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 2007
Most current:
Roes' Deformation of a Great Nation (1/12/07) New Life (04/06/07)
House Votes to Expand Embryo Research 1/19/07 Reproductive Technologies and Catholic Teaching (04/13/07)
Legislature Takes Up Cloning Ban Again (1/26/07) Question the Policies of Medical Charities 04/20/07
Abortionist Degrades, Insults Women (2/02/07) Supreme Court Ruling an Answer to Prayers (04/27/07)
An Undeniably Slippery Slope (2/09/07) Legislative Update (05/04/07)
Separating Myth from Fact on Cloning I (2/16/07) Good News in the Battle for Life (05/11/07)
Separating Myth from Fact on Cloning II (2/23/07) The Pro Life Feast of the Visitation (05/25/07)
Separating Myth from Fact on Cloning III (03/02/07) More Analysis on Court’s PBA Ruling (06/01/07)
Intercessors for Life (03/09/07) The Importance of Fathers (06/15/07)
University Continues Divisive Path (03/16/07)
Legislature Debates Death Penalty (03/23/07)
Redeemer in the Womb (03/30/07)
Roe’s Deformation of a Great Nation
January 22, 2007 marks the 34th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s infamous abortion rulings, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. After 34 years of one of the most divisive Court decisions in our nation’s history, one would think that most Americans would at least know the current legal status of abortion. Yet, polls show that most Americans don’t realize that with these two decisions, the Court legalized abortion for virtually any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Roe v Wade established a trimester approach to legalizing abortion. In the first three months (trimester) of pregnancy a state is prohibited from restricting abortion in any way. In the second trimester Roe said that states could regulate abortion but only for the health interests of the mother (since second trimester abortions can be more dangerous for the mother). In the third trimester Roe allows states to ban abortion but requires an exception if the mother’s life or health is endangered.
Understanding the term “health” is key to understanding that Roe doesn’t really allow a substantive ban even in the third trimester. The Court did not define “health” in Roe; it defined it in Roe’s lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton. Therefore, if you don’t know Doe you don’t really know Roe. In Doe the Court defined “health” as encompassing “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” If there was ever an exception that swallows the rule, this is it.
This radical abortion policy has resulted in the deaths of between 45 and 50 million unborn babies and has wounded—psychologically, spiritually and physically—millions of mothers and fathers. As incomprehensible as these numbers are, Roe’s destructive impact is much wider and deeper. In a brief she filed with the Supreme Court in an abortion case, blessed Mother Teresa clearly and powerfully identifies this impact:
“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.
“It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners.
“Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign.”
You would expect such insight from someone on the fast track to sainthood. Surprisingly, the Court itself provided a candid assessment of Roe’s impact on our society when it reaffirmed the ruling in its 1992 abortion case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The Court said that overturning Roe would cause too much turmoil because “for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”
If I may translate the court’s fancy talk more bluntly it said: “to hell with the rights of the unborn, too many people have embraced a sexually permissive lifestyle that relies upon killing the little buggers if contraception fails to prevent them from coming into existence. This amazing admission reveals a very sad and dangerous dynamic: it’s easier to ignore or manipulate truth to rationalize personal behavior than it is to change behavior.
House Votes to Expand Embryo Research
On January 11, the United States House of Representatives passed a measure (253 to 174) that would, for the first time in our nation’s history, allow federal funds to be used to kill embryonic human beings and harvest their stem cells for research. The bill would apply to the harvesting of stem cells from so-called “leftover” embryos produced through in vitro fertilization for fertility purposes.
The good news is that the vote fell 32 votes short of the two-thirds vote needed to override President Bush’s promised veto of the bill. All three of Nebraska’s Representatives (Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith) voted no and made strong statements against the bill. It is important that they receive an overwhelming response of gratitude from their constituents (Fortenberry—202-225-4806; Terry—202-225-4155; Smith—202-225-6435).
Last year a similar bill was adopted by the House and Senate prompting the President’s first veto of his administration. Both Houses were unable to override his veto. Following last November’s elections and the Democrat leaders’ promise to bring the bill back up in the first 100 hours of the new Congress, there was concern that enough votes changed to override a veto. Although that may be true in the new Senate, this House vote makes it pretty clear that the House is still unable to override a veto, thanks be to God!
The current federal policy, established by President Bush on August 9, 2001, restricts federal funding to the use of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) that had been harvested as of that date. No federal funds may be used to kill human embryos to harvest new stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells, however, can proliferate almost indefinitely once they are turned into a cell line (chemicals are used to nourish and grow the cells in a Petri dish). Therefore, federal funds have been used since 2001 for ESC research without funding the destruction of human embryos. There are no federal laws restricting or prohibiting embryonic stem cell or cloning research with private funds.
Nebraska also has no laws restricting or prohibiting ESC or cloning research. However, the University of Nebraska Board of Regents, which sets policy for the University system, adopted policies on such research a few years ago. Those policies authorize the harvesting and use of ESCs from “leftover” fertility clinic embryos, but not from embryos produced solely for research purposes using in vitro fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer (i.e. cloning).
The Regents also adopted a policy of following all federal regulations and guidelines on the use of ESCs regardless of the funding source (public or private). Consequently, even though the Regents authorized harvesting ESCs, since federal funds cannot be used for this purpose, the University is not allowed to do it. However, if federal policy is expanded to allow killing embryos to harvest ESCs, then our University will be free to do so as well.
This is one of the reasons why it is so critical that the Nebraska Legislature pass laws prohibiting all forms of human cloning and the destruction of human embryos. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to pass such laws in past years. An attempt will be made again this year and pro-life leaders are committed to conducting a “full-court press” to get it done.
A massive grassroots education and lobbying effort will be necessary to give such bills a better chance at passage. I urge anyone who wants to learn more about this research and how to lobby your state senator to call or e-mail me (402-477-7517 or gregschlepp@neb.rr.com) with your contact information.
It is impossible to overstate the threat to human dignity posed by research that treats embryonic human beings as raw material to be used, manufactured, and destroyed for the benefit of other humans. The time to put a stop to this grotesque exploitation and commoditization of human life in Nebraska may be slipping away. Please stand up now and be counted for life before it’s too late.
Legislature Takes Up Cloning Ban Again
State Senator Mark Christensen (a freshman from Imperial) has introduced LB 700, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act in the Nebraska Legislature. LB 700 prohibits the use of the cloning technique known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer” to produce human embryos for any reason. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the cloning technique used by scientists to produce Dolly the sheep about 10 years ago. Since then, scientists have been trying (unsuccessfully so far) to use SCNT to clone a human being.
As the name suggests, somatic cell nuclear transfer involves transferring the nucleus of a somatic cell (any body cell containing 46 chromosomes) into an egg that has had its nucleus (23 chromosomes) removed. Chemicals or an electrical charge are then used to “trick” the egg into embryonic development (as though it had been fertilized by sperm).
