|
|
THE CONFERENCE:(11/2008) (1/06) Statement (2/05) -Capitol Correspondent:
********* Life Insight: Columns-2008 2008 PL Conferences
********* 2008
Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked. |
Life Insight 2005Most current:A Person's a Person, No Matter How Small (6/17/05)House Approved Embryo-destructive Research (6/3/05) Clone and Kill Arrives (5/27/05)Congress Considers Funding Embryo-destructive Research (5/20/05)Funding Approved for Pregnancy Help Services (5/13/05)How Little We Know About Roe (5/6/05)The Battle Over Judges (4/29/05)The Divine Providence of JP II's Papacy (4/22/05) Double Digit Decrease in Abortions (4/15/05)Verbum Caro Factum Est (4/8/05)Medical Treatment Decisionmaking (4/1/05)Take Up Your Cross (3/25/05)Money Trumps Ethics (3/18/05)Pro Life Legislative Summary (3/11/05)Terry Schiavo (3/5/05)Pain of the Unborn (2/25/05)Prayer & Fasting for Life (2/18/05)No Serious Opposition? (2/11/05)Thirty-two Years of Marching for Life (2/02/05)Will the Real Ban Please Stand Up? (1/28/05)FDA Considers Making EC Available OTC (1/21/05) Thirty Two Years of Roe and Doe (1/14/05) Good News (1/07/05)
A Person’s a Person No Matter How Small In Dr. Seuss’s famous book “Horton Hears a Who”, Horton the elephant hears voices from a small speck of dust. “I say!” murmured Horton. “I’ve never heard tell, of a small speck of dust that is able to yell. So you know what I think?…Why, I think that there must be someone on top of that small speck of dust! Some sort of creature of very small size, Too small to be seen by an elephant’s eyes…” “[S]ome poor little person who’s shaking with fear, That he’ll blow in the pool! He has no way to steer! I’ll just have to save him. Because, after all, A person’s a person, no matter how small.” But Horton encounters some naysayers who ridicule him for thinking that something so small could be a person. “Humpf!” humpfed a voice. ‘Twas a sour kangaroo. And the young kangaroo in her pouch said “Humpf!” too. “Why, that speck is as small as the head of a pin. A person on that?…Why, there never has been!” “I think you’re a fool!” laughed the sour kangaroo And the young kangaroo in her pouch said, “Me, too! You’re the biggest blame fool in the Jungle of Nool!” Naturally, like the sensitive elephant he is, Horton begins to wither from the ridicule. “Should I put this speck down?…” Horton thought with alarm. “If I do, these small persons may come to great harm. I can’t put it down. And I won’t! After all A person’s a person. No matter how small.” The debate over embryonic stem cell and cloning research involves complex aspects of science and ethics that can be intimidating to most people. But sometimes such complex topics really boil down to something quite simple. The simple concept in this debate (as in the abortion debate) is captured quite clearly in this classic children’s book: “A person’s a person no matter how small”!!! One of the primary arguments used to justify research that destroys human embryos is that these embryos are “just tiny microscopic clumps of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.” On its face, this argument—that our humanity or personhood are dependent upon our size or physical appearance—should be offensive to every thinking person. It is, after all, one of the primary arguments that has been used to dehumanize, and violate the human rights of, numerous categories of human beings throughout history. Personhood must be inextricably linked to every human being; if you are a human being, you are a person. Are human embryos human beings? To answer that question, I (and the Catholic Church) turn to the science of biology (specifically, human embryology). Read any human embryology textbook and you’ll find essentially the same answer: an individual human being’s life begins at fertilization. For example, the textbook used at the University of Nebraska Medical Center says “Human development begins at fertilization…[with the formation of] a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” In the textbook’s definition of terms, it defines a zygote (another name for a one-celled embryo) as “the beginning of a new human being.” (The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th edition, 1998, p.2, p. 18, Moore and Persaud) Human embryos are unquestionably human beings. Every human person begins his or her life as a one-celled embryo and, assuming death doesn’t strike prematurely, progresses through several subsequent stages of human development: fetus, infant, child, adolescent, and adult. As in the Jungle of Nool, our culture has many “sour kangaroos” (research and academic establishments, celebrities, media, etc.) who relentlessly ridicule those who defend the humanity and personhood of human embryos. They call us fools, extremists, religious nuts, etc. We cannot wither in our defense of our smallest brothers and sisters or great harm will come to them…and to all of us. If we allow the dignity and rights of some human beings to be violated, then the dignity of all humanity will be diminished and our rights put in jeopardy.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | House Approves Funding for Embryo-Destructive Research Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives, on a 238-194 vote, approved a measure (H.R. 810) that would allow federal tax dollars to be used to destroy human embryos for research. There appear to be more than enough votes in the Senate to also pass this bill, should it take up the measure. Fortunately, President Bush has made it clear that he’ll veto this bill should it be adopted by the Senate. And while there are probably enough votes in the Senate to override his veto, the House is about 50 votes short of the two-thirds needed to override.
