THE CONFERENCE:
Candidate Survey (11/2006)
making (1/06)
Statement (2/05)
-Capitol
Correspondent:
*********
Life Insight:
Columns-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 2006
Most current:
UNMC Undermines Public Trust (12/08/06)
Does More Contraception Mean Less Abortion? (12/01/06)
Post Election Overview (11/17/06)
Proudly Post Abortive? (11/10/06)
Get Informed and Vote (11/03/06)
Countdown to Supreme Court's PBA Hearing (10/27/06)
More Answers to Stem Cell Questions (10/20/06)
Why Doesn't the Public Know This? (10/13/06)
Nebraskans Say No to Embryonic Stem Cell Research (10/6/06)
Take It To the Bank (09/29/06)
Created, Loved, Redeemed by God (09/22/06)
Positive Alternatives (09/15/06)
Dishonest Scientists, Sloppy Reporter (09/08/06)
The Fertility Gap (9/01/06)
FDA Poised to Approve Plan B (08/25/06)
And Then There Were Two (08/11/06)
99% Effective, 100% Natural (07/28/06)
Americans Oppose Funding Embryo-Destructive Research (07/14/06)
UNMC Undermines Public Trust
Last week I attended a “Mini-Med School” on stem cells conducted by officials from the University of Nebraska Medical Center. The program, which was broadcast to 20 sites around the state, featured two presentations and a panel of UNMC officials answering questions designed to “separate fact from fiction” about stem cells and cloning
From the extensive (and expensive) advertising of the event to the stacked deck of UNMC officials answering screened questions, this event was an “in-your-face” affront to the moral sensibilities of a significant percentage, if not majority, of Nebraskans who believe that human beings at the embryonic stage deserve the same protection as human beings at other stages of life.
The first presentation provided a straightforward and neutral primer explaining the different types of stem cells. The second presentation, however, under the pretense of “separating fact from fiction”, presented a view that clearly favored embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells.
For example, the presentation basically dismissed any suggestion that adult stem cells (ASCs) could be as promising as embryonic stem cells (ESCs) in treating disease. Specifically, regarding whether ASCs could be as capable as ESCs in producing most of the body’s cells, the presenter said such a notion “may be more aggressive business” [by profit-seeking companies] than good science & medicine” thus dismissing substantial published evidence to the contrary (see http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/ASCpluripotency.pdf).
The presentation also badly misled listeners about public opinion on embryonic stem cell research citing several biased polls that conveniently omit the fact that such research involves destroying human embryos. In what I believe was a calculated attempt to poke the Catholic Church in the eye, the only religious-oriented poll cited was an incredibly biased “Catholic Voter Poll” showing 72 percent support for embryonic stem cell research. Who sponsored the poll? Catholics for a Free Choice, a pro-abortion and decidedly anti-Catholic organization.
During the question and answer segment, one of the panelists dismissed as “a bunch of baloney” the data showing that human patients have benefited from adult stem cell treatments for 72 different diseases while no human patient has benefited (to date) from embryonic stem cells. The panelist attempted to discredit the source of the information (Do No Harm Coalition and Dr. David Prentice) and its citations (with no rebuttal, of course).
Dr. Prentice has responded to this criticism (http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/ScienceLetter.pdf) by pointing out that he cites peer reviewed studies (the gold standard for credibility) documenting some level of patient benefit from adult stem cell treatments in 72 different diseases.
Worst of all, the presentation gave only superficial and slanted attention to the central point of contention with embryonic stem cell research: is the human embryo a human subject deserving of moral and legal status/protection? The presentation’s “take home” message was “good people with sincere beliefs do not agree on the use of embryonic stem cells” and although the “ethical issues surrounding [embryonic stem cells] are complex [they are] manageable.”
Manageable? What in the world does that mean? I fear it is UNMC’s code word for, “we have the resources to convince the public (by sowing moral confusion) that their ethical concerns are unfounded” and “we will marginalize (as a religious fanatic) anyone who argues to the contrary.”
In the aftermath of the controversy over UNMC’s clandestine research using brain tissue from induced abortions, UNMC assured state senators that while they wanted to continue doing fetal tissue research they had no intention of doing human embryo research and human cloning was definitely off the table. But just a few short years later (2005), UNMC officials gave public testimony in the Legislature expressing a desire to conduct embryonic stem cell and cloning research.
This Mini-Medical School provides further evidence that the Med Center will use every means available to advance a research agenda that is morally offensive and divisive to many Nebraskans. After creating a substantial amount of ill-will with many Nebraskans by doing fetal tissue research, it is outrageous that our tax-funded University would further provoke and divide Nebraskans by seeking to conduct research that intentionally destroys human life for research purposes.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Does More Contraception Mean Less Abortion?
Last week, supplies of newly packaged Plan B, the so-called “emergency contraception” or “morning-after pill”, were distributed to pharmacies around the country for over-the-counter purchase. Taking one Plan B pill is equivalent to taking 40 daily Ovrette oral contraceptive pills in a 12-hour period!
The Food and Drug Administration recently approved over-the-counter sale of Plan B for persons 18 and older. The FDA tried to assuage some safety concerns with this powerful drug by continuing to require those under the age of 18 to get a prescription for Plan B. Never mind that such a requirement is virtually meaningless, given that any adult can simply purchase the drug for a minor. And never mind the irony that ordinary birth control pills (BCPs) are still only available by prescription but BCPs with 40 times the dosage can now be obtained without one.
One of the primary selling points consistently used by promoters of contraception is the claim that greater access to contraception will reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion. Plan B enthusiasts have made outrageous and unsubstantiated claims that over-the-counter availability of emergency contraception (EC) could cut the abortion rate in half.
I will not deny that, on a superficial level, this claim has some intuitive appeal. However, to embrace this claim, one needs to embrace the absurdly counter-intuitive conclusion that making it easier to engage in out-of-wedlock sexual activity will not increase this activity. One would also need to ignore the overwhelming evidence that refutes this claim.
For example, 16 months after 18,000 sexually active women in a health district in Scotland were each given 5 packets of EC, researchers concluded: “No effect on abortion rates was demonstrated with advance provision of EC. The results of this study suggest that widespread distribution of advanced supplies of EC through health services may not be an effective way to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy in the UK.”
In a study featured in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2005), over 2000 women in the San Francisco Bay area were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The first were given packets of EC; the second were told how to obtain EC free from pharmacies; the third had to return to the clinic for EC. Over 80% of the women were also using another form of contraception. After six months, 7-8% of women in each group were pregnant.
“We did not observe a difference in pregnancy rates in women with either pharmacy access or advance provision [of EC]…Previous studies also failed to show significant differences in pregnancy or abortion rates among women with advance provisions of EC.