By way of comparison, normal reproduction occurs when the 23 chromosomes of the sperm unite with the 23 chromosomes of the egg to form a new, genetically unique human being with 46 chromosomes. With SCNT, the 23 chromosomes of the egg are removed and replaced with all 46 chromosomes from a body cell of the person who is to be cloned. There is no sperm involved with SCNT. If successful, this cloning technique results in a human being who is genetically identical (or nearly identical) to the person who donated the body cell.
One of the major reasons why scientists want to clone human embryos is to be able to harvest embryonic stem cells that are a genetic match to the patient to be treated. One of the problems with trying to treat a patient with embryonic stem cells harvested from fertility clinic embryos is that those cells are genetically foreign to the patient. Therefore, if you can make embryos that are genetic clones of the patient, theoretically their stem cells would not be rejected by the patient’s body.
It is important to note here that there currently is no human treatment using embryonic stem cells (ESCs). Twenty years of research with animal ESCs has revealed a serious problem of tumor formation when the cells are introduced into adult animals. Consequently, even those who support such research admit that human treatments with ESCs, if ever possible, are likely years or decades away.
In Nebraska, the only known entity wishing to engage in human cloning is the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Current University policy (adopted by the Board of Regents) prohibits the cloning of human embryos for any reason. However, top UNMC officials testified against the cloning ban in the Legislature two years ago and made clear that they wish to be able to do human cloning.
Some might ask why a legislative cloning ban is needed if current University policy prohibits human cloning. First, the current balance of Regents who support and oppose cloning is split and could shift (and change the policy) with an election or with aggressive lobbying by UNMC officials.
Second, University policy only covers University entities and individuals. Although it is unlikely, it is possible that a research lab independent of the University could decide to begin cloning research in Nebraska. But even if UNMC is the only realistic entity capable of cloning research, it is still important and appropriate for the Legislature, which establishes official state policy, to prohibit human cloning throughout our state.
In addition to Sen. Christensen, 26 other senators have co-sponsored LB 700 so far. Co-sponsors are: Senators Ray Aguilar, Carol Burling, Tom Carlson, Abbie Cornett, Cap Dierks, Annette Dubas, Pat Engel, Phil Erdman, Deb Fischer, Mike Flood, Mike Friend, Tony Fulton, Tom Hansen, John Harms, Lavon Heidemann, Carol Hudkins, Chris Langemeier, Steve Lathrop, John Nelson, Rich Pahls, Dwite Pedersen, Pete Pirsch, Don Preister, Arnie Stuthman, Norm Wallman, and John Wightman.
As with any pro-life bill, LB 700 will be contentious and face many hurdles, but I remain hopeful that with hard work and God’s grace, this bill can become law. One action that is critical to getting LB 700 enacted is a massive number of Nebraskans urging their state senator to vote for this bill. My office, in conjunction with other pro-life and religious groups, is sponsoring a postcard campaign to make it easy for Nebraskans to communicate support for LB 700. All parishes are being urged to participate.
In addition to the postcard, Nebraskans are urged to send a personal letter or e-mail respectfully urging their state senator to vote for LB 700. Contact information for all state senators can be obtained on the Legislature’s website at www.nebraskalegislature.gov or by calling my office at 402-477-7517.
Abortionist Degrades, Insults Women
In a May 10, 1987 New York Times article, Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) said, “we have to remind people that abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s…right to participate fully in the social and political life of society.” A few years later, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing that abortion is “essential to a woman’s equality with man and central to her dignity.”
Now fast forward to January 2007 and we have the infamous late-term abortionist, Leroy Carhart, saying this in defense of legal abortion: “The only way women come close to achieving equality is if they can control their fertility,” Carhart said during an interview with the Associate Press that appeared in the January 28th Lincoln Journal Star. “Abortion rights for men have been available since the beginning of time. When they’re unhappy with a pregnancy, they walk away. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the day after conception or when the child is 10 years old.”
I wonder how may people recognize how outrageous and degrading it is to suggest that having the right to kill their unborn children is “essential to [women’s] dignity” or to achieving equality with men in society. At the base of this argument is the notion that a woman’s fertility—her capacity to get pregnant and give birth—is a handicap that disadvantages her in society.
There is no question that in the hyper-competitive worlds of business, academia, politics, etc. women (especially those who wish to be mothers) have been disadvantaged and discriminated against in comparison to their male counterparts. But there are a couple of very divergent ways that this inequity can be remedied. The view represented by these abortion apologists undermines and degrades the dignity of women.
What is clear—and ironic—from the statements above is that pro-abortion feminism thinks women should adapt to a man’s world. In effect, they think that in order for women to participate equally with men in society, they should become more like men. Since men don’t have the “inconvenience” of getting pregnant and having to choose between work or school and being a parent, then neither should women.
As Leroy Carhart said, since men can walk away from a child at anytime, equality means that women should also be able to “walk away” (i.e. abort their child). This unbelievably impoverished view of equality and life is completely antithetical to authentic feminism which rightly insists that society should adapt to accommodate the unique contributions women bring to society, such as the ability to bring new human life into the world.
This is the version of feminism espoused by the pioneers of the feminist movement. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mattie Brinkerhoff, etc. were explicitly anti-abortion because they saw abortion as exploitative of women. For example, Mattie Brinkerhoff said in The Revolution, September 2, 1869, “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 wrong.”
This authentic view of feminism is embodied today in a number of groups like Feminists for Life. In one of its brochures, FFL says “[w]hile members of the 70’s women’s movement continue to promote abortion, another movement is going forward with real solutions. This movement, a renaissance of the original American feminism, is built on a progressive ethic that challenges the status quo.
“Pro-life feminists recognize abortion as a symptom of, not a solution to, the continuing struggles we face in the workplace, education institutions, at home and in society. Like…the early American suffragists, today’s pro-life feminists envision a better world, where no woman would be driven by desperation into the personal tragedy of abortion:
“A world in which pregnancy and motherhood are accepted and supported. A structured workplace that supports mothers rather than forcing them to choose between their children and their careers. A society that supports the role of mothers and values the role of fathers, and helps fathers provide both financial and emotional support for their children. A culture where “stay-at-home moms” are afforded respect.”
An Undeniably Slippery Slope
At the annual Walk for Life in Lincoln a few weeks ago, I participated in a panel presentation on stem cell and cloning research. My portion of the presentation focused on the current legal status of this research (nationally and in Nebraska) and where it fits into the broader pro-life battle.
As for the legal status, there is no federal or Nebraska law prohibiting embryonic stem cell or cloning research. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, however, is limited to embryonic stem cells that were harvested as of August 9, 2001 when President Bush established this policy. This policy means that no federal funds can be used for research that destroys human embryos or that uses stem cells from embryos destroyed after that date.
Regarding where this research fits into the pro-life battle, I mentioned that cloning and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) could pose a greater threat to human dignity than abortion. My argument is that abortion involves the destruction of human life in the womb. Human cloning and ESCR, however, not only involve the destruction of human life, but the manufacturing of human life solely to be used for the benefit of others.
