My office, representing the three Bishops of Nebraska on pro-life matters, sponsors an annual conference entitled “Building a Civilization of Love and Life”. This year’s conference will be held on October 22^nd and 23^rd in Lincoln.

This year’s keynote speaker is Dr. Alveda King, who is the Pastoral Associate and Director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life. She is also leading voice in the “Silent No More” Awareness Campaign where she shares her testimony of two abortions, God’s forgiveness and healing.

Dr. King, who is a niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, will give an address entitled “How Can the Dream Survive”. Her appearance at this year’s conference is quite timely coming amidst her launching of “Freedom Rides for the Unborn” in conjunction with Fr. Frank Pavone and Priests for Life.

Freedom Rides for the Unborn is modeled after the Freedom Rides for Civil Rights in the early 1960’s in which black men and women, and some white sympathizers, boarded buses in southern states and sat wherever they wanted. This was to defy unjust local and state laws and customs that segregated races on public transportation and other venues.

The pro-life Freedom Rides were timed to coincide with the 50^th anniversary of the Freedom Rides for Civil Rights. The idea was the result of a conversation Fr. Pavone and Dr. King had while attending the March for Life in Washington, D.C. “This is the civil rights movement” of this century, King said.

The conference will also feature several other outstanding speakers. Vicki Thorn, foundress of the post-abortion ministry Project Rachel, will present a fascinating explanation of the psycho-social wounds of those born after the social upheaval of the 1960’s.

Richard Doerflinger will give a policy update on the pro-life concerns related to the new federal health care act, and on stem cell research and assisted suicide. Mr. Doerflinger is the Associate Director for Policy Development at the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In a talk entitled “Facing Infertility: A Journey of Faith, Hope and Love”, Mary-Louise Kurey, the Respect Life Director for the Archdiocese of Chicago, will present her (and her husband’s) personal experience with infertility. Her talk will include an explanation of the Church’s teaching on artificial reproductive technologies.

Douglas Scott, president of Life Decisions International, will present practical and effective ways to promote and defend a culture of life and love. Mr. Scott’s organization tracks corporations that provide funding to Planned Parenthood, our nation’s largest perpetrator of abortion.

In recognition that the pro-life battle is fundamentally a spiritual battle, the conference will close with Exposition and Benediction and a talk by Fr. Peter Mitchell entitled “We Operate from Victory: Persistence and Fidelity in the Fight for Life”. Fr. Mitchell, a priest of the Lincoln Diocese, is a Latin and Theology Instructor at St. Gregory the Great Seminary in Seward, NE.

I’m also pleased to announce that the third annual pro-life conference for high school students will again be held in conjunction with the adult pro-life conference, on Saturday, October 23^rd. The conference will include talks by Dr. King and Mary-Louise Kurey, activities, and a prayer service at Planned Parenthood’s abortion mill.

Informational fliers and registration forms for both conferences are available on my website at www.nebcathcon.org or by contacting my office at 402-477-7517. You don’t want to miss this wonderful opportunity to be inspired and equipped to engage in the critical battle to build a civilization of love and life. Mark your calendars and make plans to attend.

Life Insight 8-6-10

Married Love and the Gift of Life

Natural Family Planning Awareness Week was celebrated July 25^th through the 31^st. This annual event is intended to educate and inspire Catholics (and hopefully non-Catholics) to better understand and honor God’s sacred gift of human sexuality.

Each year, the Natural Family Planning Program of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) develops various materials to help parishes celebrate this week. In addition, individual dioceses offer a variety of educational opportunities to learn Natural Family Planning methods and the Church teachings which support their use in marriage.

According to the NFP page on the USCCB website (http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/nfpweek/index.shtml), “Natural Family Planning Awareness Week is timed to coincide with the anniversary of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (July 25) which articulates Catholic beliefs about human sexuality, conjugal love and responsible parenthood. The dates also mark the feast of Saints Joachim and Anne (July 26), the parents of the Blessed Mother.”

Among the educational resources provided by the USCCB is a 2006 statement entitled “Married Love and the Gift of Life.” The statement explains the Church’s teaching on married love and how contraception contradicts and undermines that love.

“Marriage is more than a civil contract;” the statement points out, “it is a lifelong covenant of love between a man and a woman. It is an intimate partnership in which husbands and wives learn to give and receive love unselfishly, and then teach their children to do so as well.

“Christian marriage in particular is a “great mystery,” a sign of the love between Christ and his Church (Eph 5:32). Married love is powerfully embodied in the spouses’ sexual relationship, when they most fully express what it means to become “one body” (Gn 2:24) or “one flesh” (Mk 10:8, Mt 19:6). 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.”

What does this have to do with contraception? The statement explains that a “husband and wife express their committed love not only with words, but with the language of their bodies.

“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. Therefore, the mutual gift of fertility is an integral part of the bonding power of marital intercourse. That power to create a new life with God is at the heart of what spouses share with each other.

“Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity. The total giving of oneself, body and soul, to one’s beloved is no time to say: ‘I give you everything I am—except. . .’ The Church’s teaching is not only about observing a rule, but about preserving that total, mutual gift of two persons in its integrity.”

Contrary to the secular world’s portrayal—and, sadly, many Catholics’ perception—the Church’s teaching on human sexuality is beautiful, liberating and fulfilling. This is because Her teaching is in complete conformity with our human nature as creatures made in God’s image and likeness.

I encourage Catholics to set aside negative perceptions of this teaching and take time to prayerfully and sincerely explore it. Those who do so may find their world views and lifestyles challenged. But the result will be spiritual, emotional and relational growth.

For additional resources on NFP and Church teaching, check out One More Soul (www.onemoresoul.com); Natural Family Planning Outreach (www.nfpoutreach.org); Couple to Couple League (www.ccli.org); Pope Paul VI Institute (www.popepaulvi.com); or your diocesan Family Life Office.

Life Insight 7-23-10

Professors of Love

Across the street from my office in Lincoln a small tent city has sprung up and will serve as the primary staging area for the Special Olympics which takes place from July 18-23. According to its website, Special Olympics began as a backyard summer camp for persons with intellectual disabilities, hosted by the late Eunice Kennedy Shriver.

That backyard summer camp has grown into a global movement that has been “changing lives and attitudes for more than 40 years.” “Special Olympics” the website continues, “is humanity’s greatest classroom, where lessons of ability, acceptance and inclusion are taught on the fields of competition by our greatest teachers – the athletes.”

This beautiful and insightful statement reminds me of a story told by Blessed Teresa of Calcutta in her book “Reaching Out In Love” entitled “Professor of Love”:

“Mother opened her first mission outside India in Venezuela. A rich family in Cocorote had given land to the Missionaries of Charity to build a home for orphaned children.

“When Mother Teresa visited South America, she went to thank the family. She noticed that their first-born child was 'terribly disabled.' She asked the mother, 'What is his name?' 'Professor of Love,' replied the mother, 'because this child is teaching us the whole time how to express love in action.' 'There was a beautiful smile on the mother's face as she said these words,' said Mother.”

Sadly, many in our society do not see the dignity and value of persons with disabilities, let alone their ability to teach us love. For example, according to some estimates, 80-90 percent of unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. Similarly, many unborn babies diagnosed with other conditions such as spina bifida, Tay-Sachs, deafness, blindness, dwarfism, cleft palates, defective limbs, etc. are destroyed before birth.

This eugenic attack on human life has been made possible by various forms of prenatal and genetic testing. Although such testing may often be done for the benefit of the unborn child, it is also being used to seek and destroy “defective” humans.

In a very candid (and shocking!) remark last year, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged that at the time of Roe v. Wade (1973) there was a concern by some of society over the “growth of populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

This eugenic sentiment still reverberates around the hallways of some of our nation’s most prestigious institutions. Peter Singer, who is professor of bioethics at Princeton University, has written that when the death of a disabled infant leads to the birth of a healthy infant there is a net gain for society.

Paul V. Esposito, a lawyer who writes on pro-life topics wrote recently that the disabled “offer us precious gifts. They give us their disabilities. Watching the blind negotiate a sidewalk gives us perspective about our own problems. Seeing a brain damaged person struggle to learn gives us a lesson in courage and perseverance.

“The disabled often inspire us in many ways. They also give us their neediness. The disabled teach us that life is about forgetting ourselves in the service of others. Raising a disabled child can be very difficult. It requires struggle and sacrifice. But adversity is the very gift God uses to build our trust in His ways.

“For those who do, He gives strength and every other necessity. And He will help all of us see the wondrous people that He packaged in those not-so-perfect frames.”

Life Insight 7-9-10

Planned Parenthood: The Abortion Machine

Planned Parenthood, an organization with racist and eugenic origins, has become infamous as our nation’s largest perpetrator and advocate of abortion (not to mention it’s hedonistic view of human sexuality). That appalling distinction has been particularly on display in Nebraska in recent days.

In the span of just a few days, Planned Parenthood announced publicly that it intends to open a new abortion center in Omaha and has filed a lawsuit to challenge one of the pro-life laws (LB 594, the Women’s Health Protection Act) enacted by our Legislature this year.

Planned Parenthood (PP) has operated an abortion center in Lincoln for nearly 15 years and in that time span has killed close to 10,000 unborn babies by abortion. Nationally, PP operates 304 centers that do either surgical or medical (RU 486) abortions and, in 2009 alone, PP killed more than 300,000 unborn babies at these abortion “mills”.