I’m pleased to say that all three of Nebraska’s representatives (Jeff
Fortenberry, Lee Terry, Tom Osborne) voted against H.R. 810. I
strongly encourage all who read this to send them a Their votes are all the more appreciated given the tremendous amount of misguided, but heart-wrenching pressure they received from individuals who suffer from disease (or who have sick family members) who have been misled into believing that only embryonic stem cell research provides hope for cures. It angers me greatly that many in the biomedical research establishment, the media, academia and most medical charities have hyped embryonic stem cell research, going so far as to promise cures from this research. Making such guarantees at this early stage of any research is grossly irresponsible and is a cruel manipulation of the hopes and fears of suffering persons. To make matters worse, these same folks who are hyping embryo-destructive research (that is probably years or more from human application) are downplaying or even dismissing the numerous actual cures and treatments that have come from “adult” (non-embryonic) stem cell research. This has left patients and their families with the patently false perception that if science can’t use and destroy embryos for research, there is no hope for cures. Another misrepresentation of embryonic stem cell research that undoubtedly propelled H.R. 810 to passage (luring several members who have strong pro-life voting records) is its apparently limited scope. Sponsors of the bill insist that it would limit federal funding to research that only uses frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded. That means embryos produced in fertility clinics using in vitro fertilization (IVF) whose parents no longer want them nor will allow their adoption. It is easy to understand the intuitive appeal of the argument that if human embryos are otherwise going to die and be discarded, why not use them for research that could help others. My response is two-fold. First, if we accept this principle that it is permissible to do lethal experimentation on human embryos simply because they will die soon, then logically this principle would apply to terminally-ill persons and criminals about to be executed. Those who object to this comparison can do so only by rejecting the view that embryonic human beings are morally equal to older human beings. Second, this bill’s implication that scientists only want embryos that would otherwise be discarded is unambiguously false. Not only would these so-called “left-over” embryos not provide a sufficient supply of stem cells for research, let alone any treatments that might result, but their use will inevitably lead to the cloning of embryos for research. Two recent events substantiate this point. One was the announcement by South Korean researchers that they had successfully cloned human embryos to produce stem cells that are genetically matched to patients with various diseases. The biomedical research establishment applauded this research and made clear its intention to follow suit. The other event is the battle in Massachusetts over a bill to allow funding of embryonic stem cell and cloning research. Governor Mitt Romney supports the use of “left-over” frozen IVF embryos, but draws the line at manufacturing embryos through cloning or other means solely for research purposes, which he strongly opposes. The biomedical research establishment has categorically rejected this compromise because it knows that being able to clone human embryos who are genetically-matched to sick patients is the ultimate goal of embryonic stem cell research. This establishment is making it increasingly clear that it views the human embryo as little more than raw material to be manufactured, manipulated and destroyed to benefit older human beings who fit its dangerously warped definition of personhood.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Clone and Kill Arrives Last Friday’s newspapers heralded a breakthrough in stem cell research by South Korean scientists. According to the Associate Press story, “South Korean scientists have dramatically sped up the creation of human embryonic stem cells, growing 11 new batches that for the first time were a genetic match for injured or sick patients.” These scientists “have improved, by more than tenfold, their efficiency at culling these master cells, thus making pursuit of therapeutic cloning more practical.” If you just
read the headlines or skimmed this story, you may have missed a critical aspect
of this research. That’s because the story barely What’s more, these scientists didn’t just destroy one human embryo to produce each of the 11 “batches” (stem cell lines). The scientists said it took an “average of 17 eggs” (a euphemism for embryos) to produce each of the 11 stem cell lines. What this most likely means is that for each cloned embryo that survived to the 5-7 day stem-cell-harvesting stage, 16 cloned embryos were produced and died before reaching this stage. The scientists were pleased with these odds since last year they produced and destroyed 242 human embryos to produce one “batch” of stem cells. The cloning technique used by these scientists—somatic cell nuclear transfer—is the same cloning technique used to produce “Dolly” the sheep. In this technique, an egg is taken from a female and enucleated (the nucleus containing its genetic material is removed). Then the nucleus of a somatic cell (a body cell containing 46 chromosomes) is removed from the person you want to clone and injected into the enucleated egg. It is then given an electrical charge or immersed in chemicals to prompt cell division or embryonic development. The goal of “clone and kill” (or so-called “therapeutic cloning”) is to produce human embryos that are genetically matched to the person with a disease, so that (theoretically) the harvested stem cells will not be rejected by the person’s immune system. Using the technique just described, the embryos are grown for 5-7 days (this is the stage during which the embryo normally implants in the uterus) and then destroyed to harvest their stem cells. Research that destroys human embryos is immoral because human embryos are human beings at the earliest stage of development. No matter how promising an avenue of research might be, it can never justify killing some humans for the benefit of other humans. Proponents of this research either gloss over these biological and moral realities or they attack them. One typical response to moral objections is to play the emotions card by insisting that finding treatments for terrible diseases outweighs any moral concerns. Some have twisted moral reasoning beyond recognition by insisting that when so-called “spare” embryos produced in fertility clinics would otherwise be destroyed, the truly pro-life response is to purposely destroy them for research that might benefit others. Another typical response is to mimic one of the prime tactics of abortion advocates: dehumanize the human subject. “Don’t be concerned about using and destroying these embryos,” they insist, “because they are nothing more than a clump of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.” The favorite euphemisms for cloned embryos is “product of nuclear transplantation” and “unfertilized blastocyst”. These terms are technically accurate, but they are used to purposely dehumanize, just like “product of conception” and “fetus” are used to dehumanize the unborn child destined for abortion. Perhaps this is why there is an increasingly overt collaboration between advocates of abortion and advocates of embryo-destructive research. When you peel away the emotions, the euphemisms, and the various arguments related to embryo-destructive research, the fundamental question that remains is this: is it ever morally legitimate to purposely destroy (and even manufacture) some human beings for the benefit of others? How we answer that question will, I believe, determine whether our society rises or falls.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Congress Considers Funding Embryo-destructive Research