To demonstrate how slippery and dangerous the ethical slope with this research is, I mentioned a series of Omaha World Herald editorials expressing support for research using aborted fetal tissue, embryonic stem cells and human cloning. The first editorial (2/5/00) opined in favor of the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s research using brain tissue from aborted babies. But they seemed to draw an ethical line when they said, “if it could be shown that the Medical Center’s research…were contributing to an increase in elective abortion it would be a different matter. That would be morally reprehensible.”
It only took the World Herald a year or so to forget that ethical line. On June 1, 2001 it editorialized in favor of embryonic stem cell research, in which human embryos are intentionally destroyed solely to provide cells for research. It is incoherent for the World Herald to say research that causes more abortions is “morally reprehensible” but research that kills human embryos is morally acceptable.
The newspaper’s editorial staff simply moved the ethical line. They said that embryonic stem cell research should be allowed as long as the embryos used “are destined to be discarded anyway [i.e. frozen embryos that are no longer wanted for fertility purposes]…and no embryos are created for research purposes”(emphasis added).
Again, it only took about a year for the World Herald to discard this new ethical line. On June 10, 2002, it editorialized in favor of so-called “therapeutic cloning” which involves cloning human embryos solely for research purposes. In a little more than two years, the World Herald went from calling research that “contributes to an increase in abortions” “morally reprehensible” to supporting the production of cloned human embryos solely to be destroyed as research material.
Unfortunately, this breathtaking example of the ethical slippery slope is not limited to the editorial staff at the World Herald. Four years ago, when the first bills to ban human cloning and embryonic stem cell research were introduced in the Nebraska Legislature, representatives from the University Med Center said they were officially neutral (unofficially, they were clearly unhappy with these bills).
Two years later, in 2005, when these bills were reintroduced, Med Center officials testified against the bills. In their testimony they stated explicitly that they hope to be able to conduct cloning research in the future. This is why Nebraska’s pro-life groups are united and resolute in our efforts to urge the Nebraska Legislature to pass LB 700, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. This effort will include educating Nebraskans on human cloning and urging them to contact their state senator in support of LB 700. Stay tuned to this column or contact me to get on my e-mail or mailing list (402-477-7517 or gregschlepp@neb.rr.com).
Separating Myth from Fact on Cloning I
One of the temptations of participants in debates over controversial issues like human cloning is to exaggerate claims or inflame emotions either intentionally or unintentionally. Both sides of such debates are susceptible to this temptation. In the debate over cloning in Nebraska, however, I’ve never seen a more egregious example of misleading the public than a recent communication by the UNMC Delegates program.
The University of Nebraska Medical Center recently initiated the UNMC Delegates program to create a network of people willing to contact elected officials on issues of importance to UNMC. A January 30th e-mail to its members said that a statewide ban on human cloning (as proposed by LB 700) will:
“--Deny life-affirming hope to countless patients and their families who seek cures for Diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, spinal cord injuries, cancer and other debilitating diseases
--Deny patients and families their right to support this research and obtain life-saving cures
--Demoralize Nebraska researchers and chillingly hinder the University’s recruitment of cutting-edge scientists in many research disciplines
--Stigmatize Nebraska as one of only six states that have banned and criminalized this 21st century research…”
The e-mail also said that “LB 700 bans cloning of human cells for reproductive purposes and for the purpose of conducting life-saving research for cures and treatments of debilitating diseases” (emphasis mine). This provocative hype is wrong and it is irresponsible. Over the next two or three weeks, I will counter these myths with reasoned arguments.
I’ll start with the myth that “LB 700 bans cloning of human cells”. In fact, LB 700 explicitly allows “cloning techniques to produce molecules, [DNA], tissues, organs, plants, cells other than human embryos, or animals other than humans.” What LB 700 bans is the cloning of an entire human being or “organism”.
This myth is reflective of an effort by some to convince the public that so-called “research cloning” is just cloning stem cells for research while so-called “reproductive cloning” is cloning to make babies. In reality, both “research” and “reproductive” cloning involve producing a human embryo, just for different purposes. Research cloning produces embryos solely to harvest stem cells (destroying the embryo). Reproductive cloning produces embryos to implant and gestate to live birth.
The second myth mentioned is that banning human cloning in Nebraska would “deny life-affirming hope to patients and their families who seek cures” for various diseases. The fact is, there is not only hope for treatments and cures coming from adult stem cell research, but actual treatments and cures. More than 70 conditions in humans have been improved or cured with non-embryonic stem cells from cord blood and the adult body, including the diseases mentioned in the UNMC e-mail. Documentation of these treatments, including video testimonies by patients who have benefited, can be seen at www.stemcellresearch.org.
Based on the claim made by UNMC, you’d think human cloning was already treating human illnesses. In reality, human cloning is no where close to having any human application. No one has even successfully cloned a human embryo, let alone demonstrated any therapeutic potential for humans. Even some strong supporters of embryonic stem cell research are recognizing cloning as wasteful, unreliable and unnecessary path to medical research.
The assertion that there is no hope for curing or treating disease without human cloning is completely unsubstantiated by current research and it cruelly misleads those suffering from disease.
Separating Myth from Fact on Cloning II
Proponents of cloning embryonic human beings for research claim that banning cloning or embryonic stem cell research will send a chilling message to all researchers in that state. An action alert sent by a University of Nebraska Medical Center group said that LB 700, a bill to ban human cloning in Nebraska, would “demoralize Nebraska researchers and chillingly hinder the University’s recruitment of cutting-edge scientists in many research disciplines.”
The action alert goes on to say that LB 700 would “stigmatize Nebraska as one of only six states that have banned and criminalized this 21st century research…” This claim is regularly put forward without a shred of evidence to substantiate it. It is used as a shameful scare tactic.
To counter this scare tactic, I decided to do a little research myself. It occurred to me that a compelling indicator of a state’s competitiveness in the field of research is its ranking with other states in research funding from the NIH (the National Institutes of Health is the federal government’s primary source of research funding). First I compared those states with a ban on cloning and/or embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) with Nebraska which has no ban.
I looked at the 2005 ranking of states by amount of NIH funding. Nebraska is ranked 38th. Ranked ahead of Nebraska are six states that have bans on cloning and/or ESCR: Pennsylvania (#5), Michigan (#11), Virginia (#14), Minnesota (#12), Iowa (#26), and Louisiana (#27). Furthermore, three of the top ten NIH funded medical schools in 2005 are in Pennsylvania (#2 and #9) and Michigan (#10). This data alone seems to undermine the claim that Nebraska can’t compete for researchers or research dollars if it bans human cloning.
Nonetheless, I decided to dig a little deeper and look at the NIH rankings of these states before and after enacting bans to see if the bans affected the rankings. Again, this evidence further undermines the University’s “chilling effect” scare tact. Four of the states’ rankings did not change. Two of the states’ rankings actually improved! Virginia was ranked number 21 when it banned human cloning in 2001. In 2005 it was ranked number 14. Louisiana was ranked number 31 when it banned embryo-destructive research in 2001. In 2005 it was ranked number 27.