EC researcher Anna Glasier, in a British Medical Journal editorial (Sept. 16, 2006) said, “despite the clear increase in the use of emergency contraception, abortion rates have not fallen in the U.K. They have risen from 11 per 1000 women…in 1984…to 17.8 per 1000 in 2004.” She adds: “Ten studies in different countries have shown that giving women a supply of emergency contraception to keep at home…increases use by twofold to threefold…but[has] had no measurable effect on rates of pregnancy and abortion.”
Glasier concludes that “EC may be less effective than we belief [sic]. Estimates of efficacy are unsubstantiated by randomized trials. Efficacy is based on rather unreliable data and a great many assumptions and have been questioned both in the past and more recently…While advanced provision of EC probably prevents some pregnancies for some women some of the time, the strategy did not produce the public health breakthrough hoped for.”
Complete citations for these and other studies are available online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/FactSheetEC9606.htm and www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contrafactsheet1106.pdf or by contacting my office.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Married Love and the Gift of Life
At their November meeting, the Bishops of the United States overwhelmingly approved a new document, “Married Love and the Gift of Life”, developed by the Committee for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The document explains, beautifully and concisely, the Church’s teaching on how married love is intended to mirror God’s love and how contraception violates and distorts this love. Here are a few excerpts:
“In the Rite of Marriage (1969) a man and woman are asked if they will love one another faithfully and totally—in short, if they will love as God loves. ‘Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?’ asks the bishop, priest, or deacon. ‘Will you love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives? Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?’ These are different ways of asking the same basic question: Are you ready to accept this person, and all that may come from your union, completely and forever?”
“The spouses seal their love and commitment through their sexual union. Many today find it difficult to understand how profound and meaningful this union is, how it embodies these promises of marriage. Our culture often presents sex as merely recreational, not as a deeply personal or even important encounter between spouses. In this view, being responsible about sex simply means limiting its consequences—avoiding disease and using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.
“This cultural view is impoverished, even sad. It fails to account for the true needs and deepest desires of men and women. Living in accord with this view has caused much loneliness and many broken hearts. God’s plan for married life and love is far richer and more fulfilling. Here sexuality is the source of joy and pleasure that helps the spouses give themselves to each other completely and for their entire lives.”
“The Church teaches that the sexual union of husband and wife is meant to express the full meaning of love, its power to bind a couple together and its openness to new life. When Scripture portrays God creating mankind ‘in his image’ (Gn 1:27), it treats the union of man and woman as joining two persons equal in human dignity (‘This one, at last, is bone of my bones/and flesh of my flesh,’ Gn 2:23), and as being open to the blessing of children (‘Be fertile and multiply,” Gn 1:28).”
The document asks, “What does this have to do with contraception?” “A husband and wife express their committed love not only with words, but with the language of their bodies. That ‘body language’—what a husband and wife say to one another through the intimacy of sexual relations—speaks of total commitment and openness to a future together. So the question about contraception is this: Does sexual intercourse using contraception faithfully affirm this committed love? Or does it introduce a false note into this conversation?”
“Married love differs from any other love in the world. By its nature, the love of husband and wife is so complete, so ordered to a lifetime of communion with God and each other, that it is open to creating a new human being they will love and care for together. Part of God’s gift to husband and wife is this ability in and through their love to cooperate with God’s creative power.”
“When married couples deliberately act to suppress fertility, however, sexual intercourse is no longer fully marital intercourse…Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity. The total gift of oneself, body and soul, to one’s beloved is no time to say: ‘I give you everything I am—except…”
The document acknowledges that this teaching may seem hard and that “many couples today, through no fault of their own, have not heard [this teaching] (or not heard in a way they could appreciate and understand). But as many couples who have turned away from contraception tell us, living this teaching can contribute to the honesty, openness, and intimacy of marriage and help make couples truly fulfilled.”
The document addresses other practical questions that typically arise on this topic. It also provides numerous online and printed resources to supplement this documents introduction. The document itself can be downloaded at http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/MarriedLove.pdf.
No matter how beautiful and compelling the Church’s teaching may be, like the seed that falls among thorns, it can be easily choked off by an entrenched contraceptive culture that has produced lifestyles, habits and world views that are not easily discarded. Let us all pray for a softening and opening of minds and hearts to this truth about God’s sacred gift of sexuality and married love.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Post Election Overview
The general election held last week delivered some body blows to the pro-life movement. On the national scene, the Democrats’ capture of the House and Senate is quite likely bad news for the pro-life cause. To be certain, there are numerous pro-life Democrats at the national and state level and, reportedly, many of the newly elected Democrats ran as pro-life individuals—in some cases defeating pro-abortion Republicans.
However, the Democrats in line for leadership positions in both houses (those who will be setting the agenda) are unambiguously pro-legal abortion. In fact, Nancy Pelosi, who will likely be the next Speaker of the House, has promised to reintroduce legislation to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as a top priority in the first 100 business hours after Democrats take control.
Looking elsewhere throughout the country, several pro-life-related ballot measures were defeated. Most notable was the 55% to 45% defeat of South Dakota’s law banning all abortions, except those done when a mother’s life is endangered. The law was enacted by the state legislature earlier this year. Rather than challenging the law in Court, Planned Parenthood gathered enough signatures to put it to a vote of South Dakotans, and then poured millions of dollars into defeating the measure.
Parental notification ballot measures were defeated in California and Oregon. Californians defeated the measure for the second time in two years. Pro life supporters had hopes that the political climate in California would be better this time around, but the measure was actually defeated by a slightly larger margin (54% to 46%) this year.
The Oregon measure was defeated by the same margin. LifeNews.com reported (11-8-06) that “[w]ith a pro-abortion governor who would not sign a parental notification bill, pro-life groups hoped state voters would be more receptive. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood outspent pro-life advocates by a 3-1 margin and ran a series of television commercials that erroneously said teenagers would be forced to tell abusive parents about an abortion.”
Another major blow to the pro-life cause was the narrow passage of a ballot measure in Missouri that amends its Constitution to prohibit the state government from putting any meaningful restrictions in place on human cloning, embryonic stem cell research or taxpayer funding of either one. The measure passed with a very narrow margin of 50.7% to 49.3%.
The pro-life cause faired better in Nebraska. Pro-life candidates won all of the federal races (House and Senate) and all of the state-level Constitutional offices (Governor, Attorney General, Treasure, Auditor, and Secretary of State). From my analysis, it would appear that the Unicameral will not change much in terms of the number of pro-life senators.
The election results around the nation may tempt pro-lifers to become discouraged. But, as Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said following the election, we must remember that “we are not just working for victory; we are working from victory. Victory is our starting point, because Christ is Risen. The outcome of the battle for life has already been decided. It only remains for us to be sure to do our part to proclaim, celebrate, and serve that victory, and bring its transforming power to every segment of our society!"
