politics and circumstances had prevented him from making more progress in restoring protection for unborn human life," Clark added.

Clark reveals that Reagan’s own words and deeds make it nearly impossible to conclude that he would support research that destroys embryonic human beings. In his famous essay, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation", written to criticize Roe v Wade on its 10^th anniversary, President Reagan wrote, "We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life."

He also expressly encouraged continued support for the "sanctity of life ethic" and rejection of the "quality of life ethic" quoting British writer Malcolm Muggeridge’s statement: "however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened."

Furthermore, in a January 17, 1988, "Personhood Proclamation" establishing National Sanctity of Human Life Day, President Reagan declared "the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death..."

Clark also pointed out that "[h]is actions were as clear as his words. He supported the Human Life Amendment, which would have inscribed in the Constitution ‘the paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health or condition of dependency.’" He also "began a defacto ban on federal financing of embryo [destructive] research that he held to throughout his presidency."

In addition to distorting President Reagan’s pro-life legacy, some individuals and groups are apparently misleading the public with false hype about the potential for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) to treat Alzheimer’s disease. In a June 10, 2004 story, Washington Post writer Rick Weiss reveals that stem cell experts have apparently known for some time that "of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit."

So why are people like Nancy Reagan being led to believe otherwise? Why is it, as Weiss reports, that "this distortion…is not being aggressively corrected by scientists"? "’To start with, people need a fairy tale,’ said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. ‘Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand.’"

Another reason for this distortion, pointed out by ethicist and writer Wesley J. Smith, is that sensational stories such as the Reagan’s help "generate public support for the biotech political agenda. As Weiss noted, ‘It (Nancy Reagan’s statement in support of ESCR) is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum.’"

"This is a scandal", says Smith. "Misrepresentation by omission corrupts one of the primary purposes of science, which is to provide society objective information about the state of scientific knowledge without regard to political consequences." It also demonstrates, Smith says, "a depth of insincerity and disingenuousness that is as cruel as it is unjustifiable."

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

Life Insight 6-4-04

Gen Y: Hope for our Future

The growing threats to the sanctity of human life and the institution of marriage make it hard to understand how Pope John Paul II could refer to the 21^st Century as a "springtime" in the Church. Perhaps it is what he sees in today’s youth that prompted our Holy Father to make this prediction.

Generation Y, also know as the Millennials and Echo Boomers, are those persons between the ages of 8 and 23—considered to be the children of the Baby Boomers. According to extensive research done by the Vitae Caring Foundation (and affirmed by other recent studies), this generation offers much hope to our effort to rebuild a culture of life and love. For example:

	Like every generation before them, Gen Y’ers do not want to be like their parents, they want to be and do better. As many come from homes of divorce and/or latchkey kids, they want stable marriages and homes for themselves and their children.
	Gen Y’ers are fundamentally very pro-life. They believe the unborn child is "pure potential"—that it has the potential to be anything it wants to become. The most often repeated comment was, "This child could be the one who finds the cure for cancer or AIDS."
	In their minds a teenager who decides to give birth instead of having an abortion is courageous, compassionate, selfless, and intelligent.
	Because they idealize the future with such optimism, they want to preserve its integrity by avoiding mistakes in the present that would limit their options.
	When they imagine aborting their own child, they feel as if they are killing themselves.
	Although the use of abortion pictures produced a negative reaction to the current Generation X, Gen Y finds the abortion pictures to be highly persuasive—when used in the right context. In a university study where abortion pictures were shown and the issue of abortion was compared to slavery and the Holocaust, women under 25 moved to a significantly more pro-life position.
	When asked where they would go for information on abortion, the answer was almost unanimous, "I’d turn on my computer."
	Unfortunately, in their minds, people and organizations that take a pro-life stance are perceived as strict and unrelenting. They describe pro-lifers as controlling and authoritarian.

What makes this encouraging news even better is that Generation Y is 60 million strong! That’s almost four times the number of the current Generation X (ages 24 to 38) at 17 million. Based on this research and the fact that the internet is the Generation Y medium of choice, the Vitae Caring Foundation has produced a compelling new website to communicate with this generation: www.GravityTeen.com .

According to Sandra Choate Faucher, National Project Director for Vitae Caring Foundation, the "goal is to provide Gen Y’ers with their own site which will be helpful, informative, interesting and entertaining, honest and non-patronizing. The site will reaffirm their positive beliefs and idealism, provide tools for them to build upon their character and be resilient to peer pressure and encourage them to become critical thinkers."

Ms. Faucher said the website provides "inspiring stories of other teens, interactive self-affirmations and character-building quotes, along with e-cards and opportunities to win cool CDs. For those facing an unplanned pregnancy, there are personal testimonies from other teens who have ‘been there, done that,’ along with extensive information on fetology, abortion and a cyber connection to a national crisis pregnancy network."

There is much potential to rebuild a culture of life and love through Generation Y, but it will not be easy. Massively funded pro-abortion groups are also targeting Gen Y through the internet. For example, Planned Parenthood’s offensive teen website, teenwire.com, degrades human sexuality and effectively treats teens like animals. We can and must overcome such destructive influences by forming children well in faith and virtue and by empowering this generation’s pro-life and pro-family inclinations.

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

Life Insight 5-28-04

Culture of Death Dislikes Moral Clarity

Recently, several courageous bishops have issued public statements admonishing pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians. Some even said that such politicians and those who vote for them should refrain from receiving Communion. Predictably, those who dislike moral clarity have lashed out at these bishops.

Forty-eight "Catholic" Democrats in Congress, most of whom are staunchly pro-abortion, signed a letter to Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, D.C., decrying these bishops for daring to cut through the moral fog and provide real moral leadership. "As Catholics," they said, "we do not believe it is our role to legislate the teachings of the Catholic church. Because we represent all of our constituents, we must, at times, separate our public actions from our personal beliefs."

These two sentences are not only unbelievably foolish, they are disingenuous. Regarding the first sentence, supporting a ban on abortion is no more "legislat[ing] the teachings of the Catholic church" than supporting laws against murder or stealing or racism. The assertion that unborn babies are human beings (and therefore deserving of recognition as persons) is, first of all, based on biological fact not religious opinion or doctrine.

There is so much wrong and incoherent with the second sentence, it is hard to know where to begin. First, as just mentioned, opposition to abortion is not premised on personal or religious beliefs, but on biological fact. Second, what does it mean to "represent all of our constituents" by "at times, separat[ing] our public actions from our personal beliefs"?

Does it mean that you only take positions with which the majority of your constituents agree? Does it mean that you occasionally vote against your conscience in order to placate some of your constituents? More to the point, when more than half of your constituents support prohibiting all or most abortions (according to most polls), how are you "representing all [your] constituents" by supporting abortion on demand?

Furthermore, if the "representing all [their] constituents" argument legitimizes support for legal abortion by Catholic legislators, then surely other Catholic legislators could use this same argument to support the death penalty or oppose civil rights. This isn’t hyperbole.

Mr. Arthur Hippler, my counterpart in the diocese of LaCrosse, WI, wrote an article recently entitled "My Constituency Made Me Do It". He points out that "during the 1950’s, the most vocal opposition to desegregation in New Orleans came from Catholic politicians, in direct opposition to the efforts of Archbishop Joseph Rummel. Despite his 1953 pastoral letter ‘Blessed are the Peacemakers’ on the evils of segregation, the Archbishop was opposed by New Orleans judge Leander Perez, state senator E.W. Gravolet and Mrs. B.J. Gaillot, President of Save Our Nation.

"In March of 1962, Archbishop Rummel announced that he was going to desegregate New Orleans Catholic schools. Gravolet threatened to cut off state support to Catholic schools, while Perez called for the withholding of financial support from the Church. After reminding them of the spiritual danger to their souls in rejecting Church teaching, Gravolet, Perez and Gaillot were excommunicated on April 16, 1962. Two were reconciled to the Church in later years, but one of them died unreconciled and was denied Christian burial."