Another myth perpetuated by human cloning advocates is the claim that “research” or “therapeutic” cloning does not produce an embryo, but just produces some stem cells. This myth is dispelled even by experts who strongly support human cloning and/or embryonic stem cell research.
When Dr. Ian Wilmut announced to the world that he had cloned the first mammal, Dolly the sheep, in 1997, there was no doubt whatever that the cloning technique he used (somatic cell nuclear transfer) produces an embryo of the relevant species. In the article announcing his achievement, he said: “The majority of reconstructed embryos were cultured in ligated oviducts of sheep...Most embryos that developed to morula or blastocyst after 6 days of culture were transferred to recipients and allowed to develop to term," etc. [I. Wilmut et al., "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells," 385 Nature 810-813 (Feb. 27, 1997)].
James Thomson, Ph.D., the leading embryonic stem cell researcher in the United States, said this in an interview: “If you create an embryo by nuclear transfer [cloning], and you give it to somebody who didn’t know where it came from, there would be no test you could do on that embryo to say where it came from. It is what it is. It’s true that they have a much lower probability of giving rise to a [born] child… But by any reasonable definition, at least at some frequency, you’re creating an embryo. If you try to define it away, you’re being disingenuous.”
[Alan Boyle, “Stem cell pioneer does a reality check.” MSNBC, (published online June 25, 2005), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8303756]
Finally, in its 1997 report and recommendations on cloning human beings, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission said that it “began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.”
Separating Myth from Fact on Cloning III
Those who want to clone human embryos for research purposes only (so-called “therapeutic cloning”) claim that this practice is different from, and will not lead to, so called “reproductive cloning” (cloning embryos to initiate pregnancies). Human cloning should not be used to “make babies” they say, but they want it to be allowed for “research purposes.”
Like abortion advocates, human cloning advocates are masterful at using verbal gymnastics to advance their cause. They know that the notion of producing cloned human embryos solely to be destroyed for their stem cells is abhorrent to a large majority of Americans. Consequently, they are trying to redefine the terms to hide this reality.
Cloning advocates want the public to believe that “therapeutic cloning” just makes a bunch of stem cells. In fact, conscious of the public’s wariness toward cloning in general, they are even trying to hide the fact that this is cloning by using terms like “nuclear transfer for stem cells”. They want the public to think that cloning hasn’t occurred unless a baby is born.
The fact is, the cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, if done successfully, is always “reproductive” (i.e. results in a human embryo, the earliest stage of a human being’s development). The only difference between “therapeutic” and “reproductive” cloning is that the former produces embryos solely to harvest their stem cells (which destroys them). The latter produces embryos to implant and achieve successful pregnancies.
A good case in point of this verbal deception was a bill introduced in the Nebraska Legislature two years ago. The bill claimed to prohibit human cloning, but did no such thing. Instead it prohibited the “implantation of the product of nuclear transplantation into a uterine environment.”
Had this bill been enacted, researchers would have been free to produce all the cloned human embryos they wanted as long as they were destroyed for use in research and not implanted in a womb for live birth. Note that the bill used the deceptive and dehumanizing term “product of nuclear transplantation” instead of “embryo”. This is a chillingly similar to the abortion euphemism “product of conception” used to dehumanize the unborn child.
It is quite likely that an attempt will be made in the Legislature to amend this year’s cloning ban bill (LB 700) to allow the cloning of human embryos for research, but prohibit implantation of embryos for live birth. As introduced, LB 700 prohibits the cloning of human embryos for any reason.
Any attempt to only ban implantation of cloned embryos, thereby allowing the production of cloned human embryos solely for destructive research, will be rigorously opposed by the pro-life movement. Not only would such a ban be morally reprehensible, it is doubtful that it would be enforceable once the mass production of cloned embryos for research purposes is authorized.
Under a microscope, a cloned human embryo looks identical to an embryo produced through in vitro fertilization (IVF). Consequently, it would be difficult to prove that embryos implanted into wombs were clones and not IVF embryos. Besides, once the law is violated and cloned embryos were implanted, the only recourse to enforce the law would be the morally repugnant act of forced abortion.
Furthermore, there has been an alarming trend recently in several states (with the support of groups favoring research cloning) to pass laws that allow implanting cloned human embryos in women’s wombs, but prohibiting any attempt to let them be born alive. California and New Jersey have already passed such laws that allow researchers to implant cloned human embryos in wombs, develop them to the fetal stage, then abort them for their cells and tissues.
According to a document by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office, “this legislative trend is based on recent scientific evidence suggesting that therapeutic benefits will not be safely obtained from the cloning of human embryos unless such “fetus farming” is allowed…This new agenda has required a shift in definitions. Increasingly, “reproductive” cloning is said to occur only if a cloned human being is brought to full term and born alive. In this way a law can be called a ban on “reproductive” cloning even if its only legal effect is to mandate abortion for any woman carrying a cloned unborn child in her womb.”
Intercessors for Life
Abortions are done nearly every day in Nebraska at a Bellevue facility operated by Leroy Carhart. Abortions are also done on Fridays at an abortion facility in Lincoln operated by Planned Parenthood. At both facilities, “sidewalk angels” are present to offer a better way to women who are typically driven to abortion out of desperation and, ironically, because they think they have no choice. Other individuals come simply to pray.
Each Friday, about 20 to 25 babies are aborted at the abortion facility in Lincoln. Nearly twice that number is aborted weekly at Leroy Carhart’s facility. Mothers occasionally change their mind and choose life because of the prayerful presence of these individuals. I’ve seen moving letters from such mothers explaining how this presence stirred their souls and prompted a change of mind.
Unfortunately, there are few individuals who regularly commit their time to participate in this prayerful presence. Those who do are tireless but could use reinforcements. I have no doubt that God is calling others to use their talents and experience in this mission of love and hope. But I also know there are many for whom being present at one of the abortion facilities is not possible.
There is, however, a way for anyone to “be present” in prayerful solidarity with these sidewalk angels at the abortion facilities. Intercessors for Life is a program sponsored by my office that asks individuals to commit to some form of prayer and fasting each week for an increase in respect for human life.
Prayer and fasting is particularly encouraged on Fridays because this is when the largest number of abortions takes place in Nebraska. The type of prayer and fasting is up to each individual. Some suggested prayers are the Rosary, Divine Mercy Chaplet or, most powerfully, having a Mass offered for those women contemplating abortion that day. Suggested fasting could be an Ash Wednesday-type fast, foregoing dessert or a second helping, or not eating in between meals.
After Jesus expelled a demon from a boy, the disciples asked Him, “Why could we not expel it? Because you have so little trust,” our Lord replied. “I assure you, if you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you would be able to say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it would move. Nothing would be impossible for you. This kind [of demon] does not leave but by prayer and fasting.”
There is no doubt in my mind that the origin of our current culture of death is a demon that will only be expelled by prayer and fasting. I also have no doubt that the battle to rebuild a culture of life is far more a spiritual battle than an intellectual one. Certainly some individuals will be converted by compelling intellectual arguments, but most will require a change of heart that comes from spiritual conversion.