Apparently, PP of the Heartland (Iowa and Nebraska) doesn’t think it has a big enough piece of the abortion pie in Nebraska given its intention to open a new abortion center in Omaha. This effort will be vigorously opposed by pro-life groups, public officials, area business owners and a large portion of the neighborhood (and broader Omaha) community.

Planned Parenthood’s distinction as America’s largest abortion perpetrator is matched by its abortion advocacy. Not only is PP the most significant opponent of anti-abortion legislation, but it is often the lead organization filing suit to prevent such laws from going into effect.

On Monday, June 28, PP announced that it filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to prevent LB 594, the Women’s Health Protection Act, from going into effect. The measure, introduced by Sen. Cap Dierks and enacted by a vote of 40 to 9 in our Legislature, is scheduled to go into effect on July 15.

The law better protects women from undergoing coerced abortions and clarifies in statute the duty of abortionists to screen women for risk factors that are known to place them at increased risk for psychological or physical complications from an abortion and to inform her of the results of this screening. Such screening is standard practice in every area of medicine and LB 594 simply ensures that women seeking abortions are afforded the same standard of care.

In its lawsuit, PP claims the new law is “an attack on our patients…on providers…and on the ethics and integrity of the medical profession.” In fact, just the opposite is true. This law protects women from abortionists who often compromise the standard of care for counseling and screening of patients in order to reduce costs and maximize profits.

According to David Reardon, director of the Elliott Institute, in hundreds of cases each day, known risk factors for physical and psychological complications are not being detected because of negligent pre-abortion screening. As a result, women are suffering from avoidable complications that may have been prevented or minimized if the proper pre-abortion screening standards had been met.

Furthermore, it is PP’s abortion practice—not this law—that attacks the “ethics and integrity of the medical profession.” Planned Parenthood’s abortion centers (and others like them) are really abortion “mills” that typically do 20 to 30 or more abortions in one day. In these mills, the doctor-patient relationship is transformed into a technician-customer relationship.

A hearing to consider PP’s lawsuit against LB 594 has been scheduled in federal court on July 13. Please join me in praying that this commonsense law will be upheld. And join me in praying that PP’s effort to open another abortion mill will be thwarted.

Life Insight 6-25-10

Is Ella Contraception or Abortion?

Coming soon to a store near you: the “week after” pill named “Ella”. This new drug, hailed by some as the next generation of the “morning after” birth control pill or “emergency contraception” claims to prevent “pregnancy” up to five days after sexual intercourse.

Nearly universal access to contraception apparently wasn’t sufficient for our sexually permissive culture so—shazam!—along comes “emergency contraception”(EC). The “morning after” pill or EC is a high dose (a really high dose at 40 times the potency) of the ordinary birth control pill. Emergency contraception claims to prevent pregnancy up to 72 hours after sexual intercourse.

Now, apparently EC isn’t enough. On June 17, an advisory committee gave its unanimous recommendation to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the sale of “Ella” in the United States. This development is another sad indictment of our society’s impoverished view and abuse of human sexuality.

The characterization of Ella (by the FDA and others) as the next generation of “emergency contraception” is also an abuse—of truth in advertising. Ella is, in fact, closer to the abortion drug RU 486 than it is to emergency contraception.

Here is the difference. As just mentioned, EC is a high dose of the hormone progesterone which can suppress ovulation (contraceptive effect) or alter the lining of the uterus so a conceived embryo can’t implant (abortifacient effect). It is not known with certainty how often EC operates as a contraceptive versus an abortifacient.

Ella, on the other hand, is a progesterone blocker called “selective progesterone receptor modulator” (SPRM). This is the same type of drug used in the chemical abortion regimen RU 486. A SPRM works by preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting in the uterine lining or by starving an already implanted embryo. This is an early abortion—not contraception!

This biological fact hasn’t stopped Ella supporters from claiming that it is a new form of contraception, not abortion. This claim is based on a biological sleight of hand that dates back to the advent of the birth control pill 50 years ago.

When it was discovered that one of the ways in which the Pill works is to alter the uterine lining to prevent implantation of an embryo (abortifacient), its supporters knew that would be a problem for those who might accept contraception but not abortion.

To remedy this, Pill advocates convinced key players in the medical establishment to change the definition of pregnancy from conception to implantation. By doing this, if the Pill prevented an embryo from implanting they could claim that it was preventing a pregnancy not ending one. This deceptive act is an example of the maxim that “verbal engineering always precedes social engineering”.

In a letter to the head of the FDA, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, expressed “grave concern” over the FDA’s move to approve an abortion drug as an “emergency contraceptive.”

“Millions of American women, even those willing to use a contraceptive to prevent fertilization in various circumstances, would personally never choose to have an abortion,” said Cardinal DiNardo. “They would be ill served by a misleading campaign to present [Ella] simply as a ‘contraceptive.’

“In fact,” the Cardinal continued, “FDA approval for that purpose would likely make the drug available for ‘off-label’ use simply as an abortion drug—including its use by unscrupulous men with the intent of causing an early abortion without a woman’s knowledge or consent. Such abuses have already occurred in the case of RU-486, despite its warning labels and limited distribution.”

As the “aging sex symbol” Rachel Welch said in a recent editorial challenging the sexually permissive culture created by the birth control pill, “we’re capable of so much better.”

Life Insight 6-11-10

“Precious Tools”

The University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) in Omaha recently announced it had obtained a new embryonic stem cell line for its research enterprise. The Med Center announced more than a year ago its enthusiasm for expanding its embryonic stem cell research after President Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of this immoral research.

In an Omaha World Herald story (May 25), Dr. George Daley, whose lab provided the embryonic stem cells to UNMC, said he “obtains discarded human embryos and places them in petri dishes filled with a ‘broth’ of nutrients and chemicals that helps embryonic stem cells to grow and divide.”

He called embryonic stem cells “precious tools” in medical research and said that the cells “were derived from unusable embryos” that “were not viable to be implanted in a woman and would have been discarded as ‘medical waste.’”

Dr. Daley’s reference to tiny, defenseless human beings as “precious tools”, “discarded human embryos”, “unusable embryos”, and “medical waste” should send chills down the spine of any thinking and feeling person.

It is a scientific fact that human embryos are human beings in the initial stage of their lives. This is not religious opinion or moral conjecture, but scientific fact sustained by virtually every human embryology textbook and scientific reference.

Embryos are real human beings, not mere “clumps of cells” or “products of conception”. Therefore, these are real human beings who Dr. Daley and his collaborators at our state University refer to as “unusable” and destined to be “discarded”. These are real human beings who Dr. Daley is vivisecting so he and others can use their cells as “precious tools”.

Sadly, such dehumanizing terms have been employed throughout the history of man to oppress various categories of human beings: Native Americans, African Americans, Jews, and women among others. Sociologist Dr. William Brennan chronicled this history in his book “Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives” (Loyola University Press, 1995)

As the saying goes, “verbal engineering always precedes social engineering”. In other words, it’s difficult to get a society to embrace killing unborn children (abortion), destroying human embryos for research or killing elderly and disabled persons (euthanasia/assisted suicide).

Hence, advocates of abortion, embryo-destructive research and euthanasia employ verbal deception (e.g. “reproductive freedom”, “pregnancy termination”, “blastocysts”, “precious tools” and “death with dignity”) to advance their destructive agenda.

Another disturbing tactic used by Dr. Daley and other embryo research supporters is to dismiss ethical concerns by saying “the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.” This response is an appalling cop out.

If supporters of embryo-destructive research had any meaningful regard for human embryos, they wouldn’t simply shrug their shoulders at the prospect of “discarded” humans as they eagerly take advantage of them. Rather, they would question why it is that human beings are being produced and discarded in the first place.

The use of “discarded” human beings as “precious tools” for the benefit of other humans is exactly what happens when man transgresses (e.g. in vitro fertilization) into God’s domain as the Author of Life.

Life Insight 5-28-10

Pro Life the “New Normal”

One year ago, a Gallup poll revealed a dramatic shift in how Americans identify themselves on the issue of abortion. For the first time since 1995, when Gallup began asking the question, its 2009 poll showed that 51 percent of Americans identified themselves as “pro-life” compared to 42 percent identifying themselves as “pro-choice”.

Just one year prior to that poll the numbers were flipped. Gallup’s May 2008 poll showed that 50 percent of Americans identified themselves as “pro-choice” while 44 percent identified with the “pro-life” label. That was an extraordinary shift in just one year that some attributed to the election of Barack Obama who is arguably the most pro-abortion president our nation has seen.

Ultimately, no one knows for sure what caused this dramatic shift, and many wondered if it was an anomaly or a sustained trend. Pro-lifers were particularly concerned about whether the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller would affect this trend. And indeed a July 2009 Gallup poll showed the pro-life gap narrowing to 47% pro-life versus 46% pro-choice.

However, in a just released survey (entitled “The New Normal on Abortion: Americans More ‘Pro Life’”) Gallup found that more Americans continue to identify themselves as pro-life (47%) than pro-choice (45%).

“While the two-percentage-point gap in current abortion views is not significant,” Gallup’s Lydia Saad noted, “it represents the third consecutive time Gallup has found more Americans taking the pro-life than pro-choice position on this measure since May 2009, suggesting a real change in public opinion.”