If the bill is enacted, it will rescind President Bush’s policy (established August 9, 2001) and will be the first time in our nation’s history that federal funds are used to intentionally destroy human beings solely for use in research. The President’s policy limits federal funding of ESC research to cells obtained from embryos that were destroyed prior to August 9, 2001. The policy in no way limits private funding of ESC research. In establishing this policy, the President, who opposes the destruction of human embryos for research, reasoned that by limiting funding of ESC research to stem cell lines (cultures) in existence as of the date of his policy, no federal funds would be spent on actually destroying human embryos. This is because once embryonic stem cells are cultivated into a cell culture, that culture of cells can live (and provide stem cells) nearly forever. Ever since the President issued this policy, many in the scientific community have complained that the ESC cultures eligible for federal funding are insufficient in quantity and quality to meet the desires of ESC research proponents. H.R. 810 would change this by opening the floodgates of federal tax dollars to be used to harvest more embryonic stem cells. There is a serious concern that this bill could pass. It has 198 co-sponsors (175 Democrats, 23 Republicans) which is nearly half of the House members. Although I have not yet spoken to the offices of all of our federal representatives, I’m quite confident that none of them will support H.R. 810. Nonetheless, it is still important for them to hear that their constituents are opposed to this bill and to any research that harms or destroys human subjects. I urge Nebraskans to contact our federal representatives with this message. According to a poll just commissioned by the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro Life Activities, a majority of Americans, 52 percent, oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, while just 36 percent support it. “When respondents were told that scientists disagree on whether embryonic stem cells, or stem cells from adult tissues and umbilical cord blood, may end up being most successful in treating diseases, 60 percent favored funding only the research avenues that raise no moral problem, while 22 percent favored funding all stem cell research including the kind that involves destroying embryos,” the Secretariat’s news release said. The Secretariat pointed out that a comparison of these results with an identical poll from last year shows a clear trend against funding stem cell research that requires destroying early human embryos. An August 2004 poll showed Americans opposed to funding the research 47 percent to 43 percent. My experience in speaking to various audiences about stem cell research has shown me that the more people know (e.g. ESC research destroys human embryos and adult stem cell research offers an ethical and very promising alternative) the more they oppose ESC research. There are many good, accessible educational resources available from my office and other organizations. Locally, the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research (402-690-2299) has a website (www.ethicalresearch.net), speakers and a newsletter to help educate Nebraskans. I urge your support of this group. Nationally, the Do No Harm Coalition is embarking on an educational campaign to debunk what it calls “political hype [that] has often substituted for the scientific facts.” It is producing several one-page fact sheets known as "The political science of stem cells." Each fact sheet cites a political statement by proponents of embryonic stem cell research and then responds to it with scientific fact. It’s website (www.stemcellresearch.org) contains these fact sheets and much more great information.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Funding Approved for Pregnancy Help Services Last week, the Nebraska Legislature took a significant step toward helping women with crisis pregnancies to access alternatives to abortion support services. On a vote of 25 to 10, the Legislature attached an amendment to the budget bill that provides $500,000 of federal funds over the next two years “for a pilot program to provide assistance to women who are pregnant or who believe they may be pregnant.” Sen. Mike Foley (Lincoln) introduced the amendment and very effectively led the debate in support of it. Efforts to get such funding began a few years ago when my office became aware of an innovative program in Pennsylvania called Project Women in Need (WIN). Initiated in 1994 by the late Governor Bob Casey, this program reimburses pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, and maternity homes that provide free support services to women who are pregnant, think they are, or have a child under 12 months. Since its inception, Project WIN, through its participating providers, has served more than 85,000 women and resulted in a doubling of the number of pregnancy-help centers in Pennsylvania. This year, with the considerable support and efforts of Governor Heineman, some available federal funds were identified and proposed for starting a Real Alternative’s type pilot program. Unfortunately, the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee rejected the Governor’s proposal and proposed spending most of these funds on a different program. This action prompted Sen. Foley to offer an amendment to the budget bill proposing to use $500,000 of available federal funds to start a pilot, regional program. Since these funds are insufficient to implement a Pennsylvania-style program statewide, they will likely be focused on a regional area such as metropolitan Omaha, with the hope of eventually expanding the program statewide. After a couple hours of debate, the Legislature adopted the amendment with the exact number of votes needed (25). The following senators voted yes on the Foley amendment: Tom Baker, Kermit Brashear, Jeanne Combs, Abbie Cornett, Jim Cudaback, Doug Cunningham, Pat Engel, Phil Erdman, Deb Fischer, Mike Flood, Mike Foley, Mike Friend, Lavon Heidemann, Jim Jensen, Gail Kopplin, Bob Kremer, Chris Langemeier, LeRoy Louden, Mick Mines, Rich Pahls, Ed Schrock, Adrian Smith, Elaine Stuhr, Arnie Stuthman, Roger Wehrbein. Senators voting against the Foley amendment were: Ernie Chambers, Gwen Howard, Ray Janssen, Joel Johnson, Lowen Kruse, Dave Landis, Don Pederson, Marian Price, Ron Raikes, Nancy Thompson. Senators who were present but did not vote were: Ray Aguilar, Chris Beutler, Pat Bourne, Pam Brown, Dennis Byars, Matt Connealy, Vickie McDonald, Don Preister, Pam Redfield, DiAnna Schimek, John Synowiecki. Senators Carroll Burling, Carol Hudkins and Dwite Pedersen were absent. Immediately after the vote, Senator DiAnna Schimek offered a motion to reconsider the vote hoping that further debate and another vote would produce a different outcome. Senators considered and rejected the motion the next day on a vote of 14 yes, 27 no, 5 not voting and 3 absent. If your senator voted for the Foley Amendment (AM 1374) to the budget bill (LB 425), please send him/her a note of thanks at the State Capitol, P.O. Box 94604, Lincoln, 68509-4604 or by e-mail by going to the Unicameral’s website at www.unicam.state.ne.us. If your senator voted no on the Foley amendment or was present but did not vote, please send him/her a polite note of disappointment.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
How Little We Know About Roe In March, the Committee for Pro Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) launched a new effort to dispel myths about Roe v. Wade. Informational cards called “Roe Reality Checks”, containing a brief message highlighting a basic fact about Roe or its impact, will be distributed to members of Congress and the media. “While abortion has been legal in the United States for over three decades, many Americans don't know basic facts, such as when in pregnancy abortions are legal or why they are generally performed,” said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq., Director of Planning and Information for the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. “The fact is, Roe v. Wade created an unlimited right to abortion, and most people think an unlimited right to abortion is wrong.” One reason for the misunderstanding about Roe’s permissiveness was the way in which the Court wrote the opinion. It divided pregnancy into three trimesters (three month segments) declaring that states could not prohibit abortions during the first two trimesters (six months) but could restrict or even prohibit abortion in the last trimester, unless a mother’s life or health are endangered by the pregnancy. Although Roe makes it appear that abortions can be severely restricted in the last three months of pregnancy, Roe’s obscure companion case, Doe v. Bolton, defined health as “all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient.” This broad definition of health makes any restriction in the third trimester virtually impossible. Most people have no idea that Roe had a companion case, and yet, if you don’t know Doe you cannot fully understand Roe. A bigger reason, I believe, why so many Americans don’t have an accurate understanding of Roe is the sloppy or even biased reporting by the main stream media. The day after the Supreme Court declared abortion legal during all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason, the New York Times headline said, “High court rules abortions legal the first three months.” Such misrepresentation of the legal reality of Roe has been the general rule in abortion-related stories by the media over the last 30 years. One of the recent examples of misrepresentation was a Harris poll describing Roe as “the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal.” The good news is that even with this egregious misrepresentation of Roe, the poll showed Americans supporting Roe v. Wade by just 52 percent, with 47% opposed. This is a substantial decline from the 57 percent who indicated support for Roe in 1998. The poll notes that opposition is at its highest level in 20 years. The even better news is that this same poll shows that 72 percent of Americans would ban abortion in the second trimester, and 86 percent (that's almost 9 out of 10 Americans) would do so in the third trimester. Therefore, if Americans knew that Roe legalized abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, it’s clear from this poll (and many others) that opposition to Roe would be significantly higher. The Roe Reality Checks are part of a broader educational campaign by the Pro-Life Committee called The Second Look Project, which presents basic factual information about abortion so people can take a second look at the issue. “Opinions on abortion are often based on mistaken perceptions or on emotions. The Second Look Project is innovative because it provides basic facts, and lets the facts speak for themselves,” said Ruse. To view these facts and the Roe Reality Checks, go online to www.secondlookproject.org or contact my office.