It is tempting for us mortals to minimize or dismiss the power of prayer and fasting. But our Lord made clear that in some cases it is the only way to bring about conversion. Therefore, those who are homebound, in nursing homes or hospitals, or those who have work, family or other obligations that limit involvement in pro-life activities can make a huge contribution to building a culture of life through their prayers and sacrifices.
Prayer resources are available from my office (402-477-7517) or online at www.usccb.org/prolife or www.priestsforlife.org.
University Continues Divisive Path
Last Wednesday, the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on LB 700, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. Although I was not surprised that the University of Nebraska Medical Center testified in opposition to the bill, I was dumbfounded by the outrageously inaccurate, if not misleading, claims made during UNMC’s expert testimony.
Dr. James Turpen, who teaches human embryology to first year medical students, presented as a matter of scientific fact that somatic cell nuclear transfer (i.e. cloning) does not produce “a new human life” or “a new human embryo”. He actually said “it is scientifically inaccurate to assert that it is.”
I’ve heard many cloning proponents use euphemisms such as “product of nuclear transfer” to disguise the fact that cloning produces human embryos. But I’ve never heard someone flatly deny that cloning produces human embryos. Indeed, Dr. Turpen’s assertion would surely come as a surprise to an elite list of international experts and commissions, most of which support the cloning of human embryos for research.
For example, Dr. Ian Wilmut, the researcher who used somatic cell nuclear transfer to clone Dolly the sheep, said "One potential use for this technique would be to take cells -- skin cells, for example -- from a human patient who had a genetic disease... You take these and get them back to the beginning of their life by nuclear transfer into an oocyte to produce a new embryo. From that new embryo, you would be able to obtain relatively simple, undifferentiated cells…" [7 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 138 (Spring 1988)].
James Thomson, PhD, the University of Wisconsin researcher who first discovered human embryonic stem cells said that “by any reasonable definition…[with somatic cell nuclear transfer] at least at some frequency, you’re creating an embryo. If you try to define it away, you’re being disingenuous.” [Alan Boyle, “Stem cell pioneer does a reality check.” MSNBC, (published online June 25, 2005), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8303756 ]
President Clinton’s National Bioethics Advisory Commission, in its 1997 report on cloning said, “The Commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.” (emphasis added)
Dr. Turpen tried to substantiate his assertion by suggesting that only fertilization (the combining of sperm and egg) produces a human embryo. “As scientists,” he said, “we define a human embryo as a new genetically distinct individual that has been formed by the union of an egg and a sperm at the time of fertilization.” Based on this definition, an identical twin which splits off from an embryo after fertilization and is not a genetically distinct individual would not be an embryo.
“[S]omatic cell nuclear transfer”, he said, “does not produce an embryo by the process of fertilization nor does it produce a new genetically distinct individual. The result is the production of a small population of 30 to 40 cells that can be transferred to a long-term culture in a petri dish.” This was one of Dr. Turpen’s most ridiculous and disingenuous statements; a textbook example of a red herring, intended to divert attention from the basic fact that cloning does produce embryos.
I wanted to stand up and say, “Of course cloning doesn’t produce embryos through fertilization that are genetically distinct. No one says it does!!” Cloning and fertilization are two completely distinct acts, but both result in a human embryo. Furthermore, technically speaking both result in “the production of a small population of 30 to 40 cells” since every embryo, not matter how it comes into being, will at some point comprise 30 to 40 cells.
In 16 years of pro-life work, I have witnessed a lot of verbal engineering being used to dehumanize early stage human life and to deceive the public into accepting the destruction of these human beings. But Dr. Turpen’s testimony takes the cake.
It completely mystifies me that our state-funded University, which has demonstrated its ability to be an international leader in ethical research, would want to squander this good reputation by seeking a research path that alienates and divides a majority of Nebraskans and is at best speculative. If the University continues down this path, its efforts will be opposed mightily and relentlessly.
Legislature Debates Death Penalty
Earlier this week I observed the Legislature debate a topic it hasn’t addressed for many years—repeal of the death penalty. Sen. Ernie Chambers has introduced a bill to repeal the death penalty in Nebraska every legislative session since 1976 when the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it.
The first thing I noticed as I approached the legislative chamber was that the normal throng of lobbyists was absent. I commented to one of the few lobbyists present that there is nothing like the death penalty and abortion to clear the lobby of lobbyists! I think it is worth noting that the few lobbyists who were working for Sen. Chambers’ bill are Catholic.
The next thing that struck me was how many senators were in their seat listening intently on the debate. During debate on most bills, senators are moving about carrying on conversations with colleagues on “the floor” or lobbyists in “the lobby.” Not during this debate. It was impressive, almost surreal, to see the level of solemnity that was given to the seriousness of this issue.
The discussion included the emotional recollection of horrendous murder cases that resulted in death sentences. There was emotional recollection of how condemned prisoners were treated as they were being executed as well as the despicable messages that were proclaimed by misguided death penalty supporters outside the prison. There were also legal and social arguments put forward by both sides of the debate.
I spoke to a couple of strongly pro-life Catholic senators who were struggling with how to preserve a deep regard for the sanctity of every life while ensuring that society is protected from those who violate that sanctity. It is a legitimate struggle—one that has some differences and similarities with abortion.
The primary moral distinction between these two acts is that, unlike abortion, the Church has never taught that the death penalty is intrinsically evil (i.e. never morally legitimate). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2267) says the following:
“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
However, the right to defend ourselves against an unjust aggressor, using this ultimate penalty, has limits. Section 2267 of the Catechism goes on to say that if “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committee an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56)
John Paul II’s statement begs the question, “what constitutes those ‘very rare’ circumstances which would justify use of the death penalty?” Admittedly, I haven’t researched the question, but it’s hard for me to imagine a scenario in this country in which a criminal’s ability to inflict further harm could not be eliminated without killing him/her.
This brings me to where I think the death penalty intersects the abortion issue. We live in a culture that has increasingly used killing to solve social problems (i.e. abortion and euthanasia). In this context it seems to me that even legitimate use of death penalty contributes in some way to a culture of death. Therefore, if legitimate use of the death penalty in our state is virtually unimaginable, I cannot comprehend a reason to sustain it.
Finally, I cannot pass up the opportunity to challenge the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee to be consistent in its approach to all serious matters of life and death. The committee advanced the death penalty bill with the support of members who were uncertain about their ultimate vote on repealing the death penalty, but who concluded that the issue deserved debate by the entire Legislature. The bill to ban human cloning, currently locked in the committee, deserves no less consideration.
Redeemer in the Womb
The Solemnity of the Annunciation is increasingly being recognized for its importance and relevance to the pro-life movement. Pro life leaders around the world are expressing a desire to give more prominence to this Feastday as a celebration of human life. Some nations have actually declared March 25 a day of the unborn child.