This new Gallup poll also points out that “[a]ll age groups have become more attached to the pro-life label since 2005, with particularly large increases among young adults [ages 18 to 29] and those aged 50 to 64 years.” This data showing young adults becoming more pro-life comports with other recent polls and is particularly encouraging news for the future of the pro-life cause.

In addition to age, the poll also broke down the data by gender and political affiliation. “Both genders have also become more likely to identify as pro-life, with the increase among women coming mainly since 2008, whereas the increase in men started after 2006,” the study stated.

As for political affiliation, Gallup says that “Republicans have become more likely to call themselves pro-life since polling conducted in 2003/2004, as have Republican-leaning independents since 2005/2006. Independents who lean to neither party also became more likely to call themselves ‘pro-life’ between 2003/2004 and 2005/2006, but have since held steady.

“Democrats' self-identification with the pro-life position has moved in the other direction,” Gallup says, “declining from 37% in 2003/2004 to 31% in 2009/2010. Among independents who lean Democratic, there has been no movement in either direction.”

One peculiar finding of this poll is that while more people said abortion is morally wrong (50%) than morally acceptable (38%), this gap has narrowed since last year. The 2009 Gallup poll found 56 percent saying abortion is morally wrong and 36 percent saying it is morally acceptable.

It should be noted that when polls look at the public’s view of actual abortion practice and legality they pretty consistently reveal that a strong majority of Americans oppose all abortions except those done for the so-called “hard cases” of rape, incest and to prevent the death of the mother.

“Pro-life” versus “pro-choice” polls primarily measure the public’s perception of these labels; whether people feel more comfortable identifying with the “pro-life” position or the “pro-choice” position. While such polls may be less indicative of where the public stands on the actual practice and legality of abortion, it is certainly an encouraging trend that the “new norm” finds more Americans identifying with the “pro-life” label.

Life Insight 5-21-10

Surprising Candor on Contraception

The fiftieth anniversary of the birth control pill (May 9) has prompted some public reflection about its effect on our culture. The most surprising reflection I came across was from none other than Raquel Welch, the famous actress, model, and in her words, “aging sex symbol.”

In her column for CNN.com, Welch begins by referencing the opening of the first American family-planning clinic in 1916 by Margaret Sanger concluding that “nothing would be the same again.” “Since then the growing proliferation of birth control methods has had an awesome effect on both sexes and led to a sea change in moral values.”

“And as I’ve grown older over the past five decades”, Welch continues, “and lived through this revolutionary period in female sexuality, I’ve seen how it has altered American society—for better or worse.” The only “upside” Welch mentions is that the Pill “made it easier for a woman to choose to delay having children until after she established herself in a career.”

“Nonetheless,” she says, “for young women of childbearing age…there was a need for some careful soul searching—and consideration about the long-range effects of oral contraceptives—before addressing this very personal decision. It was a decision I too would have to face when I discovered I was pregnant at age 19”, Welch continued.

Welch recounts that although she was married, she wasn’t ready to be pregnant and was concerned about putting her career ambitions on hold. Fortunately, her husband (Jim Welch) was “unflinching in his desire to keep our baby and his positive, upbeat attitude about the whole prospect turned everything around.” She says that she has “always loved Jim for how he responded in that moment.”

In a very refreshing and candid statement, Welch says that during her pregnancy she “came to realize that this process was not about me. I was just a spectator to the metamorphosis that was happening inside my womb so that another life could be born. It came down to an act of self-sacrifice, especially for me, as a woman,” Welch concluded.

In another very candid statement, Welch admits that a “significant, and enduring, effect of The Pill on female sexual attitudes during the 60’s, was: ‘Now we can have sex anytime we want, without the consequences. Hallelujah, let’s party!’ It remains this way,” she says.

“These days,” Welch continues, “nobody seems able to ‘keep it in their pants’ or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option?” Admitting to be ashamed at having been married four times, Welch says that she still believes marriage is “the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.”

“In stark contrast,” Welch points out, “a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, ‘sexual freedom,’ has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune,” Welch asserts.

Welch concludes her column by saying “Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it’s gotta be pretty bad. It’s precisely because of the sexy image I’ve had that it’s important for me to speak up and say: Come on girls! Time to pull up our socks! We’re capable of so much better.”

Ms. Welch’s personal reflections and candor about the negative impacts of The Pill and the “sexual freedom” it facilitated is rather surprising and refreshing. Equally impressive is her admitting a sense of responsibility to speak up and urge society to strive toward higher moral standards.

One of the most powerful dynamics that stifles an honest assessment of contraception’s negative impact on our society is that most Americans have “bought” into the contraceptive culture. Hence, acknowledging its negative ramifications, as Ms. Welch did, requires some self-incrimination.

Ms. Welch deserves a lot of credit for speaking out so honestly on a very controversial subject. Hopefully her leadership will prompt more people to honestly reflect on and speak out about the negative consequences of contraception. Because as Ms. Welch rightly acknowledges, “we’re capable of so much better.”

Life Insight 5-14-10

Youth More Pro Life and Passionate

I’ve written before in this space about how today’s teens and young adults are fundamentally very pro-life. Multiple surveys over the last several years have revealed the same thing: the current generation of young people (known as Millennials or Generation Y) has considerably more pro-life views than previous generations (Baby Boomers and Gen X).

The latest proof of this reality came from an unlikely source: the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). According to an internal poll NARAL shared with Newsweek (April 16, 2010), young Americans are more passionate about pro-life views than pro-abortion views.

NARAL’s survey of 700 young Americans, conducted earlier this year, revealed a significant “intensity gap” on abortion. According to the Newsweek article, “More than half (51 percent) of young voters (under 30) who opposed abortion rights considered it a ‘very important’ voting issue, compared with just 26 percent of abortion-rights supporters.”

Nancy Keenan, NARAL’s president, expressed concern in the Newsweek article about the aging ranks of pro-abortion activists, which she called the “postmenopausal militia”. “These leaders will retire in a decade or so,” the article says. “And what worries Keenan is that she just doesn’t see a passion among the post-Roe generation—at least, not among those on her side.”

Keenan cites her encounter with pro-life attendees at the March for Life in Washington, DC last January as evidence of this phenomenon. “I just thought, my gosh, they are so young,” Keenan recalled. “There are so many of them, and they are so young.” The Newsweek article acknowledges the March for Life estimate of 400,000 participants and compared it to a pro-abortion rally two months earlier that drew about 1,300 attendees.

“Millennials are more likely than their [baby] boomer parents to see abortion as a moral issue,” the article continues. “In the NARAL focus groups, young voters flat-out disapproved of a woman’s abortion, called her actions immoral, yet maintained that the government had absolutely no right to intervene.” That latter sentiment will provide a challenge to the pro-life movement as we work to provide legal protection to unborn children.

The article attributes some of the shift toward pro-life attitudes among young people to the pro-life movement’s focus on the unborn child. It also attributes the increase in pro-life attitudes to the advent of ultrasound technology which provides “increasingly clear pictures of fetal development.”

“The technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being,” admits former NARAL president Kate Michelman. “The other side has been able to use the technology to its own end.”

Michelman’s comment reminds me of this comment made many years ago by Harrison Hickman, former pollster for NARAL, at its 20th anniversary convention:

“Probably nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about the fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something I have an easy answer on how to cure.”

In other words, technology is removing the veil of verbal deception that the abortion industry has used to dehumanize unborn human beings and to deny them the most basic human right—the right to life.

The trend toward pro-life attitudes among young people—and even the population at large—is encouraging. If this trend is to have positive consequences for protecting unborn children and their mothers from the violence of abortion, the pro-life movement must nurture and develop those attitudes and translate them into action.

Life Insight 5-7-10

Abortions Decline in Nebraska

The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services has just issued its 2009 Statistical Report of Abortions. Nebraska law (28-343) requires that certain information be collected on each abortion performed in the state including the pregnant woman’s age, the state of her residence, her history of previous pregnancies, the type of abortion performed and complications.

According to this report, in 2009 there were 2551 unborn babies killed by abortion in Nebraska. This sobering number of abortions is mitigated only by the fact that it is ten percent fewer than in 2008.

Since the high water mark of 6,346 abortions in 1990, there has been a decidedly downward trend in the number of abortions in Nebraska. In 2007, the number of abortions fell to its lowest number on record, 2,481, representing a more than 60 percent decline from 1990.

In 2008, there was a surprising and disturbing increase of 13 percent in the number of abortions (2,813). Thankfully, this was largely reversed in 2009 with a ten percent decline in abortions

As has been the case since the abortion report began in 1974, the majority of abortions in 2009 (57.2%) were performed on women in the 20-29 age group. The 19 and under age group and the 30 and over age group have changed significantly since 1974.

In 1974, teenagers comprised slightly more than 40 percent of the abortions. In 2009 they comprised 16.3 percent. In 1974, the 30 and over age group comprised 14.5 percent of abortions and in 2009 they comprised 26.5 percent.

Digging deeper into the age statistics one finds some very disturbing information. Ten abortions were performed on girls under the age of 15. One 15-year-old girl already had one previous abortion. Four 16-year-old girls had already given birth to one child before having this abortion. And one 17-year-old girl had one previous abortion and two live births.

The destructive start to these young girls’ lives is heartbreaking. And for all of these young girls, especially the 17-year old, it is hard not to conclude that they are victims of some form of abuse or neglect.