“Culturally, we continue to have the momentum. Every trend continues to move in our direction: opinion polls about abortion; the declining number of abortions, abortionists, and abortion mills; the strong new motivation of our young pro-life activists who know they are abortion survivors; the growing voice of women and men harmed by abortion, who contradict its promise of benefit; the evidence in science about who the child is; the medical evidence that abortion is no benefit to women; the sociological evidence that abortion is no benefit to society; a new wave of clergy who are more ready for the pro-life battle than ever; [and] a new wave of reporters and other professionals who are far more pro-life than their predecessors…”
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Proudly Post-Abortive?
“We Had Abortions”. This is the title of the cover story in the October 10 issue of Ms. magazine featuring the names of several thousand women who proudly proclaim having had abortions. According to the publisher of Ms., the pro-abortion Feminist Majority Foundation, the impetus for the story is its view that our nation is at a watershed moment with the practice of abortion.
Eleanor Smeal, the Foundation’s president, is apparently horrified that many states are enacting laws that protect women and children from abortion. The possibility of a more pro-life Supreme Court and some states, like South Dakota, attempting to ban all abortion, has Ms. Smeal and her pro-abortion cohorts quite worried.
But most troubling for the “feminist” Ms. Smeal, I strongly suspect, are the thousands (and growing) of women who are speaking out about how abortion has harmed them emotionally, spiritually and even physically. These women, speaking through Operation Outcry and Silent No More (www.operationoutcry.org; www.silentnomoreawareness.org), pose a vexing problem to a movement that advocates legal abortion as essential to advancing women’s rights.
It is undoubtedly a testament to the resonance and effectiveness of Operation Outcry and Silent No More, that pro-abortion feminists find it necessary to trot out women who claim to be proud of their abortions. In her October 16 column, syndicated writer Kathleen Parker said the “problem with petitions and ‘I had An Abortion” T-shirts, such as those hawked by Planned Parenthood, is that they trivialize the deeply emotional and spiritual consequences many women suffer.”
“After experiencing the humbling power of creation,” Parker says, “it was impossible for me to view abortion as anything but the taking of a life. That is the truer lesson feminism should impart to its little sisters.” Indeed, this is the lesson the pioneers of the feminist movement taught and one that is embraced by Feminists for Life (www.feministsforlife.org).
One of those pioneers, Susan B. Anthony, called abortion “child-murder” (The Revolution 4(1):4 July 8, 1869). Elizabeth Cady Stanton, said “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit” (letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873).
Another pioneer, Mattie Brinkerhoff, said, “When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society—so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged” (The Revolution 3(9):138-9 September 2, 1869).
I cannot imagine any woman, in the deep recesses of her heart, honestly concluding that having an abortion was a positive contribution to her life. I can imagine post-abortive women publicly defending abortion in a desperate attempt to rationalize a very painful decision and a sexual lifestyle that made the decision inevitable.
Pope John Paul II concluded his encyclical Evangelium Vitae with this special word to post-abortive women: “The church 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.”
Please pray for the healing and reconciliation of all post-abortive women and men.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Get Informed and Vote!!
Next Tuesday, November 7, every citizen has the great blessing and solemn responsibility to cast a vote to determine who will serve as our elected representatives and, ultimately, what direction our society and culture will go. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to have 40 percent or more of eligible voters not voting. This failure is not only irresponsible, but most likely sinful.
In a recent statement presenting moral principles for Catholic voters, the Bishops of Kansas said “In a democratic society citizens choose whom they vest with authority for the common good. A choice for one person over another for public office can significantly affect many lives, especially the lives of the most vulnerable persons in society such as children in the womb and those who are terminally ill. Therefore, Catholic citizens have a serious moral obligation to exercise their right to vote, whether on the national, state or local level.”
Participating in the political process, however, means more than just voting; it means voting with a well formed—and informed—conscience. We have a “serious duty to properly form or teach our conscience so that it can correctly judge what is good and evil”, the Kansas Bishops said. “In seeking the truth, Catholics receive important guidance from the teaching of the Catholic Church on matters pertaining to faith and morals.”
One of the best and clearest Church documents designed to help us bring “a respect for human dignity to practical politics” is Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, adopted by the full body of bishops in November 1998. The bishops acknowledge that “[g]ood people frequently disagree on which problems to address, which policies to adopt and how best to apply them. 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, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem.”
Getting more specific, the bishops remind Catholics that “[a]dopting a consistent ethic of life, the Catholic Church promotes a broad spectrum of issues ‘seeking to protect human life and promote human dignity from the inception of life to its final moment.’ Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care.
“But being right in such matters”, the bishops continue, “can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life (emphasis in original) Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.
“If we understand the human person as the ‘temple of the Holy Spirit’—the living house of God—then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right—the right to life.”
Pope John Paul II similarly warned that concern for 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 for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Christifidelis Laici, 38).
The Nebraska Catholic Conference has for years conducted a candidate survey on the range of issues (mentioned above) that are important to Catholic moral principles. Candidate answers (of those who responded) were published recently in Catholic newspapers and are available online at www.nebcathcon.org. I urge all readers to find out where the candidates stand on the issues, giving proper weight to the right to life issues, and then vote on November 7.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Countdown to Supreme Court’s PBA Rehearing
On November 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will take a second look at legislation banning partial-birth abortion (PBA). Six years ago, the Supreme Court first considered such legislation when it struck down Nebraska’s law banning PBA. This time it will examine a federal PBA ban that was signed into law by President Bush in 2003 and immediately enjoined by courts in New York, Nebraska and California.
The primary reasons cited by the Supreme Court for striking down the Nebraska law were its lack of a health exception and its (allegedly) vague definition of what constitutes a partial-birth abortion. To overcome these criticisms, Congress drafted a federal ban with a new definition of PBA.
It also solicited expert medical testimony refuting the claim that PBA is necessary to preserve a woman’s health. This medical testimony serves as a new body of evidence for the Supreme Court to consider when deciding whether or not a health exception is necessary.
The evidence about the medical necessity of PBA that was available to the Court in its consideration of the Nebraska ban was heavily biased in favor of abortionist views. Pro life leaders in Congress recognized this bias and leveled the playing field by placing into the Congressional record medical testimony saying that PBA is never necessary to preserve a woman’s health.
To fully understand the controversy over health exceptions in abortion legislation, one must understand the Supreme Court’s Doe v. Bolton ruling. This companion case to the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling defined “health” (as applied to abortion law) as encompassing “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” As both sides of the abortion debate know, because of this extremely broad definition, a health exception effectively renders meaningless any law that attempts to restrict abortion.
This second look by the Supreme Court at a law banning PBA is the impetus for a new educational effort by the Second Look Project sponsored by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat. Deirdre McQuade, who works for the Pro Life Secretariat, said in an October 20 column that, “At this crucial juncture, The Second Look Project…is raising public awareness with a five-week educational campaign called ‘Supreme Court Countdown: Partial-Birth Abortion.’