It is an extraordinarily compelling point of reflection to ponder this supernatural event when “the Word became flesh” in the womb of the Virgin Mary. As God, Jesus could have chosen to suddenly appear on earth as a 30-year old and begin His ministry. Instead, He began His earthly life like every human being who has ever existed, as an embryo (from conception to 8 weeks) and a fetus (from 8 weeks to birth) in the womb of His mother.
“God was once an unborn child,” says Fr. Pavone in his book Ending Abortion. “Every unborn child, therefore, is in some fashion united with God. As the Second Vatican Council asserted, ‘By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being’ (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 22).
Fr. Pavone goes on to say that in “the writings of the Fathers of the Church, we encounter reflections on the theme that Christ redeemed us by assuming all the different aspects of our life on earth, including our childhood, our life of work, our family life, our sufferings, and our death. In an age when, as Pope John Paul II said, ‘it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak’ (The Gospel of Life, 12), we should also reflect on the fact that the Son of God shared in our life in the womb.
“Would it long be possible for believers, who meditate on the unborn child who was God, to fail to see that unborn children are made in God’s image? Would it be likely that those who ponder that our Almighty Protector was a baby in the womb will fail to see that babies in the womb deserve protection? Would it happen that Christians, who acknowledge that their Lord and Brother was an embryo and fetus, will fail to see that every embryo and fetus is a brother and sister in the Lord?
“Yet the marvels revealed by the Annunciation do not stop there”, says Fr. Pavone. “There is also the mystery of Mary’s freedom, her ‘Fiat’—‘Let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38). This is freedom of choice which serves the truth, as opposed to ‘pro-choice’ which claims to create its own truth.
“This is choice at the service of life, rather than the perverted choice to take life. This is the moment when Mary gave her body to the One who would bring life to the world by saying ‘This is My Body,’ forever undoing the sin of those who justify abortion by saying, ‘This is my body!”
A big part of changing our world’s impoverished view of human life starts with deepening our own appreciation of it. To do this we must occasionally step off the treadmill of life and quietly contemplate the beauty and miracle that is human life. One tool to assist our contemplation is an Annunciation Novena available from my office or online at http://www.nebcathcon.org/bpppla.htm.
The Novena contains reflections from Mother Angelica and Pope John Paul II on the dignity of human life. It also includes this prayer to conclude each daily reflection:
Lord Jesus Christ, You took our human nature upon Yourself. You shared our life and death, our childhood and adulthood. You also shared our time in the womb. While still God, while worshiped and adored by the angels, While Almighty in filling every part of the universe, You dwelt for nine months in the womb of Mary. You were our Redeemer in the Womb, our God who was a preborn child.
Lord Jesus, we ask You to bless and protect the children who today are in their mothers’ womb. Save them from the danger of abortion. Give their mothers the grace to sacrifice themselves, in body and soul, for their children. Help all people to recognize in the preborn child a brother, a sister, saved by You, our Redeemer in the womb. (Courtesy of Priests for Life)
New Life
I love this time of year. Spring is by far my favorite season. The trees are budding and flowering, tulips and other early growers are popping up. And then there is the glorious smell of that first rain and cut grass.
One of the benefits of living in a climate like ours is that having to endure a winter of cold and dormancy makes spring more magical. Perhaps in a subliminal way, I wonder if having a greater appreciation for spring and new life doesn’t also give us a greater appreciation for the sanctity of human life. And perhaps living through four seasons may give us a greater respect for the seasons of human life.
Clearly, having the season of Lent coincide with the transition from winter to spring also makes Easter more magical after a season of sacrifice, prayer and preparation. Our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection—His victory over death and gift of new and eternal life—provides a fertile source of meditation on the meaning and dignity of human life.
In addressing the “incomparable worth of the human person” in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II mentions the “wonderful truth recalled by the Second Vatican Council: ‘By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being.’ This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God, who ‘so loved the world that he gave his only Son’ (Jn. 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person.” Our world certainly needs more reflection on the miracle and incomparable value of the human person.
I find it most compelling to reflect on the fact that Christians worship a God who has experienced every aspect of the human condition. For example, having been unjustly condemned to death, freely enduring excruciating tortures and execution, Jesus Christ is a God with whom even the condemned prisoner can relate.
Furthermore, that Jesus freely chose to suffer gives meaning to human suffering. “Living to the Lord”, John Paul II said, “also means recognizing that suffering, while still an evil and a trial in itself, can always become a source of good. It becomes such if it is experienced for love and with love through sharing, by God’s gracious gift and one’s own personal and free choice, in the suffering of Christ crucified.” (EV #67)
Finally, it is Jesus’ death and resurrection, which defeated death once and for all, that should encourage us to persevere in our efforts to oppose the culture of death and rebuild a culture of life.
I am regularly asked how it is that I stay in the pro-life battle and keep from being discouraged and overwhelmed by the enormous and persistent attacks against human life. My answer is always the same. As Christians we must be assured that we have a Savior who has already defeated death.
When we become weary or overwhelmed by the magnitude and endlessness of the battle, we must remember that God calls us not to defeat death, but to oppose it faithfully, zealously and persistently. One of my biggest inspirations, Blessed Mother Teresa, said we are not called to be successful we are called to be faithful.
This is no excuse for half-hearted efforts. Mother Teresa also said we must give and love until it hurts. We will account one day for how we used the gifts that God gave us. And He told us that those to whom much is given, much will be expected.
There is another critical component to staying “in the battle”: daily or frequent reception of our Lord in the Eucharist. This is true whether our battle is the pro-life cause or more personal struggles in our lives. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith and without a doubt is the reason that I have stayed engaged and encouraged after 16 years in the pro-life battle.
As we contemplate our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection, and our own battles, let us be assured and encouraged that “the strife is o’er, the battle is won.”
Reproductive Technologies and Catholic Teaching
Some time ago, I received a letter from a Catholic men’s group lamenting the prevalence of Catholic couples having babies through use of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Wondering if this prevalence was due to an ignorance of Church teaching, this group asked me to address the issue in my column.
It is important for me to say upfront that I have tremendous sensitivity and sympathy for the pain of infertility. I have family and friends who are experiencing this heavy cross. Nonetheless, as we celebrate our Lord’s victory over death by way of the cross, we are acutely reminded that our own crosses can be overcome and redeeming if joined with the cross of our Savior.
The Church’s teaching on IVF and other reproductive technologies was most directly addressed in a Vatican document known as Donum Vitae, issued in 1987 by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. This document did not declare that all technologies to overcome infertility are immoral.
Donum Vitae presents a fundamental principle which the Church uses to evaluate the morality of such technologies. Although its application to various techniques can be complicated, the principle is pretty simple: if a technique assists the marriage act to achieve pregnancy, it may be considered moral; if the technique replaces the marriage act in order to produce new human life, it is immoral.
Before applying it to IVF and other techniques, Donum Vitae provides some explanation of this principle. “The Church’s teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the ‘inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.” In other words, God designed sexual intercourse to always unite husband and wife in one flesh (unitive) and to always be receptive to new life (procreative).