The report also indicates the reasons women gave for having the abortions. Another consistent statistic from year to year is that only a tiny fraction of abortions are sought for the so-called “hard cases”. In 2009, only 80 abortions (3.1%) were done for the following reasons: sexual assault (11), incest (0), maternal life endangered (3), maternal physical health (33), mental health (7), fetal anomaly (26).

Another particularly sad statistic from this report is the number of repeat abortions. The overall percentage of repeat abortions stays pretty constant each year at around one-third of all abortions. Again, a closer look at this statistic reveals some very disturbing information.

Of the 822 women who had previous abortions, 576 had one previous abortion, 168 had two previous abortions, 50 had three previous abortions, 16 had four previous abortions and 12 had more than four previous abortions.

It is impossible to contemplate the level of grief a mother must feel after having one abortion, let alone after having multiple abortions. Thankfully, we serve a God whose mercy and love are limitless to those who seek it. And, thankfully, we have Project Rachel which helps post-abortive women and men to find hope and healing through God’s mercy and love.

Finally, to achieve our goal of making abortion unthinkable, we must always recognize and internalize that the statistics in this abortion report represent real human lives. The lives of 2,551 unborn children snuffed out by abortion. The lives of more than 5,000 mothers and fathers devastated emotionally and spiritually. And the conscience of a nation hardened by acquiescence or ambivalence to this legalized slaughter of the innocents.

Life Insight 4-30-10

Celebrate Nature’s Greatest Gift: Life!

April 22, 2010 marked the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. In honor of this anniversary, the pro-life group CatholicVote.org is sponsoring a campaign to celebrate “nature’s greatest gift”: human life. According to LifeSiteNews, “CatholicVote.org is encouraging Americans to rethink how they celebrate Earth Day, and how to go about building a culture that respects the environment.

“Our goal is to use Earth Day to get Americans to think more deeply about what it means to truly respect the Earth and creation," said Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org Education Fund. In order to "bring this balanced Catholic view of the environment to the streets," Burch said the group purchased ads (like the one pictured herein) broadcasting their message on over 50 buses in Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle.

CV_TRANSIT_30x144X

"Prevailing environmental attitudes too often view humans as the enemy of nature,” Burch said. “We believe the human person is God’s greatest creation, and the Earth’s greatest resource. Building up a culture of life is the single most important way to build a culture that respects the environment."

Burch also points out that “Respect for God’s creation has a long history in Catholic teaching, long before it became popular with our secular culture.” The LifeSiteNews article cites Pope Benedict XVI as being very vocal in support of proper stewardship of natural resources, pointing out that Newsweek even dubbed him “the green pope.”

Earlier this year, the article continues, Pope Benedict said in his annual address to the Vatican diplomatic corps: “If we wish to build true peace, how can we separate, or even set at odds, the protection of the environment and the protection of human life, including the life of the unborn?”

“The pope has repeatedly emphasized that respect for the environment must be tied to a larger framework, with respect for the human person at its core,” the article said. In a recent encyclical, Pope Benedict XVI wrote the following:

“If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves.”

Like its other recent “Imagine the Potential” ad campaigns promoting the dignity of human life, this CatholicVote.org campaign is brilliant. It uses amazing creativity to remind our culture that human life is not a burden on the earth but rather its greatest gift.

Life Insight 4-23-10

Legislature Adopts Two Pro Life Bills

In the nearly twenty years I have been doing pro-life work for Nebraska’s bishops, I don’t ever recall the Legislature adopting two pro-life bills in one year. Undoubtedly, the absence of Sen. Ernie Chambers, who filibustered every pro-life bill, was a major factor in making this unique accomplishment possible.

What makes this accomplishment even more remarkable is that these two substantive pro-life bills went through three rounds of debate within the last 13 days of a 60-day session and were adopted with lopsided votes of 40-9 and 44-5. Furthermore, I really thought I was in the twilight zone when I read a recent Lincoln Journal Star editorial that was favorable toward LB 1103, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

As a lobbyist for the Catholic Bishops’ I was most involved with LB 594, the Women’s Health Protection Act. This new law requires that before abortions can be performed women must be evaluated for evidence of coercion and for a variety of risk factors that place them at higher risk for post-abortion complications.

According to post-abortion researcher David Reardon of the Elliot Institute, who developed this legislation, “in hundreds of cases each day, known risk factors for physical and psychological complications are not being detected because of negligent pre-abortion screening.” As a result, “women are suffering from complications that may have been prevented or minimized if the proper pre-abortion screening standards had been met.”

Even abortion advocates and researchers, as well as the pro-abortion American Psychological Association, have publicly acknowledged the existence of several risk factors that research indicates are predictors of post-abortion complications. These include a history of mental health problems, pressure or coercion to abort, strong religious convictions against abortion, low self-esteem, lack of parental or partner support, and ambivalence about the abortion decision.

This new law better protects women from undergoing coerced abortions, which is a major risk factor for severe post-abortion psychological problems. It clarifies in statute the duty of abortionists to screen for all risk factors that are known to place women at higher risk of abortion complications.

And this law helps ensure that women are given not only general information about abortion risks, but also specific information most relevant to individual women according to their own unique risk factors.

LB 1103, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, prohibits abortions after 20 weeks of gestation with narrow exceptions. This legislation was drafted by National and Nebraska Right to Life with input from its Legislative sponsor Speaker Mike Flood.

As the name of this new law indicates, the 20-week cutoff is based on the reality (substantiated with credible research) that an unborn child is capable of feeling pain by 20 weeks after fertilization. Therefore, by adopting this new law, our Legislature is asserting that the state of Nebraska has a compelling interest in protecting post-20 week babies from abortion because they can feel pain.

Sen. Cap Dierks (Ewing) and Sen. Mike Flood (Norfolk) deserve enormous credit (and our thanks) for introducing and prioritizing LB 594 and LB 1103 respectively. It’s also important to thank those senators who voted for these bills and to express disappointment to those who voted against them. A report indicating how senators voted on both bills can be obtained online at www.nebcathcon.org or from my office.

It is likely that the abortion industry will pursue legal challenges to both bills. LB 594, however, will be more difficult to challenge because it does not impose a criminal penalty. Please pray that these bills will survive any legal challenge and will save many women and their babies from the evil of abortion.

Life Insight 4-16-10

A Deeper Look at a Flawed Healthcare Bill

Immediately following President Obama’s signing of the federal healthcare bill on March 23, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a statement calling on Congress to fix the bill’s serious flaws related to abortion funding and conscience protection. Speaking as president of the USCCB, Cardinal Francis George reiterated the Conferences longstanding advocacy for healthcare reform that recognizes and affirms the human dignity of everyone.

“Nevertheless”, he continued, “for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion…[and fails] to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protections…”

A couple days after the Bishops’ statement was issued, the USCCB Office of the General Counsel released a legal analysis of the healthcare law detailing how it and President Obama’s Executive Order failed to prevent federal funding of abortion and to protect consciences.

The first point of the analysis is that the healthcare law violates both principles of the Hyde Amendment, which has governed federal funding of abortion for decades. Hyde prohibits direct funding of abortions (with narrow exceptions) and it prohibits funding of health insurance plans that cover abortions.

Regarding the first principle, the healthcare law does prohibit direct funding of abortions in a couple contexts: funds for school-based health centers and funds to assist individuals in buying a health plan. However, this leaves all remaining federal funds appropriated under this new law without Hyde restrictions.

According to the analysis, this means “that those funds must be used to pay for abortions where the statutory language describing the services is broad enough to encompass abortion.” This conclusion is based on our nation’s experience with Medicaid.

“In the years before the Hyde Amendment was first enacted by Congress in 1976, Medicaid was required to pay for about 300,000 abortions a year.” The Supreme Court ruled that “because abortion fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including ‘family planning’…Medicaid [had to pay for] medically necessary abortions…even though the Medicaid statute itself never used the word ‘abortion’.”

By comparison, the new healthcare law appropriates billions of dollars for Community Health Centers (CHCs) which would not be subject to Hyde restrictions. CHCs provide primary health services, which includes “family planning services.” Consequently, the analysis concludes that “by virtue of the same reasoning applicable to the Medicaid statute, courts are highly likely to conclude that the CHC program must provide tax-funded abortions unless Congress attaches to the CHC funds a Hyde-type limitation.”

The second principle of Hyde, which prohibits federal funds from paying for health plans that cover abortion, is clearly violated by the new healthcare law. It explicitly allows tax credits to be used to pay the overall premiums for health plans that cover elective abortions.

Sen. Ben Nelson, in his compromise language, attempted to mitigate this problem by requiring all enrollees in such plans (not just those who want abortion coverage) to make a separate payment toward their monthly premium solely to pay for other enrollees abortions. The analysis points out that “even if this mechanism succeeds in preventing taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortions through their federal taxes, it does so at the cost of forcing them to pay for abortions directly from their own pockets.”

A second major point of the legal analysis is that the healthcare law omits key conscience protections. “Federal law provides certain conscience protections in health care that cover both abortion and other morally controversial ‘services.’ Unsurprisingly, the [new law] does not repeal those existing protections. The [law] does, however, impose some new mandates that represent new threats to conscience without providing corresponding protection against those threats.”

Finally, the analysis points out that President Obama’s Executive Order “cannot and does not fix the statutory problems of direct funding of abortion at CHCs, and of funding insurance plans that cover abortions.” Furthermore, “it cannot and does not make up for the absence of conscience protections that are missing from the statute…”

Although this very pro-abortion healthcare plan is now the law of the land, we cannot and must not stop advocating for it to be changed to respect conscience rights and every human life.

