THE CONFERENCE:

Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.

NCC Testimony & Legislative Statements 2003-04

LB 32, Eroding the Tax Exempt Status of Non-Profit Organizations, January 29, 2003

LB 172, School Abortion Notice, March 4, 2003

LB 368, 387 & 57-Sales Tax on Food-Testimony Opposing, February 20, 2003

LB 397, Sales Tax on Food-Testimony Opposing, February 20, 2003

LB 512, Human Fetal Tissue Ban, February 20, 2003

LB 566, Ban Human Embryo Research, February 20, 2003

LB 602, Human Reproductive Cloning, February 20, 2003

LB 689, Eroding the Tax Exempt Status of Non-Profit Organizations, February 5, 2003

LB 745, Newcomers Policies, March 12, 2003

LB 791, Abolish the Death Penalty, March 13, 2003

LB 959, Allow for civil suits in a criminal assault of the unborn, February 5, 2004

LB 1083, Mental Health Bill-Statement of Conference position, February 25, 2004

Testimony Opposing LB 32

January 29, 2003

Mr. Chairman and members of the Natural Resources Committee:

The Nebraska Catholic Conference is opposed to LB 32 because as it stands now it will erode the validity and value of tax exemption for non-governmental, non-profit institutions and organizations that carry out special functions and broad public purposes, thereby producing significant public benefits. It does not honor Nebraska’s longstanding, traditional policy of providing exemption from property taxes for property owned by religious, educational, charitable and cemetery organizations and used for qualifying purposes as established by Nebraska law.

In our view, the authority proposed by LB 32 is taxing authority; irrespective of the way the authority to impose charges is described. It is taxing authority because it is intended to raise governmental revenue to pay for infrastructure, public improvements and management programs that provide a general public benefit. What this bill proposes is not a matter of contract for services provided; it can’t be that, for there is no act of consumptive use. Measurability in terms of unit rate for actual consumptive use is impossible, especially given all the variations arising from the source of storm water. This reality is acknowledged and provided for under current public policy. One need only read section 18-510, the definition of sewage system and sewerage system, in conjunction with sections 18-501 through 18-506.01 to identify the distinction.

LB 32 proposes a significant and substantial change in public policy, as it currently exists. Under current policy, as we understand, cities and villages are authorized to impose charges only upon the USE attributable to a sewage disposal plant or sewerage system, which, by definition under section 18-510, does not include storm water or storm sewer system. LB 32 would expand that authority, not only for cities and villages, but for counties and resource districts as well, to include the general public benefit of storm sewer systems and storm water management, on the basis of some indefinite, fictional measurement. From our perspective, this significant and substantial change in public policy is made even more so because the shift from tax-based funding to fee-based funding has negative financial implications for properties that otherwise meet all requirements for exemption from ad valorem taxation.

At the very least, what LB 32 proposes is akin to a payment in lieu of tax, something that our organization, as well as many others that appreciate and value the opportunity to be exempt from taxation on the basis of sound public-policy principles, has consistently opposed. Our position on this bill is consistent with our past statements in front of this Legislature’s Revenue Committee.

In our view, it is irrefutable that tremendous social advantages arise from the presence of religious, educational and charitable entities within communities. They are mechanisms that give collective voice to societal values of altruism and pluralism. If your expectations as policy makers are that religious, educational and charitable entities will meet human needs, carry out social action, charity and ministry, provide education and perform the special function of religion in society, then exemption from taxes, both straightforward taxes and those that are taxes by another name, should not be eroded.

Here in Nebraska, the Catholic Church, and it is the same for many other religious denominations, of course, is an institution with many ministries; foremost among these is to serve, without regard to profit, the human needs of people in their communities. In accord with this religious mission, the Church provides a diverse array of social services, especially for the poor and those most vulnerable. These human services include, but are by no means limited to, care for the elderly, youth ministry, emergency assistance and disaster response, family counseling, pregnancy counseling, adoption services, refugee resettlement, child care, housing and many more. The Catholic Church in Nebraska operates two of the largest non-governmental human services systems: Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Omaha and Catholic Social Services of the Diocese of Lincoln. Numerous long-term care facilities in the state are affiliated with the mission of the Church, as are several health-care facilities. The Catholic dioceses operate the largest systems of non-governmental elementary and secondary schools in the state, providing quality academic, social and values-based education to 30,000 Nebraska youngsters, at a significant cost to their parents and other patrons.