"These Catholic leaders acted with the support of their community. The majority certainly resisted, where it did not outright oppose desegregation. And yet, would we consider it reasonable or persuasive for Catholic politicians to say, ‘I must uphold my constituency over Church teaching’ when it comes to these basic demands of justice? Further, should we consider desegregation only a ‘Catholic’ issue because a Catholic bishop took a stand for the worth of all men, black and white?"

It is scandalous when Catholic public officials support—and in some cases champion—intrinsically evil practices such as abortion. In doing so, these officials put their eternal souls in jeopardy. It’s the solemn duty of their shepherds to admonish them, and it’s our duty to pray for their conversion.

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

Life Insight 5-21-04

Bishops Challenge Pro-Abortion "Catholic" Pols

In the last several years there has been a cascade of statements by the Vatican, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and individual bishops attempting to provide greater clarity regarding the moral priorities and duties of Catholic politicians and voters. The presidential candidacy of John Kerry, who is "Catholic" and staunchly pro-abortion, has escalated the need for our shepherds to lead their flocks with absolute moral clarity.

The most recent Vatican statement on this subject was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in November of 2002. Entitled "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life," it summarizes Church teaching on issues of freedom of conscience, pluralism and political activity. It stresses that "a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."

It points out that "John Paul II…has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them." A task force established by the U.S. Bishops to implement this document is developing "a set of general guidelines to help shape the prudential judgments" that Bishops will make in this regard.

In their 1998 document "Living the Gospel of Life", the U.S. Bishops said "Catholics who are privileged to serve in public leadership positions have an obligation to place their faith at the heart of their public service, particularly on issues regarding the sanctity and dignity of human life. We 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… The Gospel of Life must be proclaimed, and human life defended, in all places and all times…The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government, but the voting booth as well.

"We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue—or lack thereof—is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest."

As for individual bishops, there is a growing list, thankfully, who are publicly admonishing "Catholic" politicians who obstinately persist in supporting intrinsically evil acts such as abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. Archbishop Raymond Burke (St. Louis) when he was bishop of La Crosse, WI issued a pastoral letter forbidding recalcitrant pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians from receiving Communion.

Other Bishops who have publicly admonished pro-abortion Catholic politicians include Archbishop Alfred Hughes (New Orleans), Bishop Robert Morlino (Madison, WI), Bishop Thomas Olmsted (Phoenix), Archbishop Charles Chaput (Denver), Bishop Samuel Aquila (Fargo, ND), Bishop John D'Arcy (Ft. Wayne/South Bend, IN), Bishop Joseph Galante (Camden, NJ).

The most recent—and strongest—pastoral letter was issued May 1 by Bishop Michael Sheridan (Colorado Springs, CO). He says, "There must be no confusion in these matters. Anyone who professes the Catholic faith with his lips while at the same time publicly supporting legislation or candidates that defy God's law makes a mockery of that faith and belies his identity as a Catholic."

Bishop Sheridan is emphatic in stating the consequences for all Catholics of supporting immoral legislation: "Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance."

All of these statements can be viewed in their entirety at

http://www.wf-f.org/Catholics_and_Politics.html or by contacting my office.

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

Life Insight 5-14-04

A Two-Edged Sword

One of the more humbling and edifying aspects of my job as director of pro-life activities is the feedback I receive from my column. This week, I received an exceptionally thoughtful and courageous letter regarding my recent column entitled "A Glimpse of Pure Evil" which contained excerpts from the partial-birth abortion trial.

What makes this letter particularly meaningful is that the writer is post-abortive. Although the writer has sought and received healing and reconciliation through Project Rachel and Rachel’s Vineyard retreat, reading the gruesome abortion details was deeply painful to her.

This dear soul recognized that abortion is "an evil and horrible thing" and that exposing its brutality is important. She also believes that God prompted her to read my column and to read it just prior to her holy hour. This allowed her to "bring the hurt and pain…to Jesus and sit and cry with Him and ask for forgiveness and healing yet again."

Nevertheless, she said, the article was "a two-edged sword to me. When I keep hearing over and over how evil abortion is and I keep struggling to be able to forgive myself for what I did…it just reopens the wound—to the point where I don’t think it will ever heal."

She expressed uncertainty as to what prompted her to write to me, but thought it might be the Holy Spirit. She said she felt compelled to let me know "that the pain of having an abortion is indescribable and will never go away" and that she is "praying every day that abortion will be banned."

I can’t help but agree that her letter was a prompting of the Holy Spirit. I think the Holy Spirit worked through her to remind me to practice what I often preach. That is, we must be careful to accompany condemnation of abortion with an equally clear message that abortion is not an unforgivable sin and that God’s awesome mercy and love are limitless to those who seek it.

In his magnificent encyclical, "The Gospel of Life", the Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II includes a "special word to women who have had an abortion." "The church," he says, "is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision.

The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the sacrament of reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost, and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.

With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life."

We are all sinners and, as such, each of us has "aborted" God’s will in our lives at one time or another. To heal our nation of the scourge of abortion, we must be as passionate in facilitating God’s mercy and love as we are in exposing and ending this evil. Please pray regularly that God will shower His grace and healing upon those who suffer (often alone) from the pain of abortion.

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

Life Insight 5-7-04

Another Glimpse of Pure Evil

A couple of weeks ago I featured some gruesome testimony from abortionists in the partial-birth abortion trials that occurred in California, Nebraska and New York. The abortion industry is using the courts in these states to try to invalidate the new federal law banning partial-birth abortion.

I think that the silver lining to these court challenges is that more Americans are being confronted with the brutal reality and permissibility of abortion. These trials present us with the brutal details straight from the mouths of the abortionists. I hope that a continual exposure of this brutality will shake our nation from its moral slumber.

The following is from the April 8 testimony of Dr. Stephen Chasen, a plaintiff in the New York lawsuit who has done 500 abortions, 50 to 75 of which have been partial-birth abortions. In an exchange with Judge Richard Casey, Chasen said he doesn’t care whether the abortion hurts the baby:

COURT: Does it hurt the baby?

WITNESS: I don’t know.

COURT: But you go ahead and do it anyway, is that right?

WITNESS: I am taking care of my patients, and in that process, yes, I go ahead and do it.

COURT: Does that mean you take care of your patient and the baby be damned, is that the approach you have?

WITNESS: These women who are having [abortions] at gestational ages they are legally entitled to it--

COURT: I didn’t ask you that, Doctor. I asked you if you had any caring or concern for the fetus whose head you are crushing.

WITNESS: No.

Here is some of the government’s cross-examination:

Q. When it is feasible for you to perform the intact procedure, you generally start with the delivery of one leg of the fetus, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You gently pull on the one leg with your hands, and when it is almost out, the other leg is swept out, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You wrap a small sterile towel around the fetus, because it is slippery, and after the legs are out you pull on the sacrum, or the lower portion of the spine, to continue to remove the fetus, right?

A. Right.

Q. You gently pull downward on the sacrum until the shoulder blades appear, right?

A. Right.

Q. Then the fetus is at a point where only the head remains in the cervix, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. That is when you make the decision based on the gestational age and the amount of cervical dilation, whether the head will fit out intact…or whether you have to decompress the skull to remove the fetus's head, right?

A. It is based on the size of the fetal head and the cervical dilation. I don't directly consider the gestational age.

Q. If you can't do that, you know you are going to have to crush the head, and so you take a clamp and you grasp the cervix to elevate it, and then your assistant there in the operating room will pull down on the fetus's legs or back, gently lowering the fetus's head toward the opening of the vagina, right?

A. Right.

Q. That is when you put two fingers at the back of the fetus's neck at the base of the skull where you can feel the base of the skull, and then you puncture the skull with the scissors, right?