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | The Battle Over Judges There has been much in the news lately about the battle in the United States Senate over the confirmation process for federal judges. The Constitution says that the President gets to nominate judges and the Senate provides advice and consent (i.e. votes to confirm or deny the nomination). Over the last couple of years, ten of President Bush’s nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals have been denied an up or down vote by the entire Senate because a handful of pro-abortion Democrat senators have chosen to filibuster their nominations. This means that, instead of needing a simple majority (51 votes) to confirm these nominees, 60 votes are needed to stop the filibuster before proceeding to an up or down vote on the nomination itself. The public (or media) focus of this battle is on Senate procedures: Is it a legitimate tactic or an abuse of Senate rules by some Democrats to require a super majority (60 votes) to confirm a judicial nominee when the Constitution requires only a simple majority (51 votes)? Is it a legitimate response or an abuse of power by Senate Republicans to change Senate rules to prohibit filibustering of judicial nominees? I’m strongly inclined to believe that the filibustering of judicial nominees is an unprecedented abuse of the Constitution and of basic justice. But what is more outrageous is the reason why these ten nominees are the victims of such unprecedented opposition. Despite the fact that all of these nominees have received the highest stamp of approval by the American Bar Association and have a bipartisan majority in support of their nomination, some Senate Democrats have demonized them as being extremists, largely because they have judicial or personal records in support of pro-life policies. Some senators have even indicated (or strongly implied) that a judicial nominee must support Roe v Wade in order to receive their support. On top of this pro-abortion litmus test, abortion advocates have announced plans to spend $10 million a year to keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land, and to block judicial nominees suspected of not supporting this goal. In light of this it is clear that the real battle here is not Senate procedures, but a battle for our culture. In its 1973 abortion rulings (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton), the U.S. Supreme Court created a new “right” to abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy with no meaningful limitation, thus overturning all state laws banning abortion. The Court has used Roe v. Wade even to justify partial-birth abortions. The pro-life movement is often accused of trying to impose our views on the nation, but it was the Supreme Court that imposed its will by creating a “right” to abortion that doesn’t exist in our Constitution. Even legal experts who support legal abortion have said that Roe is not good constitutional law. John Hart Ely, a Yale law professor said Roe v. Wade is “a very bad decision…because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Blackmun (who authored Roe) said “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible…[It is] one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era.” Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe said, “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” From its beginning with Roe, legal abortion has been imposed and enforced by the courts, in contradiction to the will of the vast majority of Americans and our elected representatives. The radical, pro-abortion agenda embodied in Roe has proven to be a loser in the court of public opinion and in the elected legislative bodies throughout our nation. Only in the courts does legal abortion find a friend, which is why the abortion industry will pull out all the stops to oppose pro-life judicial nominees. Thankfully, our two U.S. senators, Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel, have consistently supported pro-life judicial nominees. Please contact them to thank them for this support and to ask them to do everything they can to ensure that pro-life nominees are not “vetoed” by the filibustering of a few pro-abortion senators. Senator Nelson can be reached at 202-224-6551 or senator@bennelson.senate.gov. Senator Hagel can be reached at 202-224-4224 or Chuck_Hagel@Hagel.senate.gov.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | The Divine Providence of JP II’s Papacy
Some might cite his political courage and savvy in helping to bring about the fall of Soviet communism. Others might say that at a time of unprecedented moral relativism this Pope provided unwavering moral clarity based in a philosophy that appeals to both the human intellect and experience. For obvious reasons, my focus here will be on his unparalleled contributions to our understanding of the dignity of the human person in response to a growing culture of death. It seems quite providential to me that someone who had spent a great deal of his priesthood pondering the deeper meaning and mystery of conjugal love would be elected Pope in the shadows of the so-called sexual revolution and during a time when sexuality would be profoundly trivialized. On the tenth anniversary of Humanae Vitae, just a few months prior to being elected Pope, Cardinal Wojtyla commented that the issue of contraception is a “struggle for the value and meaning of humanity itself.” It is not surprising, then, that one of the first major topics upon which this Pope focused his teaching authority was the nature and meaning of marriage and sexuality. Over the first five years of his pontificate, John Paul II used his weekly Wednesday noon audience, to lay out his Scripture-based theological masterpiece on the intrinsic dignity of the human person as a bodily, sexual being. These talks were synthesized into a book entitled “The Theology of the Body”. “The theology, in some respects, is a beautiful poem to the greatness of our bodies,” says Msgr. Vincent Walsh, who wrote a book that provides a simplified version of the Pope’s theology. Msgr. Walsh says that those who study the Theology of the Body will “appreciate the true beauty of his or her own body and the bodies of others. This will generate an appreciation of chastity before marriage and of the sexual act within marriage.” George Wiegel, in his papal biography, Witness to Hope, referred to this teaching as “a kind of theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences, sometime in the third millennium of the Church. When that happens, perhaps in the twenty-first century, the theology of the body may well be seen as a critical moment not only in Catholic theology, but in the history of modern thought.” (page 853) Further testimony to John Paul II’s amazing contributions in the area of marriage and sexuality is the fact that more than two-thirds of what the Church has ever officially taught on these subjects came from his pontificate. The other providential contribution of this Pope was his teaching and witness on the intrinsic dignity of human life at every stage of development. In 1995, John Paul II issued his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), in which he explained the origin and roots of the culture of death and how to rebuild a culture of life and love. On the five year anniversary of this document, the Pope referred to it as being “central to the whole of the Magisterium of [his] pontificate.” At a time of unprecedented attacks against the sanctity of human life, this Vicar of Christ did not only provide intellectual contributions to help rebuild a culture of life and love. His entire life, from numerous brushes with death to his courage in confronting oppression, personal suffering, and an insidious culture of death, was a lived witness to the sanctity of human life at every stage and in every condition. A big part of what made John Paul II great, and attractive to so many people, is that he showed us through his teaching and his lived example, the beauty and joy of a life lived in service to others in imitation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Double Digit Decrease in Abortions The gradual decline in the number of abortions in Nebraska over the last decade took a sharper turn downward in 2004. According to the 2004 Statistical Report of