The obvious point is that the function of the Church, in her array of missions, enhances human lives in many ways and serves the common good in the State of Nebraska. One by-product of this commitment is that taxpayers overall are saved the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost government to undertake to provide all of these human services. Another by-product is the contributions made to the economy in terms of jobs and consumption of goods.

For most religious, educational and charitable organizations, the task of meeting human needs and serving the public good is becoming increasingly more difficult. Moreover, as we look ahead to increased expectations of non-governmental endeavors, the difficulties will escalate even further. Demands are increasing. Resources are decreasing. The added financial burden of taxes, irrespective of the terminology assigned to them, will exacerbate the difficulties.

Religious, educational and charitable institutions and organizations that meet all requirements for exemption from property taxes are not nameless, faceless entities that enjoy special treatment on the basis of their activities. They are non-profit associations of individual Nebraskans who voluntarily organize themselves for worthwhile purposes of significant public benefit. These individuals pay their obligations toward the costs of government. The very same people who already pay their personal taxes are also going to be paying these taxes-by-another-name should they be authorized and imposed. On the other hand, by not authorizing the imposition of these taxes-by-another-name you will be honoring and continuing a policy that permits the value of supporters’ contributions to be used for the purposes intended.

It has been a longstanding, traditional policy of this state that public policy recognizes and encourages, by means of exemption from taxation, religious, educational and charitable entities with regard to meeting human needs, producing important public benefits and enhancing the common good. Unless amended to be consistent with tax-exemption policy, LB 32 will diminish the State’s encouragement of the role of religious, educational and charitable entities and negatively affect the ability of these entities to carry out their functions. We urge you to make these necessary amendments.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully submitted,

James R. Cunningham

Executive Director

Testimony In Support of LB 172

March 4, 2003

Senator Raikes and Members of the Education Committee:

My name is Greg Schleppenbach and I am speaking on behalf of the Nebraska Catholic Conference in my capacity as Director of the Bishops' Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities. The Nebraska catholic Conference, representing the mutual interests and concerns of the three Catholic dioceses in Nebraska, urges you to advance LB 172 to General File.

From its inception, the mandate that this bill would eliminate has demonstrated its vulnerability to the undermining of parental involvement in a minor child's decision about abortion. This is because it has resulted in the promulgation of informational forms that overemphasize and even facilitate the use of the judicial bypass provision that circumvents parental involvement. This result has caused much concern on the part of parents and has created an unnecessary point of contention between schools and parents.

Given these concerns and the sensitive nature of abortion, we believe that requiring such a broad distribution of information that ultimately impacts only a small fraction of students is inappropriate and ill-advised and we urge you to advance LB 172 for debate and action by the full Legislature.

To: SENATOR DAVID LANDIS, Chairman

MEMBERS of the LEGISLATURE’S REVENUE COMMITTEE

From: James R. Cunningham, Executive Director

Subject: LB 368—Sales Tax on Food

Date: February 20, 2003

Senator Landis and members of the committee, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, the public affairs coordinating agency representing the mutual interests and concerns of the Archdiocese of Omaha and the dioceses of Lincoln and Grand Island, is opposed to these bills and urges that they be indefinitely postponed. Although we have never separately considered the idea of extending the sales tax just to "junk food" items, it is essentially a narrowing of what we view as a fundamentally unsound and indefensible public policy and therefore LB 57(bill killed in 2003) is included in our reference.

The Conference has consistently opposed reinstatement of the sales tax on home-prepared food (groceries) and can identify no compelling reason to change that longstanding position. Notwithstanding the fiscal challenges confronting the state, taxing food that is presently exempt would be unjust and contrary to the common good, in our view.

The right to nourishment is fundamental to human dignity and is a basic human right. Our commitment as a state and a society to recognition of human dignity and human rights must necessarily flow into economic policy. A person’s inherent need for, and basic right to, an adequate diet in order to sustain life makes taxation of food an issue with broad social and moral implications.

We believe the basic proposal embodied in these bills would place a disproportionate burden upon low-income and impoverished individuals and families, for they expend a greater percentage of their income on the basic necessity of food. By its nature, this tax is regressive and therefore harmful to the poor. By taxing home-prepared food, the State would fail to meet its obligation of distributive justice.