A. I usually can see it as well as feel it. But yes.

Q. At that point you see some brain tissue come out, and you are 100 percent certain that you are in the brain, so you open the scissors to expand the hole, remove the scissors, and put the suction device in the skull, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You turn on the suction, and typically the fetus comes right out with the suction device still in its skull, right?

A. Right.

Q. You would agree, wouldn't you, that the maneuvers that you perform are very similar to an assisted breech delivery after viability?

A. With the exception of the decompression of the skull, yes.

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

Life Insight 4-30-04

March Against Women’s Lives

Sad and pitiful are the words that come to mind as I read accounts of the so-called "March for Women’s Lives" which took place last Sunday in Washington, D.C. The event, sponsored by numerous pro-abortion groups, was organized to celebrate legal abortion and decry such minimal protections as parental involvement laws, informed consent and waiting period laws, fetal homicide laws, and banning partial birth abortion.

What is most sad and pitiful is that so many women demonstrated in favor of a practice that embodies the degradation, exploitation and abandonment of women, not to mention the destruction of their offspring. Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood, said "Roe v. Wade enabled women to participate in the social, financial and political life of this country."

Such a statement should outrage women because it effectively tells them that if they want to "participate" in society, they have to be like men and conform to a man’s world. They must reject and suppress one of the most beautiful and miraculous gifts of femininity—and a key distinction between men and women—the ability to conceive and nurture a new human life. They must destroy their own offspring to keep them from getting in the way of the mother’s social, economic and political advancement.

Only in a bizarre, twisted and diabolical fantasyland, where evil is called good and good is called evil, could anyone conclude that abortion is somehow beneficial to women. How twisted is it that the same groups that sponsored the so-called March for Women’s Lives ignore or even attack any research linking abortion to harmful effects on the mother?

They dismiss as inconsequential the hundreds, if not thousands, of women who have died from so-called "safe, legal abortion". They dismiss as politics the fact that 13 of 15 studies on American women show an increased risk of breast cancer after an abortion and that other medical studies link abortion to higher rates of substance abuse, suicide, depression, and psychiatric illness.

Feminists who link abortion to women’s rights should study the writings of their feminist foremothers. Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in 1868 that "[w]hen 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."

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

Sarah Norton said this in 1870: "Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned…Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?…Perhaps there will come a time when…an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood…and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with."

While many misguided feminist groups continue to advocate abortion as the guarantor of women’s rights, another movement is going forward with real solutions. According to one of its pamphlets, Feminists for Life is "a renaissance of the original American feminism," and "is built on a progressive ethic that challenges the status quo.

"Pro-life feminists recognize abortion as a symptom of, not a solution to, the continuing struggles [women] face in the workplace, educational institutions, at home and in society. Like Susan B. Anthony and other early American suffragists, today’s pro-life feminists envision a better world, where no woman would be driven by desperation into the personal tragedy of abortion:

"A world in which pregnancy and motherhood are accepted and supported. A structured workplace that supports mothers rather than forcing them to choose between their children and their careers. A society that supports the role of mothers and values the role of fathers, and helps fathers provide both financial and emotional support for their children."

"March organizers are leading women in the wrong direction," said Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life. "Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Abortion is not the best we can do. We need to focus on systematically eliminating the root causes of abortion—primarily a lack of practical resources and emotional support. We need our leaders to know that women deserve better than abortion," said Foster.

Life Insight 4/23/04

Artificial Nutrition and Hydration and PVS

On March 20, Pope John Paul II addressed an international Vatican congress on the so-called persistent vegetative state. Richard Doerflinger from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat, wrote in National Right to Life News (April 2004) that the Pope’s address "profoundly changed the worldwide debate on how to respond to this condition" by issuing the "first clear and explicit papal statement on the obligation to provide food and water for patients in a ‘persistent vegetative state’ (PVS)."

I have spoken to numerous individuals who thought that the Pope’s statement means one can never withdraw or withhold artificial nutrition and hydration in any circumstance. This is false. This new Church teaching applies only to persons in a PVS who are able to assimilate liquids and nourishment and for whom death is not imminent. It does not change Church teaching which allows removal of assisted feeding when one is terminally ill and no longer able to assimilate liquids and nourishment.

There has long been some disagreement among Catholic moral theologians about whether providing artificial nutrition and hydration to persons in a PVS could ever be considered extraordinary (and therefore morally optional) care. As Doerflinger points out, some theologians believe that "[o]nce a vegetative state is diagnosed as ‘persistent’ and therefore unlikely to change…there should be a presumption against assisted feeding…because it maintains only a ‘biological existence’ that cannot pursue the higher ‘spiritual purposes’ to which earthly life is directed."

Several Catholic documents, however, disagree with this view and argue that the presumption must be in favor of providing artificial nutrition and hydration to these patients. These documents include a 1992 paper by the U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities entitled "Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections", a 1995 "Charter for Health Care Workers" by the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers and a document by the Nebraska Catholic Conference entitled, "Medical-Treatment Decisionmaking: Moral Guidance and Considerations from Catholic Teaching."

Prior to the Pope’s statement, Church teaching did not explicitly reject the view that assisted feeding of PVS patients could be withdrawn. This is no longer the case. "With the Pope’s statement," says Doerflinger, "the Church’s teaching authority has rejected each aspect of the theory that opposes assisted feeding for patients in a PVS." The Pope’s statement makes clear that providing food and water to such patients is now "morally obligatory". "Knowingly and deliberately" starving such patients is "true euthanasia by omission," he said.

Doerflinger points out that though [the Vatican] congress was "co-sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Life and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, it featured presentations by world-renowned medical experts of various religious and moral views, including some who clearly did not agree with Catholic moral teaching.

"Yet the dominant medical consensus among these experts was that we know less about the ‘vegetative state’ than we did twenty years ago—or rather, we know that our old certainties were premature," says Doerflinger.

"There is no clear agreement on what this state is; on how it can reliably be distinguished from other states such as certain forms of ‘locked-in syndrome’ (where patients are aware but cannot communicate with others); on how long such a state must last before it can be judged permanent; or on how much brain activity or even perception of stimuli may occur in patients diagnosed as being in the ‘vegetative state’. These new findings clearly made it even easier for the Pope to insist that in such matters of life and death, we must give these patients the benefit of any doubt."

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

Life Insight 4-16-04

A Glimpse of Pure Evil

A couple of weeks ago, three trials (in Nebraska, California, and New York) began for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of the federal partial birth abortion ban. During the first week of testimony, several abortionists described with a cold indifference the way in which they do late term abortions. Here are some excerpts from the New York hearing:

Q. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Johnson, as to which of the two D&E variations, the intact or the dismemberment variation, may best facilitate the extraction of the fetal skull during an abortion procedure?
A. I think that the intact procedure [i.e. partial-birth abortion] is actually developed in part to deal with the problem of the fetal skull. When one does a D&E, technically one of the challenges is to remove the fetal skull, partly because it is relatively large, partly because it is relatively calcified, and it is difficult to grasp on occasion. So one of the common technical challenges of a dismemberment D&E is what is called a free-floating head or a head that has become disattached and needs to be removed. This can lead to more passages of instruments through the cervix. And technically it is difficult to grasp the head; it is round, it slips out of the instruments that we generally use. Either those instruments or the head can be extruded outside the uterus and cause perforation.
THE COURT: Can you explain to me what that means? [asking about the partial-birth abortion technique.].
THE WITNESS: What they did was they delivered the fetus intact until the head was still trapped behind the cervix, and then they reached up and crushed the head in order to deliver it through the cervix.

Here are some excerpts from an abortionist’s testimony in the Nebraska hearing:

Q. All right. Going back now, I think you said in some instances when you use a suction cannula, that part of the fetus or the umbilical cord will come out through the cervix. Then what do you do at that point?
A. Well, if the umbilical cord comes down, I unattach that from its integrity. I just break it and pull on it. If a foot comes down, I grab the foot and pull down on that.