“From the opening of the Supreme Court's fall term to the day it hears oral arguments (October 2 through November 8), the Project is emailing a PBA fact each weekday to Congress, news media, and opinion leaders, counting down from #27 to #1.” One "e-card" quotes a policy statement of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), an organization that favors legal abortion:
“A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this [partial-birth abortion] procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” (ACOG Statement of Policy, Jan. 12, 1997)
Another one cites testimony of Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand, expert on fetal and neonatal pain: "[Question:] Doctor, do you have an opinion as to whether this [partial-birth abortion] procedure would cause pain to the fetus …? [Answer:] Yes. If performed on fetuses beyond 20 weeks' gestation, this procedure has a very high probability of causing prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus."
- Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft, 320 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Trial transcript at 1606
These PBA facts are updated daily on the Second Look Project website at www.secondlookproject.org. Free radio ads questioning the extreme abortion license in our country are also available on this website. Furthermore, a fact sheet with more detailed information about these new PBA cases is available online at www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/factsheetpba101306.htm. I encourage readers to utilize these resources to educate your parish and/or community about the reality—and brutality—of partial-birth abortion.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
More Answers to Stem Cell Questions
In last week’s column I corrected a couple of the common misperceptions about stem cell research. First, I clarified that the Church is not opposed to all stem cell research, only that which involves destroying embryos. Second, I pointed out that, to date, there are 72 diseases that have been successfully treated in humans with adult (non-embryonic) stem cells and not a single disease has been treated with embryonic stem cells.
This week, I’ll address a couple more common questions. First, if all the success in treating people has come from adult stem cells, why the strong push to do embryonic stem cell research? Second, if “leftover” fertility clinic embryos are going to be discarded and destroyed anyway, why not get some medical benefit from them?
Regarding the first question, there are several probable answers. First, some scientists argue that embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are superior to adult stem cells (ASCs) because they can produce any of the body’s cells and tissues while ASCs generally produce a more limited number of cells.
The problem is, this “flexibility” of ESC’s makes them difficult to control when placed in an adult body; they tend to grow uncontrollably and form tumors. Adult stem cells do not form tumors. Furthermore, adult stem cells are increasingly showing potential to be as capable of producing all cells and tissues as ESCs.
The second answer is the economic potential of embryonic stem cell treatments.
If some lab can find and patent a successful treatment for a disease such as
Parkinsons or diabetes using embryonic stem cells, there is potentially a lot of
money to be made. If the treatment comes from adult stem cells taken from your
own body, there is no treatment or drug to patent and hence little money to be
made.
There is another economic dimension that is frequently raised by advocates of embryonic stem cell and cloning research. The University of Nebraska Medical Center, for example, has argued in the public square that if Nebraska prohibits human cloning or research that destroys human embryos, it will cause economic harm to Nebraska; researchers will take their grant money (and related jobs) to another state that allows them to do whatever they want. This is nothing more than a shameful scare tactic that has little, if any, basis in fact.
A third reason, I firmly believe, for the insistence by some to keeping embryo-destructive research legal is abortion politics. If human embryos are recognized and protected in law as human beings, this would certainly undermine legal abortion. Conversely, if human embryos become nothing more than a commodity to be produced and destroyed for medical research, this undoubtedly secures the practice of legal abortion.
Regarding the question of why “leftover” fertility clinic embryos shouldn’t be used for research if they’re going to die anyway, an honest answer depends on how one views the moral status of a human embryo. If the argument that one “will die soon anyway” is sufficient to allow lethal experimentation on human embryos, then logically it should also apply to humans who will die soon at other stages of life (e.g. the terminally ill, death row inmates, unborn children scheduled for abortion). That is, unless one doesn’t believe that embryos are morally equivalent to human beings at other stages.
Another response to this question is the well documented fact that even if “leftover” fertility clinic embryos were used for research, it still wouldn’t satisfy the desires of researchers. In his testimony before Congress (9/29/04), Richard Doerflinger from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office said that one “group of researchers has concluded that in order to reflect the genetic and ethnic diversity of the American population, an embryonic stem cell bank geared toward treating any major disease would have to include cell lines from many embryos created solely in order to be destroyed for those cells – including a disproportionate number of specially created embryos conceived by black couples and other racial minorities, who are underrepresented among current fertility clinic clients.35 Yet another prominent stem cell researcher estimated that unless researchers resort to human cloning to produce genetically matched stem cells for each patient, “millions” of embryos from fertility clinics may be needed to create cell lines of sufficient genetic diversity for clinical use.”
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Why Doesn’t the Public Know This?
Over the last few years I have given dozens of talks explaining the scientific and ethical dimensions of stem cell and cloning research. Last month, I gave my presentation to the Omaha Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women Convention in Norfolk.
I began in my usual way by explaining what stem cells are (master cells that produce other cells) and that there are four basic sources of stem cells: embryos, fetuses, umbilical cord and placental blood, and adults (“adult” refers generally to all born human beings). After mentioning these four sources, I correct one of the primary misunderstandings among Catholics (and the general public): The Church is not opposed to ALL stem cell research!
In fact, the Church (and pro-life movement) enthusiastically supports most stem cell research; that which does not involve harming or destroying human life. Of the four types of stem cells, three of them can be obtained ethically without causing harm to the donor: fetal (if taken from miscarriages, not abortions), umbilical cord and placental blood, and adult. Only embryonic stem cells involve the destruction of human beings—an intrinsically evil action.
The next major misunderstanding I addressed in my presentation was the perception that the real promise and success in stem cell research is with embryonic stem cells. I pointed out that currently there are 72 different diseases that have been successfully treated in human beings with “adult” (non-embryonic) stem cells and that not one disease has been successfully treated with embryonic stem cells (See www.stemcellresearch.org for references).
At
this point, a rather prominent member of the audience, Archbishop Elden Curtiss,
asked me with a rather incredulous tone: “Why
doesn’t
the public know this?” “That’s a good question”, I replied, “and a common
question I get when presenting this information.”
Before I answered the question, I surveyed the audience of several hundred Catholic women and priests to find out how many were aware that all of the success, to date, in treating human beings with stem cells involves adult stem cells. Very few raised their hands. Most had the mistaken understanding that the real success in stem cell treatments involves embryonic stem cells.
A primary reason, I believe, for this misunderstanding is the way this research is reported in the mainstream media. Typically, any claimed success with embryonic stem cells (which is only conducted in animal models) is given prominent coverage.
The bias of the media was demonstrated recently by the prominence it gave to embryonic and cloning research (from South Korea and the U.S.) that turned out to be fraudulent or highly misleading. The follow-up stories exposing the fraud were far more inconspicuous than the stories promoting the research.