In the view of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, state policy makers did the right thing in 1983 when they exempted groceries (i.e., home-prepared food items) from the sales tax. We urge you to refrain from advancing a reversal of that decision.

Thank you for your attention.

Testimony in Opposition to LB 397

To: LEGISLATURE’S REVENUE COMMITTEE

From: James R. Cunningham, Executive Director

Subject: LB 397 – Repealing Sales Tax Exemption and Definitional Exclusions

Date: March 6, 2003

Senator Landis and members of the committee, good afternoon: for the record, my name is Jim Cunningham. I am the executive director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, on whose behalf I testify today. The Conference is a state-level association through which the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, the Diocese of Lincoln and the Diocese of Grand Island speak and act mutually and cooperatively on matters involving public policy, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference opposes LB 397, for the following reasons:

First, the bill would repeal Section 77-2704.12, which allows religious organizations and private schools to purchase goods and services that are otherwise subject to the sales tax without having to pay that tax. This is an extremely important and beneficial opportunity for entities that are comprised of individual Nebraskans who voluntarily organize themselves for worthwhile purposes having significant public benefits. Repealing this exemption will increase the financial burden on many of our religious ministries, including our school systems, which provide quality academic, social and values-based education for 30,000 Nebraska youngsters. The current policy acknowledges, respects and encourages entities that enhance the common good. What’s more, the current policy allows the full value of contributions made to these non-governmental, non-profit, public-benefit organizations to be used for intended purposes.

Second, the bill would repeal Section 77-2704.25 and thereby subject to taxation sales made by parent- and other school-based organizations when the proceeds of such sales are used to support school activities. School fundraising is a fact of life, for both governmental and non-governmental schools. Fundraising activities are a social component of the operation of schools, but more significantly, they provide important and necessary supplemental financing. The current policy accommodates these activities and keeps them unfettered by governmental processes, which is important in light of the fact that in an overwhelming majority of situations the activities are carried out by volunteers. What’s more, the current policy allows the full value of payments made for school-support purchases to be used for the purposes intended.

Third, the bill would repeal Section 77-2704.10 and thereby subject to taxation school lunches and other meals and food products sold by elementary and secondary schools, public as well as private. In addition, it would subject to taxation meals sold by churches at church functions. The need for, and importance of, providing meals in conjunction with a daylong school program is obvious. It is a matter of convenience and well-being. In the other contexts that would be impacted by this bill, food and fundraising are naturally intertwined. Furthermore, food and meals are a natural element of social interaction that is so important for church communities. The current policy recognizes that fundraising and social interaction conducted in conjunction with food and meal should neither be frustrated nor complicated by being subjected to taxation.

Fourth, the bill would repeal that part of Section 77-2702.13 that excludes fees charged by elementary and secondary schools, and their affiliated organizations, from the definition of admissions, which otherwise are considered retail sales for purposes of taxation. Presumably this would reach so far as to subject to taxation the tuition fees our schools charge for enrollment. Tuition fees are, of course, the lifeblood of being able to operate a non-governmental school system that meets all of the state’s requirements. Many private-school parents are already making tremendous sacrifices in order to pay for the costs of this education, which they deem best suited for their children. What LB 397 proposes will add to those costs. As for activity fees in general, the current policy recognizes and acknowledges that activities are an important element of the overall educational experience and an important aspect of that reality is that those close to the students—parents, grandparents, other relatives, neighbors and friends—are involved in, and supportive of the activities, as spectators and patrons. Policy should not be changed to frustrate, complicate or impose upon these social benefits. Furthermore, a significant amount of the administration and management of school activities, at least in our system, is carried out by volunteers. Imposing accounting and other administrative obligations and costs by subjecting these activities to tax collection is an unreasonable and impractical expectation.

Fifth, the bill would repeal that portion of Section 77-2702.09 that allows sales occurring during one activity a year conducted by an organization created exclusively for religious purposes to be treated as an occasional sale, which is excluded from the definition of retail sale for purposes of taxation. Church bazaars are as old as the State of Nebraska. They are important for purposes of both fundraising and social interaction. They are community activities. It is reasonable that when they are occasionally held that they should be allowed to happen without governmental intrusion and that all the proceeds should be derived for the churches and their religious purposes. Moreover, when they are occasional, the imposition of governmental processes, such as tax collection, should be avoided, as a matter of practicality if nothing else.