Life Insight 4-9-10

Neither Do I Condemn You

“My daughter, know that My Heart is mercy itself. From this sea of mercy, graces flow out upon the whole world. No soul that has approached Me has ever gone away unconsoled. All misery gets buried in the depths of My mercy, and every saving and sanctifying grace flows from this fountain…Sooner would heaven and earth turn into nothingness than would My mercy not embrace a trusting soul.”

These words from the Diary of St. Maria Faustina Kowalska (#1777) are a beautiful expression of God’s Divine Mercy, which we celebrate this Sunday. Divine Mercy Sunday provides an excellent opportunity to communicate God’s limitless mercy to post-abortive women and men in particular.

The Church communicates and facilitates God’s mercy to those involved in abortion primarily through an outreach called Project Rachel. Project Rachel is comprised of specially trained clergy and professional counselors who provide individual, confidential counseling and reconciliation to women and men suffering from a past abortion.

In Nebraska, Project Rachel can be accessed by calling 1-800-964-3787. Information on abortion’s emotional and spiritual aftermath is also available online at www.hopeafterabortion.com.

The name of this outreach comes from the Old Testament figure Rachel who “mourns her children” and “refuses to be consoled because her children are no more.” Our Lord, however, tells Rachel to “cease your cries of mourning, wipe the tears from your eyes. The sorrow you have shown shall have its reward…There is hope for your future.” (Jeremiah 31:15-17)

Project Rachel acknowledges that abortion can be one of the most traumatic experiences in a person’s life. As outlined in our local Project Rachel brochure “feelings of grief, anxiety, guilt and anger are common, not only for the woman who undergoes an abortion, but also for the man involved relatives, friends, counselors and even medical personnel.

“In many cases, the pain of loss may initially be buried, sometimes for years, but may be manifested by relationship difficulties, depression, or other psychological or spiritual problems. It may even be intensified by a sense of alienation from God and the Church.”

Project Rachel acknowledges that abortion has physical, psychological and spiritual effects, and that knowledge of God’s limitless mercy and love is a significant part of the healing process. Project Rachel allows post-abortive women and men to move toward reconciliation with themselves, their unborn children, their families, their Church and with God.

The foreword of a recently revised Post-Abortion Manual for Priests and Project Rachel Leaders begins with a reference to Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 homily on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul in which he soberly cautioned that “without the healing of souls, without the healing of man from within there can be no salvation for humanity.”

“How essential then to the mission of the Church are the pastoral and apostolic activities that draw women and men burdened by the sin of abortion closer to God’s merciful heart,” the foreword continues. “It is no exaggeration to say that the Church’s ministry of healing and reconciliation after abortion is at the heart of the Church’s mission at this time in her history.”

The foreword concludes by encouraging us to make this most beautiful prayer of St. Claude de la Colombiere, SJ, the spiritual director of St. Margaret Mary, our own:

“Lord, I am in this world to show Your mercy to others.

Other people will glorify You

By making visible the power of Your grace

By their fidelity and constancy to You.

For my part I will glorify You

By making known how good you are to sinners,

That Your mercy is boundless

And that no sinner no matter how great his offences

Should have reason to despair of pardon.

If I have grievously offended You, My Redeemer,

Let me not offend You even more

By thinking that You are not kind enough to pardon me. AMEN.

Life Insight 4-2-10

We Operate from Victory

The enactment of a seriously flawed health care bill last week was a major blow to the pro-life cause. Tom Grenchik, director of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office, acknowledged that this healthcare bill “is clearly the largest legislative expansion of abortion funding and mandates in our country's history.”

Despite extraordinary efforts to advocate for health care reform that protects human life and conscience rights, is fair to immigrants and improves affordability, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) was forced to oppose this health care bill in the end. The Bishops concluded that despite whatever limited good may come from the bill, its expansion of the intrinsic evil of abortion and failure to protect consciences is too high of a cost.

This sobering reality has caused great concern among pro-life Americans. And many people may be tempted to become discouraged or cynical and, as a result, disengaged from the battle for life.

It is providential that we are celebrating Holy Week in the immediate shadow of this setback to the pro-life cause. This holiest time of the year reminds us that the ultimate battle against death and evil has been won—once and for all—by our Lord’s death and resurrection.

Fr. Frank Pavone from Priests for Life expressed this comforting reality quite cogently when he said that as Christians we engage in the pro-life battle not just for victory but from victory. God does not ask us to defeat death. He has already done this. But evil still exists and is always on the prowl.

What God asks of us is to faithfully, passionately and unceasingly oppose evil wherever and whenever it appears. And He gave each of us unique gifts and opportunities to serve Him in this way.

At our final judgment we will have to account for how we used these gifts and opportunities from God. In particular, I believe, we will account for our action or inaction in proclaiming and defending the sacred dignity of human life.

If we truly embrace and embody the assurance of our faith, we should be confident and joy-filled in our pro-life efforts, in good times and in bad times. The following quote from the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has long been a source of inspiration and encouragement to me. I pray that it also inspires you as we contemplate our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection.

“So long as we have the gift of life we must protect the gift of life. So long as it is threatened, so long must it be defended. This is the time to brace ourselves for the long term. We are today laying the foundations for the prolife movement of the twenty-first century. Pray that the foundations are firm, for we have not yet seen the full fury of the storm that is upon us.

“But we have not the right to despair. We have not the right and we have not the reason to despair if we understand that our entire struggle is premised not upon a victory to be achieved, but a victory that has been achieved. If we understand that, far from despair we have right and reason to rejoice that we are called to such a time as this, a time of testing, a time of truth.

“The encroaching culture of death shall not prevail, for we know, as we read in John’s gospel, ‘The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.’ The darkness will never overcome that light.”

Life Insight 3-26-10

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Recent public policy developments at the state and federal level can be categorized as the good, the bad and the ugly. I’ll address these in reverse order so I can end on a positive note.

The Ugly. Last Sunday’s vote in the House of Representatives to adopt the Senate’s healthcare bill has pro-life groups and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) deeply concerned about the expanded access and funding for abortion that will result from enactment of this bill.

President Obama’s last minute promise of an Executive Order supposedly to restrict abortion funding was unfortunately enough to secure the votes of Congressman Bart Stupak and a few other pro-life Democrats. Legal experts seem to agree that an Executive Order is effectively meaningless; it cannot trump statutory law. This means we’re stuck for now with the seriously flawed abortion and conscience language in the Senate bill.

The seriousness of the Bishops’ concern is evidenced by the fact that despite decades of advocacy for healthcare reforms, in the end the USCCB urged House members to oppose the Senate bill because of its serious flaws on abortion and conscience rights. In a statement prior to the vote, Cardinal Francis George said the Senate bill “expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures.

“In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.” As a result, the bishops concluded that the “cost is too high” and the “loss too great” to support the Senate bill with its serious flaws.

Sadly, in the closing days before the vote, the Catholic Health Association and a group of nuns announced support for the Senate bill in contradiction of our bishops and based on erroneous claims that the bill does not fund abortions. This dissent from our shepherds undoubtedly contributed to the passage of a deeply flawed bill that many of us fear will be the largest expansion of abortion access and funding since Roe v. Wade.

The Bad. Last week, LB 1110 was pulled from our state Legislature's agenda by its sponsor Sen. Kathy Campbell due to insufficient support by fellow senators and strong opposition (and veto threat) by Governor Heineman. This bill would have continued Nebraska's longstanding policy of providing prenatal care services to unborn children in impoverished families regardless of the mother's immigration status.

Tragically, some providers of prenatal care services are reporting that several women have had or are considering having abortions at least in part due to the loss of prenatal care services. These reports are causing some senators to look for new ways to resurrect and adopt LB 1110, a move my office strongly supports.

In the meantime, we must urgently persuade mothers who may be considering abortion due to the loss of prenatal care services to reject this act of violence. My office is working with others to make sure that these mothers know that there are agencies and providers who will find a way to provide them with needed prenatal services.

The Good. Now for some good news. Last week, the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee advanced two pro-life bills for debate and vote by the full Legislature. The Women’s Health Protection Act (LB 594) would require abortionists to screen women for risk factors that could increase their likelihood of having post-abortion complications.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (LB 1103) prohibits abortions (with narrow exceptions) after 20 of gestation, the point at which compelling evidence suggests the unborn child can experience pain.

These bills could come up for debate as soon as the week of March 29. I urge readers to contact your state senator as soon as possible and urge him/her to support both bills. More information on these bills and an action alert is available online at www.nebcathcon.org.

Life Insight 3-19-10

A Deeper Look at the Prenatal Care Debate

Two weeks ago in this column I explained the reasons why the Nebraska Catholic Conference supports LB 1110. This bill would allow Nebraska to continue to offer prenatal services to unborn children of low-income women, including those who are undocumented immigrants.

Since then, I’ve received or witnessed a variety of communications from individuals who oppose LB 1110. Some were downright nasty, some were more interested in venting than understanding the Church’s view, and some were challenging but thoughtful.

The third category of communications prompted me to think more deeply about the legitimate concerns on both sides of this debate. On one side is the concern that a nation must have a just and fair immigration policy and this policy must be enforced as best as possible or many social, economic and now security problems can result.