Abortions, produced by the Nebraska Health and Human Services System, there were 10.2 percent fewer abortions in Nebraska in 2004 than in 2003. Only once in the last 30 years (1999: 11.2 percent decline) has there been a sharper one-year decline. Obviously, any decline in the number of abortions is good news. A double digit decline is even better news. Another fact that makes last year’s sharp decline good news is that there was a more than five percent increase in abortions the year before last (2003). Thankfully, it would appear that 2003’s increase was an aberration, not a trend. Other than the decline in total abortions, there weren’t many dramatic changes in other statistics in this report. One statistical category worth noting, though, is the reasons cited for having abortions. There was a 37 percent increase in those citing “contraceptive failure.” This statistic is significant because abortion/contraception advocates typically point to use of contraception as a prime reason for any decline in abortions. Such a connection is highly unlikely given the significant increase in those citing contraceptive failure as a reason for their abortions. It is more likely that widespread promotion and use of contraception has increased the number of abortions. First, contraception has clearly made recreational, commitment-free sex easier and more likely. Children are almost never a welcome result of this activity, so when contraception fails, abortion usually follows. Furthermore, not included in the state’s statistical report is the fact that hormonal contraception itself can cause abortions by preventing implantation of an embryo in the womb. In 2004, as with every year since abortion was legalized, the number of abortions done for the so-called “hard cases” (rape, incest, life of the mother) was less than one percent. Roughly 90 percent of all abortions are done for social or economic reasons. For the last 15 years, the repeat abortion rate has stayed pretty constant at about 32 percent (with the exception of 1993 through 1995 when repeat abortions exceeded 50 percent). This means that roughly one third of those having abortions each year have had one or more previous abortions. The breakdown of repeat abortions is heart-wrenchingly sad: For 722 of these women, last year’s abortion was their second, for 263 women, this was their third abortion, for 84 women, this was their fourth abortion, for 28 women, this was their fifth abortion and for 37 women, this was their sixth (or more) abortion. The wounds these women must suffer is unimaginable. The 20-29 age group has consistently had the most abortions, averaging about 55 percent of all abortions. There has been, however, a significant downward shift (from 40 percent to 18 percent) in teenage abortions (ages 19 and younger). This has been largely offset by a near doubling (14 percent to 26 percent) of abortions by women 30 or more years old. I believe that one of the factors affecting the decline in abortions is the increased influence (thanks to federal funds) of abstinence programs. It is irrefutable that the more we can do to help young people save sex for marriage, the less sexual activity (and therefore fewer pregnancies and abortions) there will be. Another important and encouraging factor contributing to the decline in abortions is the attitudes/beliefs of Generation Y (ages 9 to 24 years). Extensive research reveals that Gen Y is very anti-abortion, and very attracted to the higher (and healthier) standards of the abstinence until marriage lifestyle. If we make sure that this generation is well-formed in faith and virtue, I have little doubt that abortions will continue to decrease for years or decades to come. The complete abortion report can be obtained by calling 402-471-2241 or going online to www.hhs.state.ne.us/srd/abortion-report2004.pdf
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Verbum Caro Factum Est
It was this moment, the Incarnation, when the second person of the Holy Trinity—the Word—became flesh (verbum caro factum est, for us Latin junkies). It was this moment that God became man in the same form that each human being begins his/her life: as a one-celled embryo. This fact alone, it seems to me, gives supernatural dignity to human life from its biological beginning as an embryo. It surely is no insignificant detail that Jesus did not just show up on earth as an adult human, but rather experienced—and sanctified—every stage of human existence. The reality and significance of unborn human life is also demonstrated by the fact that the first human (after Mary) to recognize the presence of our Lord was an unborn child—John the Baptist. Scripture tells us that immediately after our Lord’s conception in the Virgin Mary, she “went into the hill country in haste” to visit her cousin Elizabeth. “When Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.” I’ve been told that it would have taken Mary 3 to 4 days to walk to Elizabeth’s home. Since it takes 5 to 7 days for a fertilized embryo to travel down the fallopian tube and implant in the uterus, it is most likely that Jesus “the embryo” had not yet implanted in Mary’s womb when John the Baptist recognized His presence. Why is this significant? In the late 1960s, the medical profession (with much prodding from Planned Parenthood and its ilk) changed the definition of pregnancy/conception from fertilization to implantation. Was this reflective of some new biological discovery? No. The change was made because of an “inconvenient” aspect of the new birth control pill. In addition to suppressing ovulation and impeding conception, the pill also changes the uterine lining making it inhospitable to a newly conceived embryo in case its contraceptive modes of action fail. By preventing an embryo from implanting in the womb, the pill operates as an abortifacient. Planned Parenthood knew (and is recorded as saying) that if people of faith found out that the pill can operate as an abortifacient, then not only Catholics, but Protestants, would be opposed to it. Planned Parenthood’s solution to this “problem” was verbal deception: simply push the medical profession to change the definition of pregnancy/conception from fertilization to implantation. To this day, Planned Parenthood and the medical establishment insist (erroneously) that the pill’s mechanism for preventing an embryo from implanting in a womb is an act of contraception, not abortion. I can’t help but think that our all-knowing God foresaw this evil and chose to send His Son to dignify every stage of human development.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Medical Treatment Decisionmaking The tragic case of Terri Schiavo has certainly prompted much discussion about medical treatment wishes and end-of-life care. Perhaps one of the silver linings to such a high profile case is that it has prompted untold numbers of Americans to discuss their medical treatment wishes to family members and friends. Some reports indicate a substantial increase in requests for advance directives. Certainly, from a legal standpoint, there would have been less to contest in this case had Terri Schiavo clearly communicated her wishes in an advance directive about the provision of food and water in such a condition. However, even had Terri clearly communicated her wishes, there would still remain the very serious question of whether it is morally legitimate to remove food and water from a person in her state of disability. The Schiavo case has caused many Catholics to wonder what the Church teaches about our moral obligations regarding medical treatment so now is a good time for a review. Obviously one of the pillars of the Church’s teaching has to do with the value of human life and our obligations to it as children of God. The Catholic Church believes that every human life is a sacred gift of a loving God; a gift we are called upon to preserve and make fruitful. Therefore, as articulated in its Declaration on Euthanasia, the Vatican has made clear that: (1)“No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.” (2) “Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life.” And (3) “Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan.” Does this pillar of respect for the sacred gift of human life mean that we must in all circumstances have recourse to all possible remedies? In a word, the answer is no. To sort through which treatments/interventions would be morally obligatory and morally optional, the Church provides a general guide for making such decisions. That guide is a “burden/benefit” analysis. If the treatment is useless (offering no reasonable hope of benefit) or its burdens (to the patient) are disproportionate to its benefits, then the treatment is considered to be ethically extraordinary and morally optional. If the benefits of a treatment outweigh the burdens (i.e. it is necessary or useful for the preservation of life or restoration of health), there is a moral obligation to use it. Burdens could include physical pain, psychological repugnance, intense anxiety or fear, excessive expense, severely disabling effects, etc. Even the provision of food and water can, under some circumstances, be deemed extraordinary treatment. For example, in end-stage terminal illness, a person’s body typically becomes unable to assimilate food and water. Therefore, such provision would be useless and would most likely create disproportionate burdens to the person. Cases like Terri Schiavo are more difficult because she is not dying and her body was clearly able to assimilate (and benefit from) food and water. Until last year, the Church provided no definitive answer to the question of whether providing food and water to persons in a so-called “persistent vegetative state” (PVS) could ever be considered morally optional. On March 4, 2004, Pope John Paul II clarified the Church’s teaching by saying that “the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.” “It’s use,” he said, “should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory,” even for persons in a PVS state, as long as it is “providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.” I encourage those wishing further information on this topic or on advance directives to contact my office.