In our view, there are sound reasons why the above-cited policy changes, which are proposed by LB 397, would be more detrimental than beneficial in relation to the common good. None of the sales or purchases that these policy changes would impact are sales or purchases in the traditional retail, profit-making context. They are inextricably linked to public benefits and should be kept from of taxation. Therefore, we urge that LB 397 be indefinitely postponed, or amended to strike these items.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Testimony in Support of 512

February 20, 2003

Senator Brashear and Members of the Judiciary Committee:

My name is Greg Schleppenbach. I am speaking on behalf of the Nebraska Catholic Conference in my capacity as Director of the Bishops' Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities. The Conference, which represents the mutual, public policy interests and concerns of the three Catholic dioceses in Nebraska strongly supports LB 512.

We understand the great importance of medical research and support it in almost very context, including most research involving human subjects. We have an enormous sense of respect and awe for the ingenuity of the human mind to achieve extraordinary therapies and cures that enhance our lives. But we also recognize the extraordinary importance of establishing ethical boundaries for research beyond which the harm of the research to our humanity outweighs any real or potential physical benefit.

Cleary our society has decided that there are some things we should not do (e.g. experimenting on human beings without their consent) even when many lives could be saved or enhanced by doing it. So the issue here is not whether ethical boundaries should interfere with the research enterprise, but rather where those boundaries will be drawn. We believe that ethical boundaries should exclude using the remains of intentionally aborted human beings in research for at least two reasons.

Because of its dependent, prearranged and ongoing relationship with the practice of induce abortion, UNMC is complicit with this practice. The degree of a researcher's complicity with an act such as abortion is measure by his/her attendance upon, acceptance of benefit from, and participation in the act. For example, someone who receives an organ from a person murdered without the recipient's foreknowledge or passive witnessing of the murder would not be complicit with the murder. However, if that same person knew the murder was ongoing to take place, had a prearranged and ongoing agreement with the murderer to receive organs form his victims, he/she would clearly be morally (if not legally) complicit with the murders.

The only way one can conclude that UNMC's use of brain tissue form intentionally aborted human is not complicit with abortion is to reject the moral equality of prenatal human life and postnatal human life.

Proper consent cannot be obtained for the use of the remains of an intentionally aborted baby. Certainly parents or their surrogates can and do legitimately consent to the use of an offspring's organ(s) or body following an accident or crime, as long as they are not complicit with the death. With abortion, a mother seeks and consents to the death of her offspring and therefore abdicates her role as guardian and protector of that child. In no other context would a parent who sought the death of an offspring be allowed to consent to the use of that child's organs or body. Even parents who abuse or neglect their children are viewed by society and the law as abdicating their guardian/protector role and children are often removed from such parents.

The only way one can conclude that a mother (or her surrogate) of an aborted child can legitimately consent to the use of her child's body for research is to reject the moral equality of prenatal human life and postnatal human life.

The bottom, line, we would argue, in the moral analysis of using remains of intentionally aborted human beings in research is this: The moral arguments for or against its use stand or fall on whether one equates the moral status of prenatal human beings with that of postnatal human beings. For anyone who believes that prenatal human beings are of equal moral status as born human beings, support for research using the bodies of intentionally aborted babies simply cannot be morally or intellectually reconciled.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference urges you to advance LB 512 for debate and action by the full body of the Unicameral.

Testimony in Support of 566

February 20, 2003

Senator Brashear and Members of the Judiciary Committee:

This bill would prohibit what even most supporters of aborted fetal tissue research way would make such research morally indefensible: That is, it prohibits the destruction of prenatal human beings solely for research purpose s. In so doing, LB 566 would align the public policy of the state of Nebraska with longstanding and universal ethical norms on human experimentation articulated in the Nuremberg Code and the World Medical Association's Declarations of Helsinki and Geneva. These ethical norms demand that we never inflict death or disabling injury on any unconsenting individual of the human species simply for the sake of benefit to others. (1)

As the science of human embryology unambiguously reveals, the human embryo from the single-cell stage is a living human being, a unique individual whose genetic identity is in place and whose process of human development is already set in motion. From its beginning at fertilization, the human embryo develops under its own control on a path that is a continuum from embryo, to fetus to infant, to adult. (see attachment)

As a member of the human species, the embryonic human being has as much of a claim for personhood as does a human being at more advanced stages of development. Human beings should never be a mere means to someone else's end, even if that end is good, such as treatments or cures for disease. When one category of human beings excludes another category of human beings from the family of persons, it violates and undermines the endowment of inalienable rights by our Creator that the Declaration of Independence says is self evident.