Immigration policy, however, is set by the federal government and states have little authority or ability to affect or enforce this policy. States are largely left to deal with the human realities and injustices of an extremely deficient federal immigration policy.

On the other side is the important good of providing prenatal care to unborn children. It is well documented that providing prenatal care greatly increases the likelihood of a healthy start to a child’s life. It is important to emphasize that the recipient/beneficiary of prenatal care is the unborn child (who has no immigration status and will be a citizen if/when born in this country) not the undocumented mother.

Another good is that providing coverage for prenatal care can be a contributing or even decisive factor in keeping an abortion-vulnerable woman from having an abortion. Sadly, I’ve already heard of a few confirmed cases of impoverished pregnant women in Nebraska who have had or are considering having abortions (at least in part) because of losing this benefit for their unborn child.

A final good is that this area of federal policy/law (Children’s Health Insurance Program or CHIP) which is reflected in LB 1110, recognizes the unborn child as a person and recipient of benefits on his or her own account—separate from the mother’s interests.

Some, however, have presented the straightforward argument that if undocumented pregnant mothers present themselves for prenatal care, why not just send them back to their home countries? Doing this, however, is much more complicated than it appears.

For example, if it becomes known that pregnant undocumented mothers will be deported if they present themselves for prenatal care services, they simply won’t present themselves. The likely result will be that their unborn children will not get needed prenatal care and the mother will continue to stay in our country.

This means that when these children are born, they will be citizens and will likely be eligible for Medicaid. And, because of not getting prenatal care, they will likely need even more expensive medical care at taxpayer expense.

The bottom line is that this is a very complex problem with legitimate concerns and goods (and potential unintended consequences) on both sides of the debate. I find it helpful to consider the fact that this complexity and balance of concerns is present in other areas of serving our least brothers and sisters.

For example, in serving the poor through the St. Vincent de Paul Society or other outreaches, we often find people in dire need because of irresponsible choices on their part. Sometimes federal social policy enables such behavior (or at least provides little incentive to change it).

But when a person is in need of basic human needs (food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc.) we rightly help them with those basic needs. At the same time we rightly work to address the underlying social and public policy problems that contributed to this situation.

I think that balance of concerns/goods applies to this debate on prenatal care as well. At the very least, when conflicted about the balance of such goods, it seems right to err on the side of helping vulnerable human beings over strict adherence to human laws.

Life Insight 3-12-10

The Heart of Christ

At this year’s Catholic Social Services banquet, I was privileged to present the agency’s annual Cor Christi (The Heart of Christ) award to Bob and Pam McCabe. The McCabes were honored for their work in organizing the “sidewalk counselors” and prayer presence outside the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Lincoln for the past dozen or so years.

I mentioned in my introduction that Bob and Pam’s efforts provide the last line of defense to protect women and their children from the violence of abortion. Being visibly present—with a smile, caring words, kneeling in prayer—as women drive into the abortion facility can literally make the difference between life and death for a baby.

Several years ago, Pam received a letter from a woman who changed her mind about having an abortion because of the presence of people praying outside the facility. Addressing the letter to “My angels sent from God” she said the following:

“As we arrived, we pulled into the parking lot and there was a group of people praying on their knees. I can remember even making a joke of it as we parked the car. We got out, and as we walked to the entrance, I again looked over at this group of people praying. At that point God’s spirit hit me like a ton of bricks.

“I began frantically crying in my sister’s arms. In my 20 years on this planet, I have never felt that before. It felt like a 500 pound weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I was no longer afraid, and I knew everything would be okay.

“My family was thrilled I chose to keep the baby, but most importantly I was thrilled. My son was born in August, and he is the BEST blessing God has ever given me. He is my joy, my pride, and my very reason to live…I often look into his beautiful little eyes and many times cry thinking about the decision I almost made. If it had not been for you, well, I don’t even like to think about it.

“Thinking back to that day, I remember it being very cold. Those people who were gathered at Planned Parenthood that day could have very easily stayed at home…Because they didn’t, I was able to see God in them; I was able to see what I was about to do was a terrible mistake.”

“I know how discouraging your fight can be at times, and I hope you never give up…Words cannot express how thankful I am of you and your presence that morning. I will always be eternally grateful for what you have done for me.”

Letters like these punctuate the reality of actual human lives that are at stake in the battle against abortion. Unfortunately, for every life that is spared from abortion many more are violently destroyed. Roughly 9000 babies have been destroyed by abortion at the Planned Parenthood facility since it opened in 1996.

However, there is no question that there are people walking this earth because of the dedication of Bob and Pam McCabe and others like them who sacrifice their time, talent, treasure and comfort to be that last line of defense against abortion. And I know that Bob and Pam would say that the best way to honor them is to join them.

Planned Parenthood operates its abortion facility in Lincoln on Tuesdays. On those days there are “sidewalk counselors” present from at least 6:30 am until the last woman leaves the facility (sometimes late in the afternoon).

If you are feeling a call from God to offer your time, talent and heart to this life-saving outreach, please contact Bob and Pam at 402-489-7968. If you’re not ready to make that call, please pray every Tuesday for them, the other “sidewalk counselors” and the women scheduled for abortions that day.

Life Insight 3-5-10

Balancing Principles in Favor of Life

One of the important and “hot” pro-life issues in our Legislature this session is whether Nebraska should continue providing prenatal services to unborn children of undocumented mothers. Nebraska has been providing these important services for three decades under Medicaid.

The federal government, however, notified Nebraska late last year that prenatal services cannot be provided under Medicaid to unborn children in their own right; eligibility for these services is based on the pregnant mother, and undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid.

Nevertheless, Nebraska can continue to provide this benefit if it relies upon the “unborn child option” under the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under CHIP, unborn children are viewed as recipients of prenatal services in their own right, regardless of their mothers’ immigration status.

Legislative Bill 1110 was introduced by Sen. Kathy Campbell to authorize our state Health and Human Services Division to apply for this option. Unfortunately, this bill and the senators who are inclined to support it are being subjected to a lot of heat from individuals who oppose providing any assistance to illegal immigrants. Sadly, Governor Dave Heineman is among those expressing opposition to LB 1110.

There certainly are legitimate concerns about our state not enacting policy that encourages illegal behavior. Having (and enforcing) an orderly and just immigration policy is important. However, as with any law, when its application puts vulnerable human lives in jeopardy, there must be a balancing of principles in favor of human life.

An example of a proper balancing between care for vulnerable human lives and adherence to immigration policy already exists in our society. When an illegal immigrant is need of urgent medical attention we care for them. Our society has correctly decided that caring for a vulnerable person takes precedence over the fact that the person is in our country illegally.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference, representing the three Bishops of Nebraska, testified in favor of LB 1110 saying that it is our “firmly held view…that continuing to provide prenatal services to unborn children, regardless of their mothers’ immigration status” is another example of this proper balance.

The Conference said this “is an important and urgent pro-life matter. Denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity and a terrible injustice, which could do great harm to the lives of children at a very vulnerable stage in their development. What’s worse, the lack of coverage for such care could be a decisive factor in leading some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth.”

The Conference testimony also responded to those concerned about providing prenatal care and services to unborn children of undocumented mothers. “It must be emphasized,” it said, “that the true and ultimate beneficiary of this coverage is not the mother but her unborn child, who is not an illegal immigrant and who will soon be a U.S. citizen upon his/her birth.

“The immigration status of the mother should not adversely affect the health and well being of the unborn child. Assisting the unborn child, a presumptive citizen, to have a healthier start to life makes sense not only from an economic standpoint, since this child’s healthcare needs are likely to be greater without the benefit of prenatal care and services, but from a human rights standpoint as well.

LB 1110 received a public hearing last week and it is our hope that the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee will soon advance the bill for consideration by the full Legislature. It could be critical to the enactment of this bill that senators receive a strong message of support from their constituents. It could be equally critical that Governor Heineman receives a similarly strong message of support for LB 1110.

I urge all Catholic Nebraskans to call or e-mail their state senator and Governor Heineman and urge them to support LB 1110; to embrace a proper balance of principles in favor of human life. Senators can be contacted online at www.nebraskalegislature.gov or by calling 402-471-2311. The Governor can be contacted at www.governor.nebraska.gov or at 402-471-2244.

Life Insight 2-26-10

How A Pro-Life Encounter Changed Olympian’s Life

In his encyclical “The Gospel of Life”, Pope John Paul II says that in order to counter the culture of death and form a new culture of life, we must “proclaim the Gospel of Life.” “We need to bring the Gospel of life to the heart of every man and woman and to make it penetrate every part of society.”

To do this, we need not be Scripture scholars or moral theologians. As John Paul says succinctly, “to proclaim Jesus is to proclaim life.” We are called to proclaim Jesus, and the Gospel of life “through service of charity, which finds expression in personal witness, various forms of volunteer work, social activity and political commitment.”

This call to witness, and the effect it can have in building a culture of life was exemplified in a story about an Olympic athlete who was converted by an encounter with a group of pro-life students.

Kirstin Holum was a speed skater in the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano placing 6^th in the 3,000 meter race. Back then she was, in her words, “a mediocre Christian”. Today, she is Sister Catherine Mary, a member of the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, and has devoted her life to working with the poor and homeless.