Another example of bias is the refusal, so far, of some local media outlets to report on the poll (mentioned in last week’s column) conducted by the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research showing that a clear majority of Nebraskans oppose research that involves cloning or the destruction of human embryos. The news division of the Omaha World Herald, for example, refused to do a story on the poll claiming that it was a push poll (i.e. leading or biased). When reminded that they did a story a few years ago on a poll conducted by Nebraskans for Research (which supports embryo research and cloning) the editors basically said, “that’s irrelevant”.
Meanwhile, the numerous successes of adult stem cells in treating human beings are given scant attention or are presented under the general heading of “stem cell” research. Such reporting leaves many people confused, or with the false impression that it is embryonic stem cells that are treating humans.
Among some proponents of embryonic stem cell research, I believe there is a conscious effort to blur the distinction between embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research. This effort serves two purposes. First, embryonic stem cell research gets credit, in the public’s mind, for the adult stem cell successes. Second, it makes it easier to create a false perception that opponents of embryonic stem cell research are opposed to all stem cell research.
From public opinion polls to my own speaking experience, it is clear that when the public understands the facts about stem cell research and cloning, a strong majority opposes any research that destroys human embryos.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Nebraskans Say No to Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Advocates of embryonic stem cell research have been regularly claiming that public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans or Nebraskans support embryonic stem cell research. It is true that some polls show majority support for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), but what those polls consistently fail to do is to mention that ESCR involves destroying human embryos.
When the public is informed that ESCR involves destroying human embryos their views change dramatically. This is true nationally and in Nebraska. Earlier this year (May 2006) the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life office commissioned a poll on stem cell research with International Communications Research. This poll showed that 48% of Americans oppose federal funding of stem cell research that requires destroying human embryos, 39% support it.
When survey respondents were informed that scientists disagree on whether stem cells from embryos, or from adult tissues and other alternative sources, may end up being most successful in treating diseases, 57% favored funding only the research avenues that do not harm the donor; only 24% favored funding all stem cell research, including the type that involves destroying embryos.
This week, the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research released a poll it commissioned to measure how Nebraskans feel about research that destroys human embryos or that involves cloning. Wilson Research Strategies polled 500 likely voters in Nebraska and found that 56 percent oppose using tax dollars to fund stem cell research that requires destruction of human embryos. Only 39 percent support such funding.
Another key finding of the poll is that by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, Nebraskans reject human cloning for stem-cell research. Respondents were asked, “Do you support or oppose allowing scientists to use cloning to create human embryos that would be destroyed for stem cell research.” Sixty seven (67) percent oppose this practice, sometimes called “therapeutic cloning”(13% probably oppose, 54% definitely oppose) and only 24 percent support it.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell and cloning research, such as Nebraskans for
Research and its political arm, Research Nebraska, have undoubtedly been telling
candidates running for office that they are out of step with Nebraskans if they
oppose ESCR and cloning. Not so, according to this poll.
Respondents were asked, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports using tax dollars to fund stem cell research that requires destruction of embryos?” A whopping 61 percent said that they would be less likely (15% somewhat less likely, 46% much less likely) to vote for such a candidate. Only 22 percent said they would be more likely to vote for such a candidate.
I would never want to give the impression that morality is determined by public opinion. Even if a majority of citizens supported destroying human embryos for research that would not make it right. What this poll demonstrates is that when people learn the facts about stem cell research, they say yes to adult stem cells and no to embryonic stem cells.
A great deal of my time as director of pro-life activities for the Bishops of Nebraska has been, and will continue to be, devoted to informing Catholics and others about the extraordinarily serious attack against human dignity posed by embryonic stem cell and cloning research. The nuanced, but unmistakable view of those advocating this research is that human embryos are not human beings and certainly not human persons deserving of any meaningful protection. To these advocates, human embryos are raw material that can be manufactured, manipulated and destroyed for the benefit of other human beings.
Should this view continue to gain power and take root in our society, its harm to human dignity could dwarf the damage done by legalized abortion. I urge all voters to give considerable weight to this issue as you evaluate candidates for office.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Take It To The Bank
During our first 9 months of life, as we reside in our mother’s womb, an umbilical cord serves as a lifeline to our mother. After we are delivered from our mother’s womb, the umbilical cord and placenta (or afterbirth) is typically discarded as medical waste. That practice, however, is changing now that blood from the umbilical cord and placenta is known to be a rich source of lifesaving—and ethical—stem cells.
To date, cord blood stem cells have helped bring about treatments
for anemia, leukemia, lymphoma, lupus, multiple sclerosis,
rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell disease, spinal cord injury and Crohn’s
disease. Scientists say they believe cord blood might soon be used to repair
heart or nerve tissue damaged by strokes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.
Because of such promising results, numerous efforts are underway to raise public awareness of the simplicity and benefit of retrieving and banking cord blood. One of those efforts is a non-profit organization called Babies for Life (www.babiesforlife.org). According to its website, “Babies for Life was established to foster the adequately widespread collection and storage of cord blood stem cells to satisfy current scientific research and public storage needs.”
Babies for Life offers “pregnant mothers an easy way to donate their baby's umbilical cord blood for people in need of a life-saving stem cell transplant.” There is no cost to donate cord blood to a blood bank for general use. Here are the steps to donation:
 |
Patient contacts Babies for Life (770/939-6411) for a donation packet |
|
Babies for Life sends packet with information and consent forms |
|
Patient signs consent and obtains physician/midwife's signature on last two pages |
|
Patient returns forms to Babies for Life by the 35th week of pregnancy |
|
Babies for Life reviews consents for donor eligibility |
|
Collection kit mailed to the patient |
|
Patient takes kit to hospital |
Babies for Life also explains how the cord blood is collected. “After the birth of the baby the umbilical cord is clamped and separated from the baby. The attending physician or nurse/midwife will then draw the blood from the umbilical cord after delivering the placenta. The blood is obtained painlessly and risk free by inserting a needle into the umbilical vein after cleansing the umbilical cord. The blood drains into a cord blood collection bag by gravity.
“The procedure is non-invasive and painless, unlike bone marrow donations which require general anesthesia and a recovery period. The sample is then transported to an…accredited facility where laboratory technicians process and store the cord blood stem cells in liquid nitrogen where it has an undetermined lifespan.”
After donation, stem cell units obtained from cord blood are placed on international registries so that they can be identified and made available for use in treatments. According to Babies for Life, there are about 100,000 units available worldwide, but nearly 500,000 units are needed to have a public pool capable of serving the diversity of patients in need.