“[T]he generation of a child must…be the fruit of …mutual giving which is realized in the conjugal act wherein the spouses cooperate as servants and not as masters in the work of the Creator who is Love.” The child “cannot be desired or conceived as the product of an intervention of medical or biological techniques; that would be equivalent to reducing him to an object of scientific technology. No one may subject the coming of a child into the world to conditions of technical efficiency which are to be evaluated according to standards of control and dominion.”
In an article written for the U.S. Bishops’ Respect Life program (1998), John Haas, PhD, STL said that since human beings bear the image and likeness of God, they are never “to be used as a means to an end, not even to satisfy the deepest wishes of an infertile couple. Husbands and wives ‘make love,’ they do not ‘make babies.’ They give expression to their love for one another, and a child may or may not be engendered by that act of love.
“The marital act is not a manufacturing process, and children are not products. Like the Son of God himself, we are the kind of beings who are ‘begotten, not made’ and, therefore, of equal status and dignity with our parents.”
Clearly, in vitro fertilization replaces the marriage act to bring about a new life and is therefore immoral. It engenders new human life by combining eggs and sperm in a laboratory procedure performed by technicians. Unfortunately, most Catholics are not aware of this teaching and many have utilized IVF to engender new life.
It is important to note here, as Dr. Haas does in his article that “If a couple is unaware that the procedure is immoral, they are not subjectively guilty of sin. Children conceived through this procedure are children of God and are loved by their parents, as they should be. Like all children, regardless of the circumstances of their conception and birth, they should be loved, cherished and cared for.”
Donum Vitae and other helpful documents can be found online at www.usccb.org/prolife or by contacting my office.
Question the Policies of Medical Charities
My office regularly receives inquiries from Catholic schools, organizations and individuals about the research policies of various medical charities. Catholic entities and individuals are routinely solicited to assist these charities with their fundraising activities and want to be assured that their efforts will not support immoral research or activities.
Medical charities, without question, do a lot of good work. Among other things, they fund and conduct research to discover treatments and cures and they provide a variety of support services to individuals and their families afflicted with disease.
Unfortunately, far too many of them have made the terrible mistake of advocating for or even funding research utilizing aborted fetal tissue, embryonic stem cells or human cloning. By doing this, medical charities force Catholics (and others) to choose between supporting groups whose work could help them or a loved one and being faithful to God’s Truth and His Church.
As a result of the numerous and regular inquiries to my office, several years ago I solicited the research policies of thirty medical charities. Half of them did not reply. They are: Alliance for Aging Research, American Auto-Immune Disease Association, American Paralysis Association, Epilepsy Foundation of America, Huntington’s Disease Society, Lymphoma Research Foundation, National Hemophilia Foundation, National Infertility Association, National Parkinson Foundation, Neurological Disorders Research Coalition, Parkinson’s Disease Foundation, Spina Bifida Association of America, Spinal Cord Injury Association, Tourette Syndrome Association, and United Parkinson Foundation.
The following organizations did respond and stated that they support and advocate for aborted fetal tissue research, embryonic stem-cell and/or cloning research: National Multiple Sclerosis Society, American Diabetes Association, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, March of Dimes, Glaucoma Research Foundation, and the American Cancer Society.
The following respondents say that they do not fund or lobby for fetal tissue or embryonic stem cell research: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, National Kidney Foundation, American Lung Association, Children’s Leukemia Research Association, American Heart Association, Alzheimer’s Association.
Certainly, an organization’s policy about what research it will support can change over time so my office periodically attempts to obtain updated information (I’m in the updating process right now). In some cases it is difficult to get a straight answer about an organization’s policy. Sometimes local representatives are unaware of national policies and sometimes even national representatives will provide conflicting or unclear information.
I am quite certain, however, that if enough volunteers make their participation in fundraising activities contingent upon the recipient organization adopting policies that reject unethical research, its leadership will take notice and sometimes change its policies. A good example is the American Heart Association.
Initially, the AHA adopted a policy to fund embryonic stem cell research. However, according to an October 26, 2000 policy statement, “after consideration of commentary from the Association’s constituents—volunteers, donors and the general public” the AHA changed its policy to fund only adult stem cell research. It does not oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research but “will not actively support or lobby in favor of this research.”
One of the protest letters the AHA received was from Cardinal Justin Rigali when he was Archbishop of Saint Louis. In his letter he pointed out that “an entire fundraising committee resigned, dropping its plans for a gala ball. Donors who opposed abortion said they could not support the destruction of human embryos.”
It is entirely reasonable to expect a straight answer from an organization about its policies on unethical research before agreeing to help raise money for that organization. And it is extremely important to our efforts to defend the dignity of human life that Catholics (and others) use their influence to steer medical charities away from unethical research.
Supreme Court Ruling an Answer to Prayers
On November 8, 2006, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the partial-birth abortion ban enacted by Congress in 2003. From that date, my office urged Catholics to pray for a just ruling by the Court. On Wednesday, April 18, the Supreme Court answered our prayers by announcing its 5 to 4 ruling upholding the ban on this procedure which is closer to infanticide than abortion.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Thomas and Scalia. Seven years ago, Justice Kennedy was on the short end of a 5 to 4 ruling that struck down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion.
Since that ruling, Chief Justice Rehnquist (who ruled in favor of Nebraska’s ban) and Justice O’Connor (who ruled against it) were replaced by Justices Roberts and Alito, respectively. With Roberts and Alito both ruling in favor of the ban, a 5 to 4 ruling against Nebraska’s ban turned into a 5 to 4 ruling upholding the federal ban, which applies to all states.
It is important to clarify what this ruling does and does not do. It does not overturn Roe v. Wade and it does not necessarily open any new doors to abortion restrictions, other than to prohibit use of the partial-birth abortion technique.
Some abortion activists are trying to rally their “troops” with overreaching conclusions saying this ruling is the beginning of the end of Roe. They employed this strategy after the Supreme Court’s 1989 Webster decision (which upheld pro-life regulations) and succeeded in driving public opinion and many elected officials into supporting Roe v. Wade.
This ruling does not impose the opinion of five unelected judges on society. It simply upholds a piece of legislation that was adopted by an overwhelming majority (65 percent) of both Houses of Congress and supported by an even larger majority of the American public. Furthermore, this bill was drafted in part after several hearings featuring numerous medical experts testifying that this abortion technique is never necessary to preserve a woman’s health.
Although the ruling is limited to outlawing partial-birth abortions, it is encouraging to note that this is the first time in 34 years that the Court has upheld an actual ban on any kind of abortion. Furthermore, as Mike Moses from the U.S. Bishops’ office of General Counsel points out, there are some other good and interesting sentiments expressed in the ruling,
First, the opinion reaffirms the government's "legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life." Invalidation of the federal PBA ban would, in the Court's view, have constituted a repudiation of this interest.