Her conversion came from an encounter with Crossroads, a group of pro-life college students who make a yearly pilgrimage on foot across the United States to witness against the killing of the unborn. In 2002, Kirstin came across the group and decided to join them for the remainder of the walk to Washington, DC.

Kirstin said her experience with Crossroads “completely changed [her] life.” “I came onto Crossroads as a mediocre confused Christian,” she said, “and finished as a zealous Roman Catholic…I had never experienced such joyful, young Catholics and I was so inspired.”

“It is funny now to think of how different my life is now,” she told Yahoo! Sports. “I had the wonderful privilege of being able to compete as an Olympian, and now I am blessed to be able to serve God and help those less fortunate…Without my Crossroads experience, who knows where I would be!”

This inspiring story of conversion should encourage each of us with the confidence that even our simplest acts of witness can change lives and ultimately our culture. We should also be reassured knowing that God does not ask us to save the world or defeat the culture of death. He did that already.

Instead, God asks us to use the gifts He gave us to faithfully and persistently witness His truth and love to those He puts in our path: family, friends, co-workers, strangers, etc. Each of us has unique gifts that can reach people and inspire conversion in different ways.

As Mother Teresa said, God does not expect us to be successful in all our endeavors on His behalf, but he does expect us to be faithful—and persistent. This means that we must continually discern the gifts God gave us and how He wants us to use them on His behalf. Then, as we hear at the end of every Mass, “go in peace to love and serve the Lord.”

In addition to witnessing against abortion or euthanasia or embryo-destructive research, or any number of other attacks against human life, there are many ways we can proclaim the Gospel of life. For some simple, every day examples of how we can evangelize—and thereby help build a culture of life—check out the book “The Everyday Apostle: Commonsense Ways to Draw Others to Christ” by Fr. Ed Garesche.

Life Insight 2-19-10

Prayer and Fasting: The Foundation for the Pro Life Cause

“A great prayer for life is urgently needed, a prayer which will rise up throughout the world. Through special initiatives and in daily prayer, may an impassioned plea rise to God. . . . Let us therefore discover anew the humility and the courage to pray and fast so that the power from on high will break down the walls of lies and deceit: the walls which conceal from the sight of so many . . . the evil of practices and laws which are hostile to life.”

As we begin another Lenten season, these words from Pope John Paul II (The Gospel of Life, no. 100) provide a powerful reminder that prayer and fasting are the most powerful weapons we have for combating the culture of death. This is why prayer, fasting and worship form the foundation of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities.

The Pastoral Plan is the official pro-life program of the Catholic Bishops in the United States. The program focuses the Church’s attention and resources on “the evil of deliberate killing in abortion and euthanasia”.

It “calls upon all the resources of the Church—its people, services, and institutions—to pursue this effort with renewed energy and commitment in four major areas”: Public Information and Education; Pastoral Care; Public Policy and Prayer/Worship.

Although each of these four areas is important, the Pastoral Plan states that “prayer is the foundation of all that we do in defense of human life. Our efforts—whether educational, pastoral, or legislative—will be less than fully fruitful if we do not change hearts and if we do not ourselves overcome our own spiritual blindness.

“Only with prayer—prayer that storms the heavens for justice and mercy, prayer that cleanses our hearts and our souls—will the culture of death that surrounds us today be replaced with a culture of life.”

Having worked in the pro-life field for nearly twenty years, I would say without hesitation that prayer and fasting are our most powerful weapons to counter the culture of death. There is no question that the battle against the culture of death is, at its core, a spiritual battle.

In The Gospel of Life, John Paul II points to our society’s alienation from God as the deepest root of the culture of death. If our relationship with our Creator is weak, then our understanding of the dignity and meaning of human life which He created in His image and likeness will also be weak. And if we don’t understand and appreciate the dignity and meaning of human life, we are more inclined to violate its dignity and rights.

Therefore, the healthier our relationship is with God, the more profound will be our respect for human life. Prayer, fasting and the Sacraments are the most fundamental tools we can embrace to strengthen our relationship with God and thereby help rebuild a culture of life.

Our Lord told us that “certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting” (Mt. 17:21). There can be no doubt that abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia are among these demons. This Lent, each of us can make a significant contribution to the pro-life cause, to the battle to exorcise these demons from our culture, by offering our extra prayers and sacrifices for the success of this cause.

Life Insight 2-12-10

Pro Life Legislation for 2010

The Nebraska Legislature convened on January 6 and over the next couple of months will consider at least a few pro-life measures. The first bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act (LB 594), was introduced last year by Sen. Cap Dierks from Ewing.

This bill would require abortionists to screen for risk factors which place women at higher risk of physical or psychological complications from abortion. It would better protect women from undergoing coerced abortions and ensure that women are given an individualized assessment of risk factors.

LB 594 also removes legal obstacles which typically make it difficult or impossible for a woman to hold an abortionist liable for injuries which may have been avoided with proper screening and counseling.

The problem is that many abortionists have compromised the standard of care for counseling and screening of patients in order to reduce costs and maximize profits. As a result, known risk factors for physical and psychological complications are not detected and women are suffering from avoidable complications.

Even leading mental health associations like the American Psychological Association, which generally downplay the prevalence of post-abortion trauma, have identified risk factors that predict post-abortion problems. And on March 14, 2008, the British Royal Academy of Psychiatrists issued an official statement endorsing the importance of pre-abortion screening for risk factors.

LB 594 had a public hearing last year and is awaiting action by the Judiciary Committee to move this bill to the full Legislature.

A second pro-life bill, the Abortion Pain Prevention Act (LB 1103), was introduced this year by Sen. Mike Flood, the Speaker of the Legislature. This bill would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of gestation unless the abortion is deemed necessary to avert the mother’s death or to avert serious risk of physical impairment of a major bodily function.

The bill identifies fetal pain as the basis for prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. It specifically says that “there is substantial evidence that, by twenty weeks after fertilization, unborn children seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain.”

It further states that “there is substantial evidence that abortion methods used at and after twenty weeks would cause substantial pain to an unborn child…even if the pregnant woman herself has received local analgesic or general anesthesia.” LB 1103 is awaiting a public hearing date in the Judiciary Committee.

The third measure has to do with fixing a serious problem related to providing prenatal benefits under the state’s CHIP program (Children’s Health Insurance Program). CHIP provides health insurance coverage for impoverished children whose parents are not eligible for Medicaid.

Because of its focus on children, CHIP counts the unborn child as a family member for eligibility purposes. Medicaid does not allow this. Since Nebraska chose to implement the CHIP program by expanding Medicaid rather than establishing a separate CHIP program, the federal government recently notified our state that it can’t continue counting the unborn for eligibility purposes.

Consequently, on March 1, roughly 6000 pregnant women in Nebraska who currently qualify for CHIP (because their unborn children are counted) will no longer be able to qualify and will lose their prenatal care. Roughly 1000 are undocumented pregnant women who cannot get Medicaid but whose children can qualify for prenatal care under CHIP because they will be citizens when they are born.

This presents a couple of serious pro-life concerns. First, if these pregnant women lose their prenatal care, it could have terrible effects on the health of their unborn children. Second, losing prenatal coverage could cause some women to have abortions.

Fortunately, the research of several advocacy groups discovered that, with a slight change to our state’s Medicaid/CHIP program, the federal government will continue to fund prenatal care for these women. Our state’s health and human services officials are seeking legislative authority to make this change and there appears to be strong momentum in the Legislature to provide that authority.

Stay tuned for further updates and action alerts as the Legislative session moves forward.

Life Insight 2-5-10

Pro-Aborts Try to Sack Tebow

I wouldn’t normally think to use a football metaphor to represent the abortion battle. However, the recent flap over a pro-life Super Bowl ad featuring Florida quarterback and Heisman trophy winner, Tim Tebow, begs its use.

The frantic efforts by pro-abortion groups to get CBS to reject the ad are a clear indication that they are on defense. News reports indicate that these groups are blitzing in hopes of sacking Tim Tebow and his life-affirming message.

According to Focus on the Family, which produced the ad, it will convey the story about Tebow’s mother Pam who rejected advice to abort Tim. Mrs. Tebow and her husband were serving as Christian missionaries when she conceived Tim.

After contracting and being treated for an intestinal infection, Mrs. Tebow was told that the medications caused irreversible damage to Tim and recommended that she have an abortion. She refused the abortion citing her Christian faith as the source of her hope that Tim would be okay. Tim was born healthy and has obviously done quite well since.

This is the life affirming story that pro-abortion fanatics are worried about and trying to squelch. Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center said the ad will use “one story to subtly dictate morality to the American public” and “encourages women to disregard medical advice, potentially putting their lives at risk.” “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite,” she said, “has no place in the biggest national sports event.”

This response is pathetic—morally and intellectually impoverished. No advertisement is capable of dictating morality, subtly or otherwise. The ad will merely present a story about a woman who chose to give life to her unborn child even though the child may have been born with disabilities.

If the ad changes minds and hearts against abortion, it will do so by the compelling and inspiring nature of the story. The ad will not—and cannot—dictate morality as if it were capable of producing some kind of hypnotic, mind-changing trance.

The notion that the ad might encourage women to ignore medical advice that could put their lives at risk is equally ridiculous. Even if Tim did have disabilities as the doctors wrongly predicted, it is extremely unlikely that continuing the pregnancy would have endangered Mrs. Tebow’s life.