Q. If no part comes down, as a result of the suction, what do you do?
A. Then I have to place the ring forceps up into the uterus and find a part.

Q. And is there a particular part that you're trying to grasp, at that point?
A. I take whatever I can get, because I have really -- I have a feel of when you feel the cranium of the head, but that's about the only thing I have a feel of when you grasp until you pull it down. I just pull down with the forceps and, you know, see what part you have, and see if you can get more of that part out. If you get more of the part out, you twist to try to get more tissue out. If that doesn't happen, then you pull hard enough that it will disarticulate at that point or break off at that point.

Q. So when you're doing the D & E procedure that you do, you expect dismemberment to occur; is that correct?
A. It happens in the majority of cases, not expected, but it sure would be nice if it happened more often.

Q. When there have been instances where…you have been doing a D & E and the fetus has come out intact, have you been aware of reactions from others in the operating room?
A. Yes, they certainly show more interest in that when it happens than they do on a routine situation.

Q. In fact, they gasp, don't they, when that kind of thing happens?
A. Some of them gasp, yes, sir.

This matter-of-fact description of the brutal killing of unborn (or mostly born) babies is a glimpse of pure evil. I pray that these unvarnished descriptions of abortion’s reality will shake our nation from its moral slumber and bring about an end to this barbarism. I also pray for God’s mercy on our nation for this supreme dishonor to His sacred gift of human life. Full transcripts of the hearings are available online at www.usccb.org/prolife/index.htm

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

Life Insight 4-9-04

Two Pro Life Bills Enacted on the Annunciation

It’s hard not to conclude that our Lady had a hand in passing two pro-life bills recently. Both bills, one federal and one state, despite unsuccessful attempts at passage over the last several years, were adopted by their respective legislative bodies on the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25.

The Nebraska bill was LB 172, sponsored by Sen. Mike Foley of Lincoln. This bill repeals a provision in current law that requires every public school district, on or before October 1 each year, to provide written information to all students in grades 7-12 explaining the law that requires parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion. The information must also explain that students can seek a judicial waiver of the parental notification requirement if they don’t want to notify their parents.

Efforts to repeal this provision began the year after it was adopted (1992). The first senator to seek its repeal was the very senator who got the requirement attached to the parental notification bill in the first place. He sought to repeal it because some schools were going beyond what he intended and were giving detailed information to students on how to use the judicial bypass provision (i.e. how to avoid notifying their parents about getting an abortion).

Many parents, teachers and school administrators supported this bill because they were deeply uncomfortable with the schools getting in the middle of the abortion debate—especially in a way that many saw was undermining parents’ authority over their own children.

The federal bill that passed, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (HR 1997), also known as Lacy and Connor’s law, should be familiar to most Nebraskans. Nebraska passed a similar bill a couple of years ago to recognize the unborn as a separate victim of homicide when a pregnant mother and her unborn child are killed. The federal bill, named after Lacy Peterson and her unborn son who were murdered when her pregnancy was nearly full term, provides that an individual who injures or kills an unborn child during the commission of certain federal crimes will be guilty of a separate offense. Both of Nebraska’s U.S. Senators (Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson) voted for this bill and deserve our gratitude.

In an April 1 White House ceremony, President Bush signed this bill into law, culminating a five-year effort working toward this goal. In his signing remarks, President Bush noted, "As of today, the law of our nation will acknowledge the plain fact that crimes of violence against a pregnant woman often have two victims…[A]ny time an expectant mother is a victim of violence, two lives are in the balance, each deserving protection, and each deserving justice." The President’s full statement can be seen online at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html.

Cathy Cleaver Ruse, spokesperson for the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, applauded the president’s action, stating, "A woman who loses her child to a brutal attacker in a federal jurisdiction will no longer be told that she has lost nothing…Abortion activists recoil from any acknowledgment of a child's existence before birth, whatever the context, and however bizarre the argument, in order to protect the ‘logic' of Roe v. Wade," Ruse said. "But a woman who has lost an unborn child in a violent attack deserves the law's recognition that both she and her child were victims of the crime. Anything less is an affront to women and their children."

Mrs. Ruse also wrote that "[t]here is no such thing as coincidence, but there are miracles in which God wishes to remain anonymous. This is the kind of miracle that happened when . . . the Senate finally agreed to take up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act – on the Solemnity of the Annunciation. That day, when Catholics contemplate the moment when the Son of God became man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the U.S. Senate debated whether a child who is in the womb of his mother when she is violently attacked might also be seen as a victim of the assault."

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

Life Insight 4-2-04

Courts Begin Review of Federal PBA Ban

As three federal courts (one in Lincoln) begin deliberations on a federal law banning partial-birth abortions, Nebraska’s leading pro-life and pro-family groups issued a joint statement calling for a renewed commitment to life-affirming solutions to problem pregnancies.

Here is our statement:

In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to infanticide by expanding the "right" to kill, from children in the womb (Roe v. Wade) to children almost completely born (Stenberg v. Carhart). In a closely divided 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ran roughshod over the decisive and bi-partisan judgment of legislators in Nebraska and 29 other states who voted to prohibit partial-birth abortion, a procedure that partially delivers a baby before brutally killing him or her. Furthermore, it disregarded the will of more than seventy percent of Americans who believe that partial-birth abortion should be banned.

Congress subsequently conducted extensive hearings to examine the claim that partial-birth abortion is necessary to preserve a woman’s health. These hearings confirmed what common sense concludes: partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve a woman’s health and should be banned. As a result, Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban the procedure, President Bush signed it into law and, as with the Nebraska law, the fate of this federal law now rests with the courts.

Regardless of the outcome, the debate over partial-birth abortion reveals to Americans just how extreme and unfettered the abortion license is in our nation. And it graphically confronts our individual and collective consciences with the unmistakable reality that abortion destroys a human being, not a blob of tissue. Any pretense denying the humanity of the unborn is shattered by the abortionists’ own testimony in Stenberg v. Carhart describing barbaric techniques that tear the unborn child limb from limb or deliver the child up to the neck before crushing his/her skull.

Partial-birth abortion is an indication of the coarsening of society’s respect for human life brought about by the legalization of abortion. Partial-birth abortion, as with every abortion, represents an abandonment of women to the violence and heartache of abortion. The resulting wounds—emotional, spiritual, and physical—are increasingly evident as thousands of women are joining together to give voice to these wounds and to insist that women deserve better than abortion.

As three federal courts begin deliberations to determine the constitutionality of the federal ban on partial birth abortions, the undersigned organizations recommit our efforts and resources to supporting women and their children by increasing life affirming solutions to problem pregnancies. We call upon society to join us in this pro-life and pro-woman commitment and to reject any temptation to abandon women to the violence of abortion.

The groups signing this statement are: Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, Nebraska Right to Life, Nebraskans United for Life, Family First, Nebraska Family Council and Operation Outcry/Silent No More (a group of post abortive women).

The court hearing at the federal building in Lincoln is expected to last several days and is open to the public. Please pray that the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit will envelope Judge Kopf and the other two judges (in New York and California) as they deliberate on this law.

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

Life Insight 3-26-04

Nebraska Abortions Increase in 2003

Last week the Nebraska Health and Human Services System released the abortion statistics for 2003 sadly showing an increase in abortions for the first time in seven years. The number of abortions increased more than 5 percent from 3,775 to 3,990. This increase comes after a nearly 30 percent drop in abortions over the last six years.

The age distribution was nearly identical to last year with women 19 years and younger comprising 18 percent of the abortions, 20 to 29-year-olds had 57.3 percent of the abortions and women 30 and older had 24.7 percent of the abortions. Particularly troubling is the fact that 24 abortions were performed on girls under the age of 15 and 694 abortions were performed on girls between the ages of 15 and 19.