On Thursday, October 19, the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research is bringing Babies for Life founder and president, Dr. Gerry Sotomayor, to Omaha to explain how easy it is to save cord blood and to review its amazing life-saving benefits. The program is entitled “Take it to the Bank: Saving Umbilical Cord Blood for Adult Stem Cell Cures” and will be held at the Thompson Alumni Center (66th and Dodge) on the University of Nebraska-Omaha campus. The event begins with light hors d’oeuvres at 6:30 pm with the program at 7:15 pm. It is free and open to the public but advance registration would be helpful by calling NCER at 402/690-2299.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Created, Loved, Redeemed by God
Thirty-four years ago, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops designated October as Respect Life month to “focus on the sanctity of life and the growing number of situations in which human dignity are endangered or challenged.” The theme of the 2006 Respect Life program is “Created, Loved, Redeemed by God”.
“Most of us probably take for granted (at least some of the time) that we are created, loved and redeemed by God. Yet, distracted as we are by the noise and activities of daily life, we need to make time to reflect on this central truth—and the answer to the universal human question: Who am I, and what am I doing here?”
This quote comes from the beginning paragraph of one of the pamphlets included in this year’s Respect Life program. It provides a beautiful and compelling reflection on the dignity of human life and a brief summary of some of the ways in which human life is being attacked in our society (e.g. abortion, research that destroys human embryos and assisted suicide).
The program also includes several other pamphlets that provide concise and compelling insights into compelling issues of our time, such as “The Ethics of Stem Cell Research”, “The Scientific Case for Catholic Sexual Ethics”, “Why Marriage Matters to Children and to the Common Good”, “Protecting Children in Their First Environment, The Womb”, “Partial-Birth Abortion: A Bridge Too Far”, and “Victim Advocates Against the Death Penalty.”
Various suggestions for celebrating human life in our sacred Liturgy and through our prayer life are also provided in the Respect Life program. For example, the program provides a novena to three American saints (Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Neumann, and Frances Xavier Cabrini), pro-life reflections on the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary and a novena for the Feast of the Annunciation.
Contact your parish pro-life coordinator for more information on this program.
On Respect Life Sunday, October 1, many communities around the state will participate in Life Chain. This peaceful, prayerful event provides a public witness of the harm of abortion to unborn children and women and that God heals and forgives those who seek His mercy. I encourage all Catholics to give one hour of their day on October 1 to participate in Life Chain or to spend an hour before the Blessed Sacrament praying for an end to the evil of abortion.
There are also excellent opportunities for pro-life education during October and November. On Tuesday, October 3, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse will present her very compelling and thought-provoking talk on chastity entitled: “Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World.” The talk is free and will be held at the University of Nebraska Student Union Auditorium (14th and R streets) in Lincoln, beginning at 7:00 pm.
On
October 19, from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm, post-abortion expert Dr. Theresa Burke will
present “Healing the Wounded: Pregnancy Loss, Trauma and
Sexual Abuse” at the College of St. Mary in Omaha. Dr. Burke is a psychologist
who developed Rachel’s Vineyard retreats for post-abortive women and authored
“Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion”. Cost is $75.00 for counselors
wanting continuing education credits and $25.00 for the general public. To
register, contact Heather Hruby at 402/871-4812.
Finally, the annual Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities conference will be held at the Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln on Friday night, November 10 and all day Saturday, November 11. Keynote speaker for Friday night’s banquet is Mr. Joseph Scheidler, founder and director of the Pro Life Action League. Saturday’s conference is filled with excellent speakers addressing some of the most important social issues of our time. More information, including a registration form, will be included in an upcoming issue of this newspaper. It can also be obtained online at www.nebcathcon.org or by calling me at 402/477-7517.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Positive Alternatives
Last year, the Nebraska Legislature took a significant step toward helping women with crisis pregnancies access alternatives to abortion support services. 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.”
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 of age.
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. By pursuing funding for a similar program in Nebraska, our hope is to replicate these results.
To determine who would implement this program in Nebraska, the state Health and Human Services System conducted a competitive bid process last year. I am pleased to say that this grant was awarded to a coalition comprised of Omaha and Lincoln pregnancy-help agencies, an Omaha maternity home, Nebraskans United for Life and Nebraska Children’s Home.
After months of planning and developing, this coalition officially launched its program on August 3rd under the name, Positive Alternatives. What is Positive Alternatives? This question is answered on its website (www.positivealternatives.org) with the following:
“We are ordinary people, just like you, who have experienced many things in life and want to help. We want you to know that no matter what you are going through, you are not alone! We have taken the time to discover the assistance that is available in our community for those who are pregnant, or who believe they are and are not sure what to do. We can even help men whose girlfriends or wives are pregnant to understand what to expect next and how to be of help with the birth and raising of their child.”
Positive Alternatives, through its member agencies, provides services such as: abstinence education, pregnancy tests and counseling, parenting skills, prenatal care (up through birth), STD testing and education, adoption information and education, childbirth education, ultrasounds, and much more. Positive Alternatives is available to help women and men 24 hours a day, 7 days a week through a confidential, toll-free hotline (1-877-420-4747).
Positive Alternatives will expend a substantial portion of funds this first year on a media campaign (primarily using radio ads) in the Omaha and Lincoln area to promote its services. In the second year, the majority of funds will be used to reimburse participating agencies for their services which will allow the agencies to expand services and increase the number of women served.
For now, this program is only targeting the Omaha and Lincoln area because of the limited funds. However, the goal of this program is to not only secure sustaining funding beyond this two-year pilot program, but to lobby for additional funding that will allow this important program to expand statewide.
Over the last few decades, billions of our federal tax dollars have been flowing into our nation’s (and world’s) largest abortion practitioner and advocate, Planned Parenthood. It’s about time that some of our tax dollars go to pro-life agencies that define compassion by helping women and their children, not by killing babies.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Dishonest Scientists, Sloppy Reporting
"Stem cells made with no harm to embryos" declared headlines in papers throughout the country and world. A Washington Post story carried in many newspapers introduced the story this way: "Scientists have for the first time grown colonies of prized human embryonic stem cells using a technique that does not require the destruction of embryos…"
The
story is about a study published in the August 23 online version of the journal
Nature that was conducted by researchers at Advanced Cell Technology
(ACT) in Massachusetts. In an August 23 press release, ACT claims to have
created two embryonic stem cell lines by removing just one cell from several
8-cell embryos, without causing any harm to the embryos.
The Washington Post story quoted ACT's bioethics adviser, Ronald Green, as saying: "You can honestly say this cell line is from an embryo that was in no way harmed or destroyed." Either Mr. Green didn't read the actual study in Nature or he has a twisted notion of honesty because his statement is completely false.
As Richard Doerflinger from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office pointed out, anyone who actually reads the report featured in Nature, will discover that "[r]esearchers did not safely remove single cells from early embryos, but destroyed 16 embryos in a desperate effort to obtain an average of six cells from each one. This experiment left no embryos alive, and solves no ethical problem. From the resulting 91 cells, they still only managed to make two cell lines. Their study shows nothing about the safety of removing only one cell, which in fact is something they never did…"
"Even if the authors had shown that single cells obtained by ‘embryo biopsy’ could produce a cell line, serious ethical problems would remain," Doerflinger said. "When this procedure is used to do genetic testing of embryos in fertility clinics [a technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis], some embryos apparently do not survive the procedure, and the long-term risks for children later born alive are unknown."