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Take Up Your Cross In John’s Gospel, our Lord tells us “If you find that the world hates you, know it has hated me before you. (John 15:18)” Unless you are a person who thrives on conflict and confrontation, challenging the ways of the world is not a barrel of fun. A young person trying to live his/her faith or remain chaste can encounter cruel ridicule from his/her friends. A married couple blessed with many children will likely be confronted with disapproving glances or comments. A physician who refuses to prescribe birth control drugs or devices may be ostracized by other medical professionals. Pharmacists who refuse to dispense such drugs may lose their job or face disciplinary action. Public officials or other advocates who speak out against abortion, euthanasia, immoral biomedical research, contraceptive family planning programs, etc. can plan on being ridiculed as far-right, religious extremists (and those are the kindest words). Students in most college classrooms may well find their faith or pro-life beliefs under attack by their instructor or other students. Confronting and trying to change a culture of death into a culture of life is intimidating. How often do we find ourselves in a situation where our pro-life beliefs or faith are being disparaged and no one else is speaking up. It takes great courage to step out of our comfort zone and into the line of fire from a dominant, secularized culture that ridicules people of faith and has disfigured the dignity and meaning of the human person. It’s not a lot of fun to be the only one speaking up or otherwise taking a stand in defense of causes (like pro-life) that are controversial and deeply contentious. We can, however, take great comfort in our Lord’s words from John’s Gospel and in the realization that the battle between life and death has been won. Therefore, our primary responsibility as Christians is to be faithful to God’s Word and will. We will be much more accountable before God for whether we tried to defend truth and life than for whether we succeeded. In the book “The Everyday Apostle” by Fr. Ed Garesche, the author addresses that fearful encounter that most of us have had: Someone around us is challenging an aspect of our faith or beliefs that we aren’t confident explaining, and so we say nothing. Fr. Garesche points out that God may well have put us in that situation precisely because whatever we have to say, no matter how clumsy or incomplete, may be exactly the words (or sincerity) that will resonate with that person. The point here is that it can be a real cross to engage this world, to step out of our comfortable, obscure lives and become the target of ridicule, to be a fool for Christ. During this Easter Triduum, as we meditate on the passion of our Lord, it is a good time to reflect on how we can more faithfully take up our own crosses and follow Him And let us never forget those eternally consoling words of Jesus Christ in the Beatitudes: "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is great in Heaven; they persecuted the prophets before you in the very same way.” (Matt. 5:11-12)
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Money Trumps Ethics Last Thursday, the Nebraska Legislature’s Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on three bills related to cloning and embryo-destructive research. LB 437 would ban the cloning of human embryos for any reason and LB 750 would prohibit the use of state funds or facilities to conduct research that destroys a human embryo. My office testified in strong support of these two bills. The third bill, LB 580, would allow the unlimited production of cloned human embryos as long as they are used in research that destroys them and aren’t implanted and gestated to birth. My office testified in strong opposition to this bill. In my testimony I pointed out that the choice presented by these bills is not between research or no research, between cures or no cures as some would irresponsibly lead the public to believe. The choice is this: Will the Legislature officially grant science the unconscionable power to turn early stage human beings into mere objects to be produced, manipulated, scavenged and destroyed for the benefit of others? Or will the Legislature refuse to allow science to transgress the centuries old ethical boundary to “above all, do no harm”, a boundary reinforced in recent history with the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, Declaration of Geneva and just last week with the United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration urging governments to adopt laws banning all forms of human cloning. I also pointed out how quickly the ethical boundaries have been redrawn or disregarded right here in Nebraska. Only five years ago, numerous public officials (and the media) were saying that using fetal tissue from induced abortions in research is okay as long as abortions aren’t being performed for the purpose of providing fetal tissue for research. Now, many of these same people are advocating for the purposeful destruction of human embryos solely to provide cells for research, and worse, they’re pushing for permission to specially produce human embryos through cloning solely for research that destroys them. The pro-life side clearly identified an ethical line in the sand: no human beings should ever be destroyed for the benefit of science. A couple of pro-life testifiers directly challenged—even goaded—the University representatives to identify a line that they believe separates ethical from unethical research. No one answered the question. Not only did the University officials not address the ethical concerns, they thumbed their noses at the sizable population of Nebraskans who oppose the destruction of human life in research. They did this by testifying against LB 437 and LB 750, which is a monumental policy shift from two years ago when the University was officially neutral on similar bills. Then, with an off-the-charts level of hubris, the University officials boldly proclaimed that they have every intention of proceeding with embryo destructive research and even cloning. They made irresponsible promises that embryonic stem cell research would cure Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, juvenile diabetes and spinal cord injuries. “I can tell you that these cures will happen” said Tom Rosenquist, Vice Chancellor of Research at the University Medical Center. Even more crass, and probably revealing of the University’s real motivation, the Med Center’s Dr. David Crouse spent the vast majority of his testimony shamelessly trying to scare Nebraskans into believing that banning cloning and the destruction of human embryos would cause economic harm to the University and to Nebraska. The University would lose scientists, dollars and students, he said. His testimony could be summed up in three words: MONEY TRUMPS ETHICS. In my view, the University of Nebraska Medical Center is out of control in its research enterprise. It’s testimony against bills that would ban human cloning and the destruction of embryos for research (especially after the heat it took recently for its aborted fetal tissue research) demonstrates that the University has no regard for the moral sensibilities of a large percentage of Nebraskans. The University has thrown down the gauntlet and I promise you that the pro-life movement in Nebraska intends to pick it up. Stay tuned.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Pro Life Legislative Summary Numerous bills related to pro-life issues will be addressed this year in both the state and federal legislative arenas. What follows is a brief summary of those bills, their status and whether the Church supports or opposes them. Pro life legislation in Nebraska can be tracked throughout the year by click on Legislative Bills 2005. Federal pro-life legislation can be tracked at www.nchla.org . Please pray for wisdom for our public officials and for the success of pro-life legislation. State Pro Life Legislation
Federal Pro Life Legislation