Over the last 20 years, the 20 to 29-year-old category has stayed pretty constant at around 55 percent of all abortions. However, the 19 and younger and 30 and older categories have nearly flip-flopped. In 1984, the 19 and younger category had 30.1 percent of the abortions while the 30 and older category had 14.6 percent of the abortions.

Most of the abortions, 3,368 (84%) were obtained by Nebraska residents. The remaining number of abortions were obtained by women who reside in 22 other states, predominantly Iowa and South Dakota. The largest number of abortions (386) occurred in the month of February; the least number occurred in September (279).

The number one reason cited by women having abortions in 2003 was "Socio-Economic (3,096 or 77.6%). As for the so-called "hard cases", only one (0%) woman cited "Incest" as a reason for the abortion; ten (0.3%) cited "Sexual Assault" and six (0.2%) cited "Maternal Life Endangered".

Nearly half cited either "Contraceptive Failure" or "No Contraception Used" as reasons for their abortions. Never in the history of civilization has a culture embraced and promoted contraception more than ours. One of the primary reasons given for such promotion is that making contraception available will reduce the number of abortions. These statistics certainly raise doubts about that notion.

More than 9 out of 10 abortions are inflicted using the "Suction-Curettage" method. This method dilates the cervix to a point that a suction tube with a sharp tip can be inserted into the womb where it tears the unborn child apart as it suctions him/her from the womb. A chemical abortion technique (such as RU 486) was used on 121 women.

In later-term abortions, Dilation and Evacuation was inflicted on 113 women and Dilation and Excision (i.e. partial birth abortion) was inflicted on two women. Dilation and Evacuation involves dilating the cervix and then removing the child limb by limb.

Nearly one-third of last year’s abortions were repeat abortions, and of these, 148 were inflicted on women who had three or more previous abortions. I cannot begin to fathom the depth of woundedness and sorrow these women must bear.

One of the more intriguing (and hopeful) statistics in this report is the fact that only three abortionists performed abortions in 2003. These three abortionists (C.J. Labenz in Omaha, LeRoy Carhart in Bellevue and Winston Crabb in Lincoln) represent the three abortion centers in Nebraska.

What’s intriguing is that this is the first year since abortion was legalized that no other physicians, besides these three primary abortionists, performed any abortions. The largest number of physicians performing abortions occurred in 1976 with 32 physicians performing abortions. That number has steadily declined since that year with a significant decrease in the last ten years.

Finally, it must be said as we examine these cold, impersonal statistics that each abortion represents—at minimum—a dead child, a wounded mother, and a society that is increasingly coarsened in its regard for the sacred dignity of each human being. God have mercy on our nation.

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

Life Insight 3-19-04

Blest is the Fruit of Your Womb

On Thursday, March 25, we celebrate the Feast of the Annunciation, that miraculous moment when God became man, the Word became flesh in the body of the Virgin Mary. It was at the moment of Christ’s conception in the Virgin Mary that God united Himself in some fashion with every human being. The Vatican document Gaudium et spes (1965) illuminates this most eloquently:

"He Who is ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Col. 1:15), is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled, by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin."

This likeness includes the fact that God became flesh in the same way every human being has come into existence: as a one-celled embryo in the fallopian tube of His mother. Jesus Christ did not miraculously appear on Mary and Joseph’s doorstep as a newborn. Nor did He wander into Mary and Joseph’s life as an adolescent or an adult. He certainly could have chosen to take on a human form in this way, but He didn’t. He became flesh as a zygote (a one-celled human embryo).

"This saving event," Pope John Paul II says in Evangelium Vitae, "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."

I think few people need to be convinced that human life has been under withering assault for several decades. A sense of awe for the miracle that is human life has been yielding to a view that sees human life as a burden, as an object to be manipulated and used for the benefit of others. We desperately need to rediscover a sense of awe for human life.

This is the impetus behind a flier that my office has produced for distribution to parishes around the Annunciation. The flier combines visually beauty images with intellectually beautiful and inspiring words. A gorgeous image of Madonna and Child is juxtaposed next to a precious newborn, curled up in the fetal position with a ribbon that says "From: God". The caption with these pictures reminds us that "Just as God became man at the miraculous moment of Christ’s conception in the Virgin Mary…Every human life begins at conception and is a sacred and miraculous gift from God."

The text of the flier inspires a sense of awe for human life. "From the moment of conception," it says, "the awesome complexity of a new human life unfolds. Parents provide the 46 chromosomes, but God supplies the human soul to create the person he knew and loved from all eternity…What is most miraculous about human life is why we exist at all: ‘God created the universe in order to be able to become a human being and pour out his love upon us and to invite us to love him in return.’ (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger).

"God created every human life in his image. You, me, one-celled embryos in lab dishes, unborn children and their impoverished parents living in the slums of less-developed nations. People who struggle with disabilities, comatose or dying patients. Convicted killers on death row. Each possesses inherent God-given dignity equal to that of every other human."

The flier also challenges us to "change the face of our world to reflect the value and dignity of every human life" by reaching out to persons in need by ourselves and through programs of service and care. "But no matter how many compassionate services we provide, no matter how many pro-family economic and social policies are adopted," the flier cautions, "unless the fundamental right of each human being to live is respected from conception until natural death, the structures of community life have no solid foundation. It’s like building a house on shifting sand."

Restoring a sense of awe for human life will require us to rededicate ourselves to upholding the sanctity of human life, and to holding those elected to represent us to the same standard.

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

Life Insight 3-12-04

Roe and Doe Seek to Overturn Roe and Doe

ROE

In June of 2003, Norma McCorvey, filed a motion in federal court asking that Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton be re-opened and overturned. Who the heck does Miss McCorvey think she is to file such a motion? Well, she’s the Jane Roe in the infamous Roe v. Wade case. She is the person who was used—literally—by a couple of lawyers to challenge Texas’ law against abortion, which led to the U.S. Supreme Court invalidating anti-abortion laws in all 50 states.

"As a party to the original litigation, Norma McCorvey may petition the court to re-open the original case based on changes in factual conditions and/or changes in law that make the prior decision ‘no longer just,’" said Allan E. Parker, Jr. lead attorney for the Texas-based Justice Foundation. The motion to overturn Roe v Wade was filed on June 17, 2003, the exact date 33 years prior on which the Dallas Federal Court first ruled against Texas’ law banning abortion.

"I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders," McCorvey said. "I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children. The issue is justice for women, justice for the unborn, and justice for what is right."

According to The Justice Foundation, "the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned its own precedents using Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, most recently in the 1997 decision of Agostini v. Felton. In that case, the high court used a post-judgment motion by a party to overturn two of its own 12-year precedents."

Using Rule 60, The Justice Foundation is making three major arguments to re-open and overturn the case on the basis of changed facts and law:

Norma McCorvey, and more than 1000 women who have actually had abortions, have signed affidavits that attest to the devastating emotional, physical, and psychological trauma of abortion. These affidavits are the largest body of sworn evidence in the world on the negative effects of abortion on women. It is more than a thousand times more evidence from women than the Court heard in Roe.
The unanswered question in Roe’s former case, "when does human life begin?" was treated by the Court as a philosophical question when the case was first heard in 1973. Since then, an explosion of scientific evidence on human life conclusively answers the question that life begins at conception.
The state of Texas in 1999 enacted a law in which it agreed to provide for any woman’s unwanted child from the child’s birth to 18 years of age with no questions asked. Legally, because the state has agreed to take responsibility for all unwanted children, women should no longer be forced to dispose of "unwanted" children by ending a human life. Forty-five states have similar "safe haven" laws.