Furthermore, had the pregnancy truly endangered Mrs. Tebow’s life, abortion advocates are saying that a mother risking her life for her child is irresponsible and dangerous. Really? I thought that risking one’s life for another, especially one’s own child, was the ultimate expression of love. In fact, if parents didn’t risk their lives to save the life of their born child, most in our society would deem them to be irresponsible—at the very least.

Even the pro-abortion editorial board of the New York Times called the protest of this ad by abortion advocates “puzzling and dismaying." In an official editorial titled "Super Bowl Censorship" the Times said abortion advocates are making "a lame attempt to portray the ad as life-threatening." Those “would-be sensors” who "argue that even a mild discussion of such a divisive issue has no place in the marketing extravaganza known as the Super Bowl…are on the wrong track,” the editorial says.

Pro-lifers should be encouraged by these frantic efforts of abortion activists to censor a life-affirming message. It is another strong indication that they are on defense and worried about public opinion moving against abortion. And when abortion activists can’t even celebrate a mother who made a life-affirming choice, it’s proof positive that they are “pro-abortion” not “pro-choice.”

Life Insight 1-29-10

Hope for the Pro Life Movement

Last Friday, on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s abortion rulings (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton), I attended the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. I joined thousands of others (one estimate was 300,000) in publicly witnessing against these rulings which legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and for virtually any reason.

The most powerful observation I had was how many young people participated in the March and its related events. On the morning of the March I attended a rally and Mass organized by Fr. Damien Cook, pro-life director for the Archdiocese of Omaha.

The event was attended by the 350 students and chaperones that Fr. Cook brought to the March in six buses!! It was also attended by students and chaperones from four other dioceses in Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Ohio.

Roughly 1300 people rocked the gym of Bishop McNamara Catholic High School in suburban Washington, D.C. The students were entertained and pumped up by a seminarian band, and by a bunch of innovative pro-life cheers that could only come from twenty-plus hours on a bus!

Following the rally, Archbishop George Lucas from Omaha and Bishop Michael Jackels from Wichita concelebrated a beautiful and holy Mass with numerous concelebrating priests. As I surveyed the crowd of teens singing, chanting and then praying with enthusiasm for the pro-life cause, I couldn’t help but get emotional.

It was an enormous gift of hope and encouragement for the future of the pro-life movement to witness this event. And this hope and encouragement was magnified by the fact that tens of thousands of other students were doing the same thing at the Verizon Center in D.C. as well as other venues around the area.

This enthusiasm for the pro-life cause spilled into the streets and National Mall leading up to the U.S. Capitol and Supreme Court. Prior to the start of the March, I positioned myself in a place where I could observe the marchers before jumping in with one of the Nebraska groups. The experience was breathtaking.

The first line of marchers came by about 2:15. Imagine the entire street filled with people shoulder to shoulder. The packed line of marchers filed by me for more than an hour and a half before I finally jumped in. And there were still thousands of people behind me.

The unmistakable characteristic of the marchers was their youth. The vast majority of marchers were teens and young adults. Although, as usual, most of the secular media largely ignored the March and its youthful composition, Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney noticed it.

Here is an excerpt from his story: "I went to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn't it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What's more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future. How wrong I was.

“The antiabortion movement feels it's gaining strength, even if it's not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous. In this case, I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come."

I have written many times about the current generation of teenagers and young adults (Generation Y) and its strong pro-life inclinations. This was on clear display at the March for Life. It is also, I believe, reflected in the declining number of abortions—especially among teenagers. And, I believe it is one of the reasons why Pope John Paul II said that the 21 Century would be a “springtime in the Church”.

Finally, those unable to go to D.C. for the national March for Life can stand up for life by attending the pro-life Mass and Walk for Life this Saturday, January 30^th in Lincoln. Archbishop George Lucas from Omaha and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz will concelebrate a 9:00 am Mass for Life at St. Mary’s Church (14^th and K). The Walk for Life follows at 10:00 am across the street on the west steps of the State Capitol.

Life Insight 1-22-10

A Decision that Deformed a Great Nation

Thirty seven years ago today, the United States Supreme Court rocked our nation by declaring the killing of unborn children through abortion to be a fundamental Constitutional right. The aftermath is nothing short of catastrophic.

Since January 22, 1973, well more than 50 million unborn babies have been killed by abortion in the U.S (more than 170,000 in Nebraska). Millions of mothers have been wounded psychologically, relationally, spiritually and physically. Millions more—fathers, grandparents, siblings, friends—have been wounded and our collective conscience as a society has been numbed by this unparalleled destruction and dehumanization of innocent human life.

In a February, 1994 brief to the Supreme Court, Mother Teresa said “America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.

“It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts-a child-as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered domination 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 a sovereign.”

In 1995, Pope John Paul II also addressed the serious and unique challenge of abortion in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae. He explained that among the myriad of attacks against human life throughout history, abortion represents “another category of attacks affecting life” and presents “new characteristics with respect to the past and which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness.”

“It is not only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer to be considered as ‘crimes”, John Paul said, “paradoxically they assume the nature of ‘rights’ to the point that the state is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel.

“Such attacks strike human life at the time of its greatest frailty, when it lacks any means of self-defense. Even more serious is that fact that, most often those attacks are carried out in the very heart of and with the complicity of the family…which by its nature is called to be the ‘sanctuary of life.’” (EV #11)

On this anniversary of Roe, it is important to remember that reversing Roe is not the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement. In fact, making abortion illegal is not our ultimate goal. Making abortion unthinkable is our ultimate goal.

To reach this goal, we certainly must address the injustices and behaviors that result in the killing of unborn children. This includes promoting adoption, ensuring that mothers who choose to parent a child have the resources they need, insisting that employers and educational institutions don’t force mothers to choose between children and socio-economic development.

And, as John Paul said in Evangelium Vitae (#97): “It is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not help the young to accept and experience sexuality and love and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection…The trivialization of sexuality is among the principal factors which have led to contempt for new life. Only a true love is able to protect life.”

To make abortion unthinkable we must address all of these matters. But even if doing so would eliminate the incidence of abortion, justice would still demand that unborn human beings be recognized and protected as full persons in our laws. For this to happen, Roe must go.

Life Insight 1-15-10

Making Moral Medical Treatment Decisions

Making medical decisions about our care or the care of a loved one, with fidelity to our Catholic faith, can be among the toughest decisions we’ll make in our lives. And as medical technology advances and the baby boom generation ages, the frequency of such decision is likely to increase.

Fortunately, the Catholic Church, through its bishops, provides the moral guidance we need to make medical treatment decisions in accord with our responsibility as Christians. For example, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, which represents the mutual interests of the Bishops of Nebraska, issued a document many years ago entitled “Medical-Treatment Decision-making: Moral Guidance and Considerations from Catholic Teaching.”

The document’s introduction presents the basic foundation for our moral obligation to be responsible stewards of our lives:

“The Catholic Church affirms the sanctity and dignity of every human life as a precious gift of a loving God. All men and women must respect the lives of others while accepting the duties of responsible stewardship for their own lives and for the lives in their care.

“At the same time, however, faith in the resurrection and hope for eternal life have enabled the Catholic tradition to accept death as the inevitable end to temporal life and to believe that death is the gateway to eternal life. It is for this reason that there is no obligation to utilize all possible medical interventions, all possible means of prolonging life. Death need not be avoided at all costs.

“Although Catholic teaching does not look upon biological life as an absolute value, nevertheless it rejects suicide, assisted suicide and mercy killing because they are intrinsically opposed to the reverence for life that Christians are called upon to manifest and express. Compassion and care for dying and seriously ill or disabled persons must never include the willingness to assist in the direct ending of their lives.”

In other words, by applying Catholic teaching on the meaning of life, suffering and death to the use of life-sustaining technology we can avoid two extremes: withholding or withdrawing technology with the intention of causing death on the one hand, and insisting on useless or disproportionately burdensome treatment to avoid death at all costs on the other hand.

Presumably, most decisions that individuals or families must make about whether to utilize or forego medical treatment fall somewhere between the extremes. Therefore, the document provides this basic moral principle to assist us in determining whether a medical intervention is morally required or morally optional:

“If a particular medical intervention is necessary or useful for the preservation of life or restoration of health, it is ethically ordinary and there is a moral obligation to use it. If, however, a particular medical intervention is analyzed and judged by the patient to be useless (offering no reasonable hope of benefit) or excessively burdensome, it is ethically extraordinary and therefore morally optional.”

A particularly vexing question that has garnered much attention since the tragic killing of Terri Schiavo is whether to provide artificially-administered nutrition and hydration (ANH) to patients in a so-called “persistent vegetative state”. The Church has a longstanding teaching, reflected in several documents, that nutrition and hydration should be provided as part of any patient’s normal care, even when the assistance of medical intervention is necessary. This obligation, however, does not apply if the provision of ANH is clinically useless or causes excessive burdens to the patient.

This teaching, specifically applied to persons in a so-called persistent vegetative state, was confirmed in a 2004 allocution by Pope John Paul II. In an address to participants at the International Congress on “Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State”, John Paul said that “the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.”

As a result of John Paul’s allocution, last November the U.S. Bishops revised their document “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” to say this: “In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in…the ‘persistent vegetative state’” unless such provision becomes useless or “excessively burdensome for the patient”.

The Catholic Conference’s document is available online at www.nebcathcon.org. The document, along with sample healthcare power of attorney forms, can also be obtained from my office.