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Terry Schiavo The deeply disturbing saga of Terri Schiavo continues. Terri is a disabled Florida woman in the middle of a legal battle between her estranged husband Michael who wants to starve her to death and her parents and family who want to feed her and care for her. Twice Michael has been given the go-ahead by a judge to remove her feeding tube (most recently in 2003) and both times either another judge or the government intervened to prevent him from starving her to death. Last Friday, the same judge who previously authorized the removal of Terri’s feeding tube gave his permission for a third time to starve Terri to death. The judge set a date of March 18 (1:00 pm) for the removal of Terri’s feeding tube in order to give Terri’s family additional time to continue their legal battle to save her life. Terri’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, need the time to pursue additional medical tests, which might prove their daughter has more mental capabilities than previously thought. They also want to appeal rulings denying the argument that starving Terri to death would violate her religious liberties. Terri and her family is Catholic. In addition, Governor Jeb Bush is asking for more time to investigate allegations that Terri is being mistreated by being denied appropriate medical care and rehabilitation. About fifteen years ago, Terri collapsed for reasons that are disputed by Michael and Terri’s family. Doctors hired by Michael claim it was caused by a heart attack or a chemical imbalance. The Schindler’s doctor’s and independent physicians who have reviewed the case or examined Terri believe she was physically assaulted. The media has largely presented this case as a battle between a devoted, loving husband trying to fulfill Terri’s wishes and Terri’s parents. A closer look at the husband reveals plenty to refute that he is “devoted and loving” toward Terri. Shortly after Terri’s collapse, Michael successfully sued her doctors for failing to diagnose the condition that he claims caused her collapse. He was awarded more than a million dollars which was supposed to go toward efforts to rehabilitate Terri. None of it has been spent for rehabilitation. Much of it has been spent on attorney fees as Michael has sought permission to remove her feeding tube. If Terri dies, any remaining money would go to Michael. Michael has further abandoned Terri by “shacking up” with another woman and fathering two children from her. Only in a pretty sick world would Michael be considered to be a “devoted and loving” husband to Terri. As for the Church’s teaching on the removal of artificially administered food and water in cases such as Terri’s, the Holy Father issued an important clarification on March 4, 2004. In the statement, Pope John Paul II urges us to see every patient in a so-called "vegetative" state as a fellow human being, retaining his or her full dignity despite diminished abilities. Regarding nourishment for such patients, he said: “I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.” Simply put, we are morally required to provide food and water unless they are doing more harm than good to the patient, or are useless because the patient's death is imminent. Terri is clearly not dying and is benefiting from being fed. To withdraw her source of food and water would clearly be an act of euthanasia by omission. For more information about the Schindler’s fight for Terri’s life, and how you can help, go online to www.terrisfight.org.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Pain of the Unborn The three trials last year challenging the constitutionality of the federal ban on partial-birth abortion featured not only gruesome detail about the various abortion methods, they included expert testimony about fetal pain (see Testimony in the Partial Birth Abortion Challenges). In the Nebraska trial, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand testified that he and the “vast majority” of medical professionals “familiar with this area of research…do believe that the fetus has the capability of pain perception.”. Dr. Anand is Director of the Pain Neurobiology Laboratory at Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute. Dr. Anand first establishes that the physiological structures are present and functional in the fetus by 20 weeks of gestation. According to a document produced by National Right to Life that cites various expert sources, including Dr. Anand, “by 20 days [after conception] the brain has already differentiated into forebrain, midbrain and hindbrain, and the spinal cord has started to grow.” “Four or five weeks after conception, pain receptors appear around the mouth, followed by nerve fibers, which carry stimuli to the brain. Around week 6, the unborn child first responds to touch.” At 6 weeks the cerebral cortex (recognized as the center of pain consciousness) begins developing and by 18 weeks has a full complement of neurons. Also during this time the thalamus develops, “functioning as the main relay center in the brain for sensory impulses going from the spinal cord to the cortex.” “In week 18, nerve tracts connecting the spinal cord and the thalamus are established, and nerves from the thalamus first contact the cortex in week 20.” At 20 weeks, “with pain receptors, spinal cord, nerve tracts, thalamus, and cortex in place, all anatomical links needed for pain transmission to the brain…are present.” Dr. Anand also testified about fetal research that has been conducted to determine if the unborn feel pain. He cited research documenting increases in heart rates, blood flow and release of stress hormones in response to painful stimuli in unborn children as early as 16 to 18 weeks gestation. Not only does the unborn child feel pain, Dr. Anand noted that studies in premature infants reveals that the unborn are “more sensitive to pain than the full term infant.” “In fact,” he said, “some types of pain [have] three times greater sensitivity in the pre-term baby as compared to the full term neonate.” The doctor said that an unborn child has the greatest sensitivity to pain between 20 and 30 weeks gestation. This testimony on fetal pain has led to the introduction of federal and state legislation on the topic. In Congress, bills have been introduced in the Senate (S. 51) and the House (H.R. 356) requiring abortionists to give information about this pain to a mother prior to an abortion of an unborn child of 20 weeks gestation or older. It would also require abortionists to give the mother the option of having anesthesia administered to her unborn child. A similar bill was introduced in Nebraska by Sen. Mike Foley (LB 752). The National Right to Life document (available at www.nrlc.org) points out that an unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock. The federal Humane Slaughter Act deems the slaughter of animals to be legally humane only if the animals be “rendered insensitive to pain…” “By contrast,” the document says, “D & E abortions, performed as late as 24 weeks (well after the child begins to feel pain) involve the dismemberment of the unborn child by pair of sharp metal forceps. Installation methods of abortion (performed even in the third trimester) involve the replacement of up to one cup of amniotic fluid with a concentrated salt solution” which basically burns the unborn child to death. In neither of these techniques, nor with any abortion technique, is the unborn child provided with any form of pain medication. What an incredibly sad commentary on the moral sensibilities of our nation and on the human degradation that legal abortion has inflicted on our nation. For more information on this legislation, go online to www.nchla.org or contact my office.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Praying and Fasting for Life
It’s hard to believe that another Lenten season is upon us. There
is something about those haunting words, “Remember man that you are dust and