Two days after filing the motion, the Dallas federal judge denied it saying that the case couldn’t be re-opened thirty years after the original judgment. This decision was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which named a three judge panel in February 2004 to review the case. The panel decided it would base its ruling on the more than 5000 pages of testimony from more than 1000 scientific experts and women harmed by abortion; it will not hear oral arguments. A decision by the panel could come at any time within the next several months.

DOE

Sandra Cano, the Mary Doe in the Doe v. Bolton case also filed a motion last year to dismiss the abortion cases under Rule 60. Her case, however, is still being considered by a federal district judge in Georgia.

This effort by "Roe" and "Doe" to overturn Roe and Doe has coalesced into an organization called "Operation Outcry, Silent No More". It is primarily comprised of women who have had abortions and now are speaking out about how abortion harmed them. On its website, www.operationoutcry.org, is an affidavit that women who have had abortions can fill out explaining how their abortion affected them and others. The website also provides an opportunity for anyone to act as a "friend of the court" by filling out a simple form. Both forms can also be obtained by calling 1-866-468-8279.

Overturning Roe and Doe, even with this extraordinary effort by "Roe" and "Doe" themselves, will be extremely difficult. The current Supreme Court does not seem to have the will, regardless of how compelling the legal or intellectual arguments may be, to overturn Roe and Doe. Nevertheless, we know that all things are possible with God. Furthermore, efforts like "Operation Outcry" demonstrate that the crushing weight of abortion’s aftermath is prompting women to be "Silent No More" about how abortion hurts them. This outcry from those most impacted by abortion may finally convince our society that nothing good comes from abortion and that women deserve better. Then, God willing, keeping abortion legal will seem unthinkable.

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

Life Insight 3-5-04

72 Hours to Erase Last Night?

Thirty-five years ago, Pope Paul VI predicted (in Humanae Vitae) that society’s embrace of contraception would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality." He warned that man would "lose respect for the woman, and no longer caring about her physical and psychological equilibrium, come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."

No one can reasonably deny that the rates of abortion, divorce, family breakdown, wife and child abuse, sexually-transmitted disease and out-of-wedlock births have increased dramatically since the mid-1960s. Although the birth control pill is not the only factor causing these increases, it has clearly played a major role. "In fact," says Archbishop Charles Chaput, "the cultural revolution since 1968, driven at least in part by transformed attitudes toward sex, would not have been possible or sustainable without easy access to reliable contraception."

Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged a connection between the use of contraception and recourse to abortion. In it’s 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, the Court said that Roe v Wade could not be overturned without causing "serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their place in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

Sadly, this statement accurately identifies the fact that the availability of contraception and abortion does impact sexual behavior. Of course, one doesn’t need the Supreme Court, or a study, to come to this conclusion—just an honest acknowledgment of human weakness. Is it really that hard to understand that giving human beings, especially teenagers, tools to facilitate recreational sex will increase promiscuity?

Those who suggest otherwise are living in a fantasy world with a serious ignorance of our fallen human nature. As Paul VI said: "human beings—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, and must not be offered an easy means to evade its observance."

Unfortunately, rather than helping individuals to be faithful to the moral law, our society seems to be constantly seeking new ways to evade its observance. Five years ago, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the so-called "emergency contraceptive" pills (ECPs).

The regimen approved by the FDA requires that a high dose of ordinary birth control pills be taken within 72 hours of "unprotected intercourse", followed by a second high dose 12 hours later. Not only do these powerful hormones have potentially serious health risks, they can operate as abortifacients by preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting in his/her mother’s womb.

But this doesn’t stop Planned Parenthood from happily promoting ECPs using such clever (and irresponsible) promotional tools as postcards that provide this assurance to couples: "You have 72 hours to erase last night". Gee, I can’t imagine such promotions having any impact on increasing sexual activity, can you?

But there’s more. Now, the FDA is considering making ECPs available over the counter, without even the prescription or guidance of a physician. Apparently, ECPs aren’t catching on fast enough so some want to make it as accessible as aspirin. And, of course, this means teenagers will have easy access to potentially harmful contraceptive drugs without mom and dad finding out. But again, we’re expected to believe that this will have no impact on sexual activity.

How sad that after more than three decades of broken relationships, failed marriages, the objectification and exploitation of women, rampant sexual abuse, the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases, single parenthood and the destruction of more than 40 million unborn children, our society seems hell-bent on spreading and deepening the pain.

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

Life Insight 2-27-04

Clone and Kill Now Reality

A couple of weeks ago, South Korean researchers, funded by their government, announced in Science magazine that they have succeeded in cloning human embryos for use in research. Research cloning produces human embryos solely to harvest their stem cells which results in their death. Clone and kill.

According to the South Korean researchers, 16 women were given potentially dangerous superovulatory drugs, making them produce (on average) 15 eggs at a time instead of one. A total of 242 eggs were produced and subjected to the cloning technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).

In this method of cloning, the nucleus (genetic material) of the egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a body cell taken from the person being cloned. No sperm is used. This cell is then stimulated to start embryonic development.

The goal of "research" cloning is to get these embryos to develop to the 5-7 day stage known as blastocysts (about 150 cells). At this stage, embryonic stem cells can be harvested, which causes the death of the embryo. This is also the stage at which embryos, whether produced through cloning or in vitro fertilization (i.e. sperm and egg), can be implanted to achieve live birth.

In the South Korean research, 213 of the cloned embryos reached the two-cell stage; 40 reached the 3-4 day or 12-cell stage (known as a "compacted morula"); 30 reached the (5-7 day) blastocyst stage. Stem cells were harvested from 20 of these 30 embryos and from these only one formed a stable embryonic stem cell line.

This research proves that human cloning is possible. It also debunks the myth that "research" or "therapeutic" cloning merely produces stem cells or "unfertilized blastocysts" but not embryos. The Science article and every newspaper report of it were very clear that what these scientists produced—and subsequently destroyed for their stem cells—were human embryos; human beings at their earliest stage of development, not just some clump of cells.

This myth has created much confusion in the debate over cloning. Many people have been misled to believe that "research" cloning just produces stem cells while "reproductive" cloning produces babies. The fact is, when somatic cell nuclear transfer (i.e. cloning) is used with humans, the product is a human embryo. The only difference between "research" and "reproductive" cloning is what you do with that embryo.

As previously mentioned, "research" cloning produces human embryos solely for the purpose of harvesting stem cells which destroys the embryos. "Reproductive" cloning produces embryos for the purpose of implanting them in a womb to achieve a live birth.

Research cloning proponents are following the very effective and familiar verbal deception of the pro-abortion movement. Abortion advocates have successfully used euphemisms such as "product of conception", "fetus", "blob of tissue" to dehumanize unborn children and to secure legal abortion. Now, research cloning proponents are using similar euphemisms to dehumanize human embryos and confuse the public into accepting research that produces, uses and destroys embryonic human beings.

Public opinion polls suggest that this strategy is working. As Wesley Smith mentions in his 2/20/04 article in the Weekly Standard, "when cloning is accurately described as creating a new human embryo, the public overwhelmingly opposes it—whether the cloning is undertaken for research purposes or to create children. But when obfuscating terminology is employed to make it appear that only ‘cells’ are created in a ‘therapeutic cloning’ procedure, public support grows."

Amazingly, this is even true among scientists. Smith cites a study of biotech researchers reported in Genetic Engineering News. The study revealed that a vast majority of scientists support "therapeutic cloning of human cells for replacement tissues." No surprise there. But a vast majority of these same scientists "believe the creation of human embryos specifically for research purposes is ethically unacceptable."

Smith’s conclusion about this study is right on the mark. He says if "biotechnological experts are so confused about what human cloning actually entails that they answer questions about its morality differently, depending on how the question is worded, imagine the perplexity experienced by the lay public. Which is precisely why the cloning lobby refuses to tell the unvarnished facts about human cloning to the American people. They want to win and they are not about to let the truth get in their way."