Allowing the willful destruction of humane embryos in our state would further denigrate the dignity of early human life beyond that caused by legalized abortion. This is because the U.S. Supreme Court in its abortion-related rulings has allowed for the recognition and protection of prenatal human life as person outside the context of the abortion decision.

Finally, the existence of morally acceptable alternatives that do not require the destruction of human life for research purposes would support the conclusion that destructive embryo research is unethical--because it needlessly relies on the destruction of life to advance medical goals that can be achieved in non-destructive ways. Scientists have made amazing progress in using stem cells and other avenues to cure debilitating disease. But none of the advances now in human clinical trials come from destroying embryos. They come from the morally acceptable avenues that much of the scientific establishment has dismissed as inadequate.

For these reasons, the Nebraska Catholic Conference urges you to advance LB 566 for debate and action by the full body of the Unicameral.

(1) "No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur" (Nuremberg Code, reprinted in S. Reiser et al. (eds), Ethics in Medicine, MIT Press 1977, at 273); "Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interest of science and society" (World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, ID. at 329); "IO will mainatain the utmost repsect for human life, from the time of conception" (World Medical Association's Declaration of Geneve, Id. At 37).

Testimony in Support of LB 602

February 20, 2003

Senator Brashear and Members of the Judiciary Committee:

Enacting this bill and related bills (LB 512 and LB 566) could help forge, in the words of Pope John Paul II, "the path to a truly humane future, in which man remains the master, not the product, of his technology" (Address to President Bush at Castel Gandolfo, July 23, 2001). The decision facing the Legislature with this bill, however, is in danger of being obscured by the use of euphemisms and misleading terms – including efforts to redefine the term "cloning" for political purposes.

Scientifically, it is very clear what cloning is. It is the creation of a new organism that is genetically identical to a previously existing organism. In human cloning, a technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer is used to create a human embryo, a new living organism of the human species. To recognize this is not to make a moral claim about the rights or status of the embryo – it is to state an obvious biological fact, the essentials of which are agreed upon by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, longstanding federal law, and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (see attachments)

Some scientists seek human cloning in order to mass-produce embryos solely to be destroyed for their stem cells (so-called research or therapeutic cloning). Others wish to produce embryos for implantation and live birth (so-called reproductive cloning). The Catholic Conference opposes the cloning of human embryos for any purpose.

Cloning for the purpose of live birth reduces the union of love between husband and wife (procreation) into manufacture. As a result, human beings are reduced to simply another man-made object. The child is produced and wanted not for his or her own sake, but because he or she will carry traits that someone else values and wants to replicate. Furthermore, human cloning for live birth perverts the basic relationships of the human person. A woman can be the twin sister of her mother, lack a biological father and be the daughter of her grandmother.

When cloning is done to mass-produce human embryos solely to be destroyed for their cells and tissues, the reduction of human life to a mere instrument is even more complete. Not so many months ago, defenders of using so-called "spare" embryos from fertility clinics in destructive research claimed that the ethical line would be drawn to exclude specially creating human embryos. Yet, this is precisely what human cloning proposes. Indeed, the mass production of cloned human embryos appears to be the inevitable destination of embryonic stem cell research.

Finally, cloning human embryos for research purposes would also involve the exploitation of women. It would likely require harvesting literally hundreds of millions of eggs and would subject women to high-dose hormone therapy that risks their health and future reproductive ability.

For these reasons, the Nebraska Catholic Conference urges you to advance LB 602 for debate and action by the full body of the Unicameral.