"Moreover, any embryo found to have a genetic defect is thrown away – the test is done precisely to determine which embryos do not deserve a chance to live. The promise of a "repair kit" later in life rings hollow if the very children who could most benefit from a stem cell treatment will be thrown away."
After reading ACT's press release, it is hard not to conclude that ACT intentionally misled the public in claiming to have obtained embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos. No where in the press release does ACT admit that it killed all 16 embryos. You have to read the study in Nature to discover this. With the South Korean cloning fraud in recent memory, it takes an unbelievable level of arrogance and hubris for ACT to so brazenly attempt to mislead the public.
Equally disturbing is the fact that the media apparently wrote its stories directly from ACT's press release without reading the study in Nature to verify ACT's claims. At best this is sloppy reporting, at worst it is willful collaboration in misleading the public. As though we needed another reason to be skeptical of the mainstream media.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
The Fertility Gap
Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, wrote in the August 22, 2006 online edition of the Wall Street Journal about what he labels a “fertility gap” between liberals and conservatives. “Simply put,” he says, “liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result.”
According to the 2004 General Social Survey, Brooks says “if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a ‘fertility gap’ of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections.”
Furthermore, Brooks reports, “the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year… A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies.”
What’s the reason for this fertility gap? Brooks says “[s]ome believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today.” I wholeheartedly agree if “left” and “right” stands for social liberals and social conservatives respectively. I suspect that those who are economic (but not social) conservatives are just as likely as social liberals to have a jaundiced view toward children.
Brooks illustrates this jaundiced view with this quote from a liberal columnist in a major newspaper: "Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation."
I have no doubt that this fertility gap corresponds with recent research revealing the pro-life, pro-chastity, pro-family and pro-spirituality tendencies of Generation Y. Generation Y is generally defined by those in the age category of 9 to 25 years old. This generation is also considerably larger in number than its predecessor. There are about 60 million members of Gen Y and only 17 million in Gen X.
This fertility gap and the philosophical tendencies of Gen Y are reasons for great optimism in our efforts to rebuild a culture of life and love. But these tendencies are not a sure thing. There are extremely powerful forces in our culture that are very effective in tearing down the virtue and faith of this generation, like generations before it: Hollywood, the music industry, and Planned Parenthood are a few that come to mind.
Therefore, it is critically important that parents, Catholic schools, religious education programs, youth programs, etc. pay special attention to forming, engaging and equipping Gen Y to withstand these cultural forces and to be leaven in the world. If we do this zealously and faithfully, we may well experience the “springtime in the Church” that Pope John Paul II predicted for the 21st century.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
FDA Poised to Approve Plan B
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) appears poised to cave into intense political pressure and approve over-the-counter use of so-called “emergency contraception” (or Plan B) for women over the age of 18. Plan B is a high dose of the ordinary birth control pill that, if taken within 72 hours after intercourse, can work by preventing fertilization (contraception) or by preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting in the mother’s womb (an early abortion).
The FDA is apparently dismissing the very compelling concerns associated with distributing this high dose hormonal drug over the counter. Numerous pro-life and pro-family groups have presented these concerns to the FDA on several occasions. In his written testimony to the FDA (2003) on behalf of the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops, General Counsel Mark Chopko points out several of these concerns in great detail.
Second, “EC [emergency contraception] carries significant risks and is contraindicated for many women. Indeed,” adds Chopko, “the package insert says that EC is not to be used as a routine method of contraception. Making EC available over-the-counter would eliminate the clinical oversight necessary to ensure that EC is not used routinely. In particular, it would eliminate the clinical monitoring and follow-up needed to address the risk of ectopic pregnancy, a potentially life-threatening condition.”
“The risks and contraindications attendant to ordinary contraceptives will then also apply to EC users, perhaps further aggravated by the large doses of hormones administered at one time. Women who select EC for routine use would not have the benefit of clinical supervision for these risks and contraindications.
“Currently, oral contraceptives carry significant risks, including a risk of heart attacks, blood clots, and cervical cancer. Oral contraceptives are contraindicated for women with diabetes, breast cancer, liver problems, headaches, heart disease or a history of heart disease, deep vein thrombosis or a history of deep vein thrombosis, and women over 35 who are smokers.”
Finally, in an August 15, 2006 article in National Review Online, Susan Wills of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat points out that “studies — many conducted by proponents of emergency contraception (EC) — show that widespread access to EC does not reduce rates of unintended pregnancy or abortion.” She explodes this myth with empirical evidence from studies conducted in Scotland, California, Washington, England, and Sweden.
In the California study, for example, Tina Raine randomly assigned 2,117 California women aged 15-24 to one of three groups. The first received three packets of EC to take home. The second received instructions on how to obtain EC free without a prescription at local pharmacies. The third (the control group) had to return to the clinic for EC. In the six-month study period, there was no significant reduction in pregnancy rates among the three groups. The study was published in the January 2005 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association,
Unfortunately, President Bush has indicated that he supports the FDA’s decision to allow Plan B to be sold over the counter to those over the age of 18. Please contact the White House and let him know that this would be a very bad decision for unborn children, women and the moral fabric of our nation. Comments can be made online at comments@whitehouse.gov or by phone at 202/456-1111.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
And Then There Were Two...
I have reported in this column recently the very good news that the number of abortions in Nebraska is declining. The number has declined more than 20 percent in the last two years. Even more dramatic is the fact that the number of abortions in 2005 was exactly half the number of abortions in 1990, the peak year for abortions in Nebraska.
There is another very hopeful abortion statistic to report. As of July 1, Nebraska has one fewer abortion facility. Women’s Services, P.C. in Omaha has closed its doors, apparently for good. That leaves two abortion facilities in Nebraska: the Abortion and Contraception Clinic of Nebraska operated by Leroy Carhart in Bellevue and Planned Parenthood in Lincoln.
What is even more encouraging about this closure is that, of the three abortion facilities, Women’s Services, P.C. did the most abortions. Over the last nine years, more than 20,000 abortions (54%) were performed at this facility. Prior to 1997, state mandated abortion statistics did not identify where abortions were performed, so it would be difficult to determine exactly how many abortions were done at this facility. However, a rough estimate based on data that is available would suggest that as many as 80,000 unborn children may have been killed at this facility during its years of operation.
It’s difficult to comprehend that magnitude of killing at just one facility in
our relatively small state. In total, more than 160,000 unborn children have
been killed since 1973 in Nebraska. Nationally, the numbers are staggering:
more than 40 million babies killed by abortion.