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

Life Insight 2-20-04

Pray and Fast for a Culture of Life and Love

"As they approached the crowd, a man came up to him and knelt before him. ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘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.’ [This kind does not leave but by prayer and fasting.]"

Human life is the only creation that God made in His image and likeness. Satan knows this all too well and constantly works to undermine and attack the dignity of human life and love. It is quite clear that the pervasive and insidious attacks against life and love are the work of the "father of lies", the "prince of darkness". I think it’s also clear that the demon that our Holy Father calls the "culture of death" will only be expelled with prayer and fasting.

Of course this does not mean that we abandon our educational, pastoral and public policy efforts in the pro-life cause. It does mean that such efforts will be fruitless if they are done without a foundation of prayer and fasting. When we educate about, advocate for, or serve human life, we serve our Lord by planting His seeds of Truth and Love in our society. It is God’s grace, through our prayers and sacrifice, that provides the nourishment to those seeds so that they might bear fruit.

The beauty of prayer and fasting is that anyone—young children, persons with disabilities or illness, the elderly who are homebound or in nursing homes—can participate. In fact, those persons who carry the heaviest crosses of suffering can make the greatest contribution to the pro-life cause by offering up their suffering for the cause.

There are numerous ways to participate in this effort. One is to participate in Intercessors for Life. Participation is as simple as filling out a card (available from my office or your parish pro-life coordinator) and committing to weekly prayer and fasting. There are also special pro-life meditations on the stations of the cross and the Rosary available from my office or online at www.priestsforlife.org.

Lent is an excellent time to commit or recommit ourselves to prayer and fasting for this cause to rebuild a culture of life and love. As you contemplate your Lenten sacrifice, I urge you to consider offering some, or all, of your prayers and fasting for this cause.

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

Life Insight 2-13-04

The Inspiring Beauty of Heroic Virtue

It is so difficult at times to not be overwhelmed and dispirited by the cultural decline in our society: the growing attacks against human life and dignity, the perversion and exploitation of our sexual capacity, the corporate, governmental and church scandals, a morally crippled entertainment industry, to name but a few examples. It seems to me that the common element in all of this ugliness is a lack of holiness and virtue.

Boston Archbishop Sean O’Malley said in an interview following the Vigil for Life Mass in Washington, D.C. last January that the solution to this decline lies mostly in holiness. Catholics must "be willing to live their faith heroically, the testimony of holiness is the only thing that’s going to be able to convince people. Mother Teresa could speak about life issues in a way, because of the ethos of her life, that was much more powerful than the most eloquent preacher or teacher. We have to live our faith very deeply in order to draw people."

A couple of inspiring examples of heroic virtue are right here in our own neighborhood. Two mothers, Jennifer Finder (Lincoln) and Megan Boever (Omaha) were confronted with an almost incomprehensible choice. Both discovered during their pregnancies that they have breast cancer and both refused to sacrifice their child’s life to increase the odds of their own survival.

Both mothers are saintly. Their heroic virtue shines and inspires like a beacon of light in a darkened, ugly culture of death. Our culture desperately needs this inspiration, this example, this model of faith, hope and love.

The highly criticized Super Bowl half time show was a poignant example of the sad and destructive decadence and decline of our culture’s regard for the sacred gift of sexuality. Pope John Paul II once said that the problem with pornography [and I would say the whole modern understanding of human sexuality] is not that it reveals to much of the human person, but that it reveals too little.

It is in our sexuality that we human beings most profoundly imitate and embody our Creator’s two highest powers: love and life. When we reduce this sacred and beautiful gift to lust and hedonism, we live beneath our dignity and we ensure our own sadness.

And yet, in the midst of a cesspool of attacks against purity, led by the entertainment industry, more than half of teenagers heroically choose to save sex for marriage. These teenagers recognize and reject the false allure and self destruction of abusing God’ sacred gift of sex. They rightfully want and expect society to respect them enough to set high standards for sexual behavior and assist them in achieving those standards.

Our contemporary world has been blessed with two obvious models of heroic virtue: Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II. Mother Teresa embodied her own saying that "we can do no great things, only small things with great love." Our Holy Father’s entire life from a young man risking his life to study for the priesthood, to his unwavering confrontation with the culture of death to his courageous shouldering of the cross of physical suffering, inspires us to strive for holiness and virtue.

We should never, ever dismiss or underestimate the enormously edifying impact that our seemingly small demonstration of virtue and holiness can have on others and on rebuilding the culture of life and love.

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

Life Insight 2-6-04

Can A Single Issue Disqualify a Candidate?

In a society of sound bites, properly evaluating candidates for public office can be a challenging task. In Nebraska, the Catholic Conference provides some assistance with this evaluation by issuing its candidate survey prior to elections. The survey questions candidates on a wide range of issues of concern to the Church.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also helps by issuing a political responsibility statement every four years. In this document, the Bishops identify six themes from Catholic social teaching that should guide our evaluation of candidates: Life and Dignity of the Human Person, Call to Family, Community, and Participation, Rights and Responsibilities, Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable, Solidarity, and Caring for God’s Creation.

Although we have an obligation as Christians to evaluate candidates for public office on a wide range of issues impacting human life and dignity, the Bishops have made clear that these issues do not carry equal weight. In other words, determining which candidate to support requires more than simply choosing the candidate who agrees with the Church on the most number of issues.

In their document, Living the Gospel of Life, the U.S. Bishops explain this weighting in a number of ways:

"Respect for the dignity of the human person demands a commitment to human rights across a broad spectrum…Yet abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others. They are committed against those who are weakest and most defenseless, those who are genuinely ‘the poorest of the poor’…those who have no voice." (page 4-5)

"The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination…" (page 13)

"Bringing respect for human dignity to practical politics can be a daunting task. There is such a wide spectrum of issues involving the protection of human life and the promotion of human dignity…But for citizens and elected officials alike, the basic principle is simple: We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life…" (page 14)

"Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice…Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life.

"But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. 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 a ‘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." (page 15 and 16)

In a recent editorial in the Omaha World Herald, a retired priest from Sioux City said correctly that we need to evaluate candidates on a wide range of issues. But he also intimated that all issues are of equal weight. On this point he’s wrong, as the previous quotes (and common sense) testify.

Furthermore, while we should evaluate candidates on a range of issues, clearly there are some issues which can disqualify a candidate. I think most everyone would agree that 150 years ago, it would have been wrong to vote for people who supported the institution of slavery, no matter how "right" they may have been on other issues. Similarly, I think most people today would agree that membership in the Ku Klux Klan would be a disqualifier. Since abortion is as grave an evil as slavery or racism, then it seems right that it too can be a disqualifier.

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

Life Insight 1-30-04

One Vote Could Doom Cloning Ban

Sad, disheartening, deeply disappointing. These are the most charitable words I can muster in response to the Legislature’s failure last Thursday to advance LB 602, a bill that would prohibit all forms of human cloning. The bill endured vigorous objections by several senators, but primarily by Senators Ernie Chambers (Omaha) and Joel Johnson (Kearney). After nearly seven hours of debate, including more than three hours carried over from last year, the bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. Adrian Smith (Gering), filed a motion to invoke cloture, which would stop the filibuster and bring about a vote to advance the bill.

When the votes were counted, 32 senators voted yes (to end the filibuster); 12 voted no and five were present but didn’t vote. The motion failed by one vote! Although the bill is technically still "alive", when a cloture vote fails, the bill is taken off the legislative agenda, quite likely finishing it for the session.

Here’s the breakdown on the vote:

Voting FOR cloture: Aguilar, Baker, Brashear, Bromm, Byars, Combs, Connealy, Cudaback, Cunningham, Engel, Erdman, Foley, Friend, Hudkins, Jensen, Jones, Kremer, Louden, Maxwell, Mossey, Dwite Pedersen, Preister, Quandahl, Redfield, Schrock, Smith, Stuhr, Stuthman, Synowiecki, Tyson, Vrtiska, Wehrbein.