unto dust you shall return”, that In his encyclical, Evangelium vitae (“The Gospel of Life”), Pope John Paul II tells us that the deepest root of the culture of death is alienation from God. If our relationship with God, our Creator, is weak and impoverished, it stands to reason that our understanding and appreciation of the meaning and dignity of human life made in His image will be impoverished as well. Think about it. If you have no clue who Michelangelo is and someone gives you one of his paintings, you’ll have no idea of its value. If you like it, you may hang it on your wall. If you don’t like it, you may sell it at a garage sale or just throw it out with the garbage. Since the deepest root of the culture of death is alienation from God, our first and primary task in rebuilding a culture of life and love is to get to know God in a deeper and more profound way. Lent is a season designed to help us with this task. There are no doubt ample opportunities at the parish and community level to advance in the spiritual life during Lent (Stations of the Cross, daily Mass, educational series, fasting, etc.). My office provides some additional ideas for growing spiritually and simultaneously helping to rebuild a culture of life and love. One of those ways is to participate in Intercessors for Life. Nothing could be simpler. Just fill out a card indicating one day each week that you will commit to offering a special prayer and some form of sacrifice for a greater understanding and reverence for the sacredness of human life. My office has special cards for this purpose or you can simply write it down on a piece of paper and stick it on your refrigerator. Another activity is to pray the Stations of the Cross using special pro-life meditations. These meditations are available free of charge from my office or online from Priests for Life at www.priestsforlife.org (click “Prayer Resources”). Priests for Life has numerous prayer resources including pro-life reflections on the mysteries of the Rosary. The U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office also produces prayer and liturgical resources with a focus on pro-life themes. One of those resources is entitled “A Journey to Calvary: The Way of the Cross for the Terminally Ill”. It was written for those who are terminally ill and for those who care for and love them. It is also available free of charge from my office or online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/liturgy/waycross.htm. Finally, if you live close enough to Lincoln or Omaha, spend an hour praying at one of the abortion centers. Lincoln Right to Life has organized a prayer vigil at Planned Parenthood’s abortion center in Lincoln with the goal of having someone praying there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you can’t make it to one of the abortion centers to pray, make a holy hour in your parish. I have prayer cards that pray for the conversion of the abortionists and the closure of these centers. When the Apostles were unable to drive a demon out of a boy, our Lord explained to them that certain demons do not leave “but by prayer and fasting.” I think the culture of death is such a demon and therefore prayer and fasting must form the foundation of all that we do to rebuild a culture of life and love.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | No Serious Opposition? Last Friday, the University of Nebraska Medical Center announced that two of its scientists will soon begin research involving embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are found in embryos 5-7 days after fertilization and are the building blocks that form all of the body’s cells, tissues and organs. Harvesting these stem cells destroys the embryo. According to the University, the researchers will use embryonic stem cell lines approved by President Bush. On August 9, 2001, the President announced his new policy which limits federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to cell lines in existence as of that date. A cell line is a self-perpetuating cell culture produced from harvested cells. Although human embryos were destroyed solely for the purpose of producing these cell lines, the President reasoned that since the embryos were already destroyed, the federal government could limit funding of embryonic stem cell research to these cell lines and thereby avoid funding further destruction of human embryos. Since President Bush is identified as being pro-life, many have concluded that this policy is pro-life. A Lincoln Journal Star article went so far as to say, “no one expects a serious effort to stop medical center research using cells taken from embryos created by in vitro fertilization.” Talk about throwing down the gauntlet! There are at least a couple of reasons why this research should be opposed. First, as just mentioned, embryonic human beings were destroyed solely to produce the cell lines that will be used in this research. During the debate about the University’s use of aborted fetal tissue in research, many public officials who supported the research said that if it could be shown that abortions were taking place to provide fetal tissue for research, they would oppose the research. The Omaha World–Herald went so far as to say such a scenario would be “morally reprehensible”. This position recognizes that there is an ethical distinction between research using human remains from someone whose death was unrelated to the research and research using human beings who were destroyed solely for research purposes. This ethical line was drawn primarily in response to the abhorrent Nazi medical research, which has largely been barred from public consumption. If this ethical distinction is true with human fetuses, it would be intellectually and morally incoherent not to apply it to human embryos. Second, perhaps the more compelling reason to oppose this research is that it will almost certainly lead to the further destruction and degradation of human embryos. The researchers are trying to assuage this concern by suggesting that the existing cell lines will be adequate for this research. The public should be wary of this assurance. According to the researchers themselves, they are conducting these studies to determine whether or not embryonic stem cells can heal damaged liver and lung tissue. If they discover that these cells can heal such tissue, is it not at least possible that a resulting treatment will depend upon a continual supply of embryonic stem cells and the associated destruction of embryos? At a bare minimum, before this research begins, our public officials should be demanding an answer to this question. Because once the University starts down this path, should they find a treatment that requires the continual destruction and use of human embryos, few public officials will have the moral or political courage to say no to such a morally disastrous proposition. Check out these websites for further information on this subject: www.stemcellresearch.org, www.ethicalresearch.net, and www.usccb.org/prolife
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Thirty Two Years of Marching for Life “We will stand up…every time human life is threatened,” Pope John Paul II said during one of his early visits to America. For 32 years, thousands of people have stood up and marched in the streets of state capitols and our nation’s capitol to witness against the abomination of abortion and its legality imposed upon our nation by the U.S. Supreme Court in its January 22, 1973 abortion rulings (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton). On Saturday, January 29, thousands of Nebraskans came to the State Capitol Building in Lincoln to be counted in support of overturning Roe and Doe. Participants included mothers, fathers, children, single persons, post-abortive women and men, clergy, laity, Catholics, Protestants and Jews, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, liberals, moderates and conservatives. Few movements coalesce a greater diversity of people than this cause of restoring legal protection for our unborn brothers and sisters and providing loving support to pregnant mothers and other vulnerable persons in need. The Walk was a culmination of activities beginning on Friday night with a Mass o |
note of thanks for upholding one of the most fundamental principles of medical
ethics: the immorality of purposely harming or destroying some human
beings for the benefit of other humans.
mentioned the fact that what these scientists did was use a cloning technique to
produce embryonic human beings solely to harvest their stem cells, a process
that destroys them. These scientists didn’t just clone “stem cells”, as some
would mislead us to believe. They cloned human beings and “grew” them for 5-7
days at which time they harvested the embryos’ stem cells, causing their
deaths. This activity has been very aptly dubbed “clone and kill” by its
opponents.
The
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810) has been introduced in the U.S.
House of Representatives to authorize use of federal funds for embryonic stem
cell (ESC) research that involves the destruction of live human embryos. The
House could vote on the bill before Memorial Day (May 30). 
Shortly after learning about this program, Julie Schmit-Albin from Nebraska
Right to Life, and I traveled to Pennsylvania to go through a two-day
orientation to learn how the program (now called Real Alternatives) works.
Since then, pro-life and pro-family leaders have been working with Sen. Foley
and Governors Mike Johanns and Dave Heineman to secure funding to implement a
similar program in Nebraska.
I would hardly be plowing new ground to say that it was God’s Divine Providence
that Karol Wojtyla was chosen to lead the Church as Vicar of Christ over the
last quarter of a century. There are, of course, ample realities one could
reference to substantiate this point.
On
April 4, we celebrated one of the great pro-life feasts of the Church, the
Annunciation of our Lord. The angel Gabriel said to Mary, “Hail, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women…Behold thou shalt conceive
in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus.”
Luke 1:28, 31 (Douey-Rheims)
prompts us to realign our priorities. Lent not only prompts me to reflect on my
own spiritual life, but on spiritual life of the pro-life program that I direct.