Denny Hartford, director of Vital Signs Ministries, an Omaha Evangelical pro-life group that has maintained a prayerful, counseling presence at Women’s Services since 1984, recounted in his newsletter the emotional experience of the last gathering at the facility:
“There was great joy but there was also great sorrow as we reflected upon all the children that had died there over the years at the hands of abortionists G.W. Orr, C.J. Labenz and their cohorts. But we had been there speaking up for those kids and we were confident the Lord has been pleased at our efforts. That’s all we need to know really, yet His grace has given us the ‘bonus blessing’ of knowing that our prayerful presence has made an incalculable difference in saving many, many lives. Thank you God.”
A group of Catholics also maintained a prayerful presence at this facility, praying the Rosary bright and early every Saturday morning. Fr. Joe Hanefeldt, past director of pro-life activities for the Archdiocese of Omaha, faithfully led the Rosary, as did a few other priests from the Archdiocese.
In addition to this prayerful presence at the abortion centers, my office promotes several forms of prayer for the pro-life cause. For example, a few years ago my office began promoting the Abortion Center Prayer Project, initiated by Priests for Life. This project asks parishes throughout Nebraska to pray (by name) for the conversion of the three abortionists and the closure of their abortion centers.
Another project, Intercessors for Life, asks individuals to commit to some form of weekly prayer and fasting for the pro-life cause. And most important, my office urges each parish to offer a monthly Mass (the most powerful prayer we have) for the pro-life cause.
There is absolutely no question that this prayer activity has a powerful effect on transforming our culture of death into a culture of life. Numerous women who went into Nebraska’s abortion centers have communicated that the presence of praying individuals was the main reason they decided not to have their abortions. We also know of the power of prayer from our Lord who told us that “certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting” (Mt. 17:21).
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
99 % Effective, 100 % Natural
“So many women have been on the Pill and lived with the side effects. Many are looking for a better way—one that is healthier—physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Where can you turn? You might be surprised. The answer is your own body.” So begins an attractive and savvy NFP flyer produced by the Archdiocese of New York entitled, “99% Effective. 100% Natural”.
“You may have heard about Natural Family Planning”, the flyer continues, “but you wonder—‘does it really work?’ It’s 99% effective, 100% natural and there are no health risks. You’ll be amazed to learn what your body has to tell you! It’s easy. It’s safe and scientifically proven. It’s how your body’s made. Whether you are hoping to postpone or achieve pregnancy, Natural Family Planning can help you and your spouse live in accord with God’s plan for love and life, while strengthening your marriage and family.”
The week of July 23-29 has been designated as Natural Family Planning Awareness Week by the American Academy of FertilityCare™ Professionals and the Diocesan Development Program for Natural Family Planning (NFP), an office of the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro Life Activities. The week was designated to coincide with the anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae (July 25) and the feast of Saints Joachim and Anne (July 26).
It has
been nearly 40 years since Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the Church’s constant
teaching that contraception violates God’s design for human sexuality—a design
in which He wills our cooperation with Him in the generation of human life.
After 40 years, there are lights and shadows in our response to this unique and
extraordinary gift from God.
On the shadowy side of the equation is the fact that, in this country, roughly 90 percent of Catholics ignore the Church’s teaching and use contraception. There is still profound ignorance about the Church’s teaching which, far from restricting our freedom, can make us truly free and truly happy.
There are, however, some lights. The brightest light is the magnificent gift from Pope John Paul the Great: his deep and beautiful insights into human sexuality known as “Theology of the Body”. As this teaching continues to be “unpacked” and shared with the world, I am convinced that it will change the way we view and treat our bodies and sexuality.
Another light is that many women and men (Catholic and Non-Catholic) are looking for a better way than contraception to plan their families. Unfortunately, too many do not realize there is a healthier way (physically and spiritually). Eliminating this ignorance is the main reason for Natural Family Planning Awareness Week.
There are many wonderful resources to help us learn more about NFP and God’s design for human sexuality. Church documents and other great information on human sexuality and NFP are available online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/ . Information about the various methods of NFP is available at these websites: www.popepaulvi.com ; www.ccli.org ; www.boma-usa.org .
Resources for learning more about John Paul II’s Theology of the Body can be viewed online at www.theologyofthebody.org (and .net) and www.christopherwest.com . Many educational resources are also available in print form from my office or the diocesan Family Life office.
“It’s not just the fact that Natural Family Planning is natural that makes it better than contraceptives”, says one NFP couple quoted in the flyer mentioned above. “NFP is a whole lifestyle that makes you think about the full meaning of lovemaking as God intended it.”
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
Americans Oppose Funding Embryo-Destructive Research
Some time this month, the United States Senate will vote on whether or not to allow federal funds to be used for stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos. The U.S. House of Representatives already approved such legislation (H.R. 810) a year ago.
This legislation, if it were to become law, would overturn President Bush’s policy (established on August 9, 2001) that forbids using federal funds to destroy embryos for research. The President’s policy does allow federal funding for research that uses embryonic stem cells harvested prior to the effective date of his policy.
Although the President’s policy is not error-free (using stem cells harvested from human embryos destroyed solely for research is morally wrong), at least it does not allow our tax dollars to be used for the actual destruction of human embryos. If passed, H.R. 810 would change this, and for the first time in our nation’s history our government would be funding research that destroys embryonic human beings.
Fortunately, President Bush has announced that if the Senate adopts H.R. 810, he will veto it. Although there may be enough votes in the Senate to overturn his veto, the House bill passed with far fewer votes than would be needed to overturn a veto.
Thankfully, Nebraska’s entire Congressional delegation opposes the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos. Our three representatives (Fortenberry, Terry and Osborne) voted against H.R. 810 and for this deserve our gratitude. It is anticipated that senators Nelson and Hagel will vote against its Senate version (S. 471). Please contact them now by phone or e-mail and urge them to vote against S. 471 (H.R. 810). (Sen. Hagel: 202/224-4224, Chuck_Hagel@Hagel.senate.gov ; Sen. Nelson: 202/224-6551, senator@bennelson.senate.gov )
I tend to be dismissive of public opinion polls when it comes to matters of right and wrong since such matters are not determined by majority opinion. Nonetheless, when public opinion is manipulated to advance immoral actions, such as killing human embryos for research, it must be countered.
Public opinion polls conducted by advocates of embryo-destructive
research often misrepresent what the research involves, (e.g. not
mentioning that such research destroys human embryos). These polls are then
used to convince policy makers that the majority of Americans want the
government to fund such research.
One month ago, the Secretariat for Pro Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released the results of a poll it commissioned on this topic. The poll shows that 48 percent of Americans oppose federal funding of stem cell research that requires destroying human embryos, while only 39 percent support such funding.
Even more compelling, the Secretariat’s news release revealed that when “survey respondents were informed that scientists disagree on whether stem cells from embryos, or from adult tissues and other alternative sources, may end up being most successful in treating diseases, 57 percent favored