Voting AGAINST cloture: Beutler, Bourne, Brown, Chambers, Janssen, Johnson, Landis, Don Pederson, Price, Raikes, Schimek, Thompson.

Present but NOT VOTING: Burling, Hartnett, Kruse, McDonald, Mines.

The deepest source of disappointment and sadness is that five co-sponsors of LB 602 in effect doomed the bill by failing to support Sen. Smith’s motion: Senator Pat Bourne voted no; Senators Carroll Burling, Paul Hartnett, Vickie McDonald and Mick Mines were present but did not vote. Senators Burling, McDonald and Mines have indicated that they support the bill but would not support a cloture vote for various reasons, even though the fate of the bill most likely hung in the balance.

It is not hyperbole to say that the ultimate outcome of this debate—whether human cloning is embraced or prohibited—will have a profound effect upon the future of humanity. In the executive summary of it’s report, "Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry" (July 2002), members of the President’s Council on Bioethics who oppose "cloning-for-biomedical-research" articulated what is at stake in this debate:

"To engage in cloning-for-biomedical-research requires the irreversible crossing of a very significant moral boundary: the creation of human life expressly and exclusively for the purpose of it use in research, research that necessarily involves its deliberate destruction. If we permit this research to proceed, we will effectively be endorsing the complete transformation of nascent human life into nothing more than a resource or a tool. Doing so would coarsen our moral sensibilities and make us a different society: one less humble toward that which we cannot fully understand, less willing to extend the boundaries of human respect ever outward, and more willing to transgress moral boundaries once it appears to be in our own interests to do so."

"As much as we wish to alleviate suffering now and to leave our children a world where suffering can be more effectively relieved, we also want to leave them a world in which we and they want to live—a world that honors moral limits, that respects all life whether strong or weak, and that refuses to secure the good of some human beings by sacrificing the live of others."

The cloning of human beings, whether for live birth or research, represents the most serious attack against human dignity since the legalization of abortion. The fundamental question that LB 602 presents to our Legislature is this: Should we prohibit the mass production of cloned human beings solely for their use and ultimate destruction in research? For those who believe human life has intrinsic value at every stage of development, the answer should be a resounding YES. God help us if this Legislature fails to prohibit human cloning, because eventually and ultimately somewhere in Nebraska a significant moral boundary will be transgressed from which there will be no turning back.

If your senator voted FOR cloture, I urge you to thank him/her for his/her vote. It should be noted that in addition to voting for cloture, Senators Engel, Erdman, Friend, Foley, Jones, Kremer, Maxwell, Dwite Pedersen, Redfield, Smith, Stuhr and Stuthman spoke passionately in favor of the bill and deserve additional thanks for that. Special thanks also to Senator Adrian Smith for sponsoring the bill and working hard for its passage and Senator Arnie Stuthman for prioritizing the bill.

If your senator voted AGAINST cloture, or was present but did not vote, please contact him/her to express--respectfully--your deep disappointment with the vote. Written notes can be sent to the State Capitol, PO Box 94604, Lincoln, NE 68509-4604. Senator’s offices can be reached by phone by calling the Capitol switchboard at 402-471-2311 or you can send an e-mail by going to http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/contact/index.htm .

PLEASE take a few minutes to do this--it is VERY important.

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

Life Insight 1-23-04

Thirty One Years and Counting

Thursday, January 22, 2004 marks the 31^st anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion rulings, Roe v Wade and Doe v. Bolton. It’s amazing that 31 years later, many Americans still don’t know how permissive these rulings made the practice of abortion in our nation.

Let’s start with the fact that the Court handed down two abortion rulings, not one. Roe v Wade received all the attention, but it’s companion case, Doe v Bolton, is critical to the permissiveness of the decision. Roe said that a woman may have an abortion for any or no reason during the first six months of pregnancy. In the last three months of pregnancy, when a child can live outside the womb, the Court recognized a heightened interest of the state to protect this "potential" life, as the Court put it.

The Roe decision said that in the last three months of pregnancy a state "may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." At first glance, this seems to give states the ability to prohibit third trimester abortions except in very rare cases. Enter Doe v Bolton.

In Doe, the Court defined "health" as encompassing: "all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient." Obviously, this definition of health is so broad that a woman is able to have an abortion even in the last weeks of pregnancy for virtually any reason.

In June 1983, ten years after the Roe and Doe decisions, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report showing the real outcome of these decisions—unrestricted abortion on demand:

"The Senate Judiciary Committee observes that no significant legal barrier of any kind whatsoever exists today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion during any stage of her pregnancy."

Sadly, most Americans don’t realize that our nation’s law on abortion is so permissive, nor do they support such permissiveness. Nearly every public opinion poll done on abortion has shown that a majority of Americans only support abortion in very limited cases: when the mother is a victim of rape or incest or her life is endangered by the pregnancy.

Direct abortion, of course, is a grave sin in every case, but these public opinion polls point out that a majority of Americans oppose the majority of abortions performed and allowed in our country. Presumably, as more Americans are informed that abortion is permissible during all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason, they will become more supportive of laws that protect our unborn brothers and sisters.

Mother Teresa, in her usual eloquence and spiritual depth, articulated the effect of legalizing abortion in our nation:

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners.

"Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human beings entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

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

Life Insight 1-16-04

Scriptures Directly Illustrates God's Pro Life Message for Us All

Our faith teaches us that Sacred Scripture is one of the primary ways in which Our Lord speaks to us. Wow, did He ever speak to me last Thursday. I attend a Catholic apologetics group that meets on the second and fourth Thursday of each month. We start with Mass at 6:00 am. Last Thursday, I’m a bit embarrassed to admit, I was late for Mass and I missed the readings. Fortunately, the missalette contained the daily readings so I was able to read what I missed. I’m glad I did.

It was the first reading for January 8 (1 John 4:19—5:4) that struck me:

"Beloved, we love God because he first loved us. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from him: Whoever loves God must also love his brother. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the father loves also the one begotten by him.

In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments. For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome, for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world. And the victory that conquers the world is our faith."

Several messages in this passage stand out to me as being particularly relevant to our efforts to rebuild a culture of life. Let’s start with "For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments." So many in our culture dismiss Our Lord’s commandments, Church teaching, or moral absolutes. They wrongly interpret our Lord’s limitless mercy and love as permission to live however we wish and to never be judgmental about another person’s lifestyle. That interpretation cannot be reconciled with our Lord’s admonition: "If you love me, keep my commandments."

Second, "His commandments are not burdensome." How sad that so many Catholics (and Christians in general) look upon Church teachings, particularly in the area of sexual morality, as burdensome, oppressive and intrusive. But our Creator, Who obviously knows us best, gave us these instructions/laws/commandments not to oppress us but to make us truly happy and truly free. The suffering in our world does not come from following God’s laws, it comes from our rejection of them.

Third, "the victory that conquers the world is our faith." Pope John Paul II has instructed us in "The Gospel of Life" (Evangelium Vitae) that the deepest root of the culture of death is spiritual poverty. If our relationship with our Creator is weak, our understanding of, and respect for, the dignity and meaning of human life (made in His image) will be weak as well.

Let me put it this way. If you have no idea who Michelangelo is, you will be unlikely to have an appreciation for the value of his work. Should someone give you one of his paintings, depending upon how much you like its physical appearance, you might hang it on your wall, throw it in your closet or sell it for a few bucks at a garage sale.

Our efforts to protect human life and to elevate our culture’s appreciation for its sacredness will be more efficacious if in doing so we deepen our society’s knowledge of, and relationship with, God the Author of Life. This requires no grand program, no advanced training in theology, Sacred Scripture or philosophy. It requires that we love God by keeping His commandments and that we love our neighbors as ourselves.</