Second, the opinion is much more candid than previous Supreme Court opinions about what is at stake in the decision whether to abort a child. For example, it said “by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb" and it acknowledged that the PBA law "expresses respect for the dignity of human life".
Third, in contrast with an earlier decision striking down a Nebraska partial birth abortion statute, here the Court holds that "[m]edical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts." Put another way, the mere fact that doctors and experts disagree about the consequences of a particular abortion procedure does not foreclose regulation.
Fourth, although not a central issue in the case, the opinion recognizes the reality of post-abortion grief. "It seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained”, the Court said. It went on to say that it is "self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns only after the event what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form."
Thanks be to God for this ruling. Let us continue to pray and fast that our society, our elected officials and judges will increasingly reject the violence and injustice of abortion.
Legislative Update
One of the four activities encouraged under the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities is public policy efforts. “The law is not the only means of protecting life,” the Pastoral Plan says, “but it plays a key and often decisive role in affecting both human behavior and thinking. Those called to civil leadership, as Pope John Paul II reminds us, ‘have a duty to make courageous choices in support of life, especially through legislative measures.’
“Public officials are privileged in a special way to apply their moral convictions to the policy arena…Catholic civil leaders who reject or ignore the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life do so at risk to their own spiritual well-being. ‘No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life.’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 32)
The public policy component is, from my experience, the most frustrating activity of the Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities. Even in a conservative, pro-life state like Nebraska, pro-life legislative victories are extremely contentious and hard-fought. Granted, most of that contention is caused by Sen. Ernie Chambers who uses every bit of his impressive intellect and institutional knowledge to fight pro-life legislation. Such a pity.
Nonetheless, as frustrating and sometimes fruitless as the public policy process may be, it is a necessary and important part of our pro-life efforts and, as the Pastoral Plan says, can affect “both human behavior and thinking.”
State Legislation
The primary pro-life bill introduced in the State Legislature this year is LB 700, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. This bill bans the use of the cloning technique known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer” to produce human embryos for any reason. The bill had a public hearing on March 7 and remains stuck in the Judiciary Committee.
A couple of weeks ago, the Committee advanced a watered-down version of the bill. But a few hours after the vote the Committee Chair Sen. Brad Ashford reeled the bill back to the Committee by changing his vote from yes to “not voting”. He said that he wanted to conduct an interim study of the topic before advancing the bill for debate by the entire Legislature.
Because the fate of LB 700 in the Judiciary Committee was questionable at the time when senators had to designate their priority bill for this session, the bill was not prioritized. This all but ensured that the bill, even if advanced by the Committee this year, would not be debated until next year’s session.
Federal Legislation
As promised by the leadership of the new Democratic majority in Congress, a bill was introduced to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The bill was adopted by both Houses of Congress, but fell short of the votes needed to overturn President Bush’s promised veto. In addition to adopting this bill, Congress also adopted a bill that would fund ethical adult stem cell research. This bill will be signed by the President.
Another challenge to the pro-life movement with the new Congress will be maintaining the numerous pro-life policies/riders to federal appropriation bills. There are 19 such policies that prohibit use of federal money for abortion-related activities. Undoubtedly the pro-abortion leadership in Congress will work hard to remove them.
I was recently notified that Congressman Jeff Fortenberry was instrumental in helping to organize a letter to President Bush signed by 155 Congressman asking him to veto any appropriation bill that does not contain these pro-life policies. Nebraska’s other two Congressman (Lee Terry and Adrian Smith) also signed the letter. This is more than enough votes needed to sustain the President’s veto and may well be the deciding factor in maintaining these longstanding pro-life policies.
In the midst of the many forces working against the pro-life agenda it is easy to overlook such principled and courageous leadership by our pro-life elected officials. It is important that they know we are grateful and will support them when they stand for life, especially since such leadership makes them targets of the culture of death.
Good News in the Battle for Life
Illuminating and countering the various attacks against the dignity of human life is one of the primary purposes of this column. Contemplating these attacks can be overwhelming and discouraging so it’s important to also herald the good news when it occurs.
Last week I announced that our three Congressmen (Fortenberry, Terry and Smith) joined 152 other Congressmen in signing a letter to President Bush asking him to veto any appropriations bill that weakens current pro-life policies restricting the use of federal funds for abortion-related activities. There are 19 such policies. The letter assures the President that the signers will vote to uphold his veto.
What I didn’t realize at the time is that 34 members of the Senate (including Sen. Chuck Hagel) signed a similar letter to President Bush. I also didn’t know then that the President agreed to the request.
Late last week, President Bush sent a letter to the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, stating that he will veto any appropriations bill that weakens current pro-life policy. Because of the letters signed by members of both Houses of Congress, the President could send the letter with confidence knowing that there are enough votes to sustain his veto.
Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the Bishops’ Pro Life Committee issued a statement applauding the President and the members of Congress who signed the letters. “These pledges help ensure that through the rest of this Administration and this Congress, Americans need not fear that the federal government will pursue new ways to force them to be involved in government-funded abortions, coercive populations programs abroad, or the destruction of embryonic human beings,” Cardinal Rigali stated.
There is also good news from Nebraska. Abortions dropped by 8 percent in 2006 falling to the lowest number on record since abortion was legalized. The 2927 abortions reported to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services eclipsed the previous low of 3096 recorded in 1974.
The 2006 numbers represent the third decline in abortions in Nebraska in as many years. In fact, there has been a 27 percent decline in abortions in the last three years and a 54 percent decline from the high of 6346 in 1990. The total number of abortions is the only statistic available from the state for now. Its annual report for 2006 which contains much more detailed abortion-related statistics won’t be published until this fall. The 2004 and 2005 reports are available online at http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/srd/srdindex.htm.
The third source of good news comes from Pam McCabe, who faithfully and generously coordinates the prayerful presence at Planned Parenthood’s abortion facility in Lincoln. Last Friday, one of the women scheduled for an abortion that day changed her mind. Mrs. McCabe recalls this scene in an e-mail:
“She was with her boyfriend as they passed by the Planned Parenthood (PP) driveway - they stopped in the street…and we were able to talk with them. We told her that we would help her and they took from us brochures that attest to the life of the child in the womb. They then pulled into the PP driveway. The young mother got out of the car and stood next to it crying…we again made an offer of help and hope to her.
“We told her to walk to the end of the driveway and we would help her. She very bravely walked past 8 PP clinic escorts and with her boy friend trailing behind her, she came to the end of the driveway. [After a short conversation] the young mom and dad got into their car and drove away!!”
As Blessed Mother Teresa said, God asks us to be faithful, not successful. Nonetheless, our human nature relishes and appreciates any evidence that our efforts are bearing some fruit. These examples of good news, in addition to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion, should reinforce our resolve to persevere in the struggle to rebuild a civilization of life and love.
The Pro Life Feast of the Visitation
“During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, ‘Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:39-44)
On Thursday May 31st we celebrated the Liturgical Feast of the Visitation. For many Catholics, this Feast may not bring to mind our society’s struggle against abortion, but it should. This is a compelling pro-life Feast day.