Testimony Opposing LB 689

February 5, 2002

Mr. Chairman and members of the Revenue Committee:

The Nebraska Catholic Conference is opposed to LB 689 for the following reasons:

First, and most generally, it will erode the validity and value of tax exemption for non-governmental, non-profit institutions and organizations that carry out special functions and broad public purposes producing significant public benefits. In our view, this bill unnecessarily, and without sufficient basis, complicates Nebraska’s longstanding, traditional policy of providing exemption from property taxes for property owned by religious, educational, charitable and cemetery organizations and used for qualifying purposes as established and implemented under Nebraska law.

Second, as a matter of policy and practice, if a property has been properly taken through the process and has met all of the conditions and qualifications for exemption prescribed by the statutes and rules and regulations, then its value is unnecessary and irrelevant to the remaining process of taxation. In other words, valuation is only a factor in the equation if the property has not been ruled to be exempt.

Third, a mandated process of establishing, or even estimating, a valuation for what can typically be some particularly unique and highly complex properties—churches, schools, hospitals, cemeteries, etc.—when the property has already been adjudged to have satisfied all of the requirements of the statutes and rules and regulations, and, furthermore, when valuation is not a necessary or relevant factor in the calculation of property taxes, will be a burdensome and inefficient commitment of time, energy and resources, not only for the property owners, but also for county and state officials, who will be expected to keep track of, and do something with, all of this information.

Fourth, if the purpose is to expand public understanding of the extent of property that is not subject to taxation, then all of the property owned by governmental entities should be subject to the same requirements and processes. Under this bill, only the property of religious, non-governmental charitable, non-governmental educational and non-governmental cemetery organizations, and also the property of agricultural and horticultural societies will be subject to the mandates.

Fifth, if the problem is that there are truly legitimate and fact-based concerns that some properties are being exempted that should not be exempt, then the discussion and debate should be about the conditions for exemption and the processes that apply and rule upon those conditions, not about what valuations there are for churches, cemeteries, non-governmental educational institutions and all of the many and varied charitable organizations, as well as all of the personal property that is associated with those properties.

Sixth, if the purpose is to engender and percolate a general public attitude that attributes the level of property taxes to the exemptions granted to churches, schools, charities, cemeteries and agricultural and horticultural societies—in other words, to point to traditionally exempt entities as being responsible for high property taxes—then that is an unreasonable public-policy purpose; one that is out of balance with the strong basis for authorizing exemptions in the first place, as acknowledged in the state constitution. Moreover, if that is the purpose, then public policy should also facilitate a process that allows traditionally exempt entities to enhance the public’s understanding of the many and varied ways these organizations provide tremendous social advantages and serve the common good in the State of Nebraska.

Seventh, the factor of public disclosure promoted by this bill is an insufficient justification for the change in policy. The exemption process as it now exists is fully open to the public. The application forms and related documents are public information. The hearings before the county boards of equalization are open to the public. What’s more, pursuant to subsection (5) of section 77-202.03 of today’s statutes, every county board is required to annually publish in a newspaper of general a list of all real property that the board has by its process exempted from taxation.

The obvious point is that the function of the Church, in her array of missions, enhances human lives in many ways and serves the common good in the State of Nebraska. One by-product of this commitment is that taxpayers overall are saved the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost government to undertake to provide all of these human services. All of this constitutes a valuation that really means something.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Testimony in Support of LB 745

To: LEGISLATURE’S GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

From: James R. Cunningham, Executive Director

Subject: LB 745 – State Newcomer Policy

Date: March 12, 2003

Senator Schimek and members of the committee, good afternoon, my name is Jim Cunningham and I am appearing on behalf of the Nebraska Catholic Conference in support of LB 745. The Conference is a state-level association that represents the mutual interests and concerns of the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha and the dioceses of Lincoln and Grand Island on matters involving public policy, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference is supportive of the idea articulated in LB 745, supportive of what the bill stands for, and supportive of the spirit in which it is presented.

Our view toward this bill is guided in large measure by a very substantive and marvelous statement issued in November 2000 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The title of the statement is "Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity." That title suitably describes its essential themes.

Our faith tradition, the teaching of which is derived from the words of Jesus to His disciples: "For I was a stranger and you welcomed me," supports efforts that recognize the solidarity of all peoples and enable those of all cultures to exercise their full human rights.

In our view, although their contexts are different, both this pastoral statement and LB 745 emphasize responding to the needs and challenges of the new immigration. However, both also recognize the opportunities—cultural, economic and social—that are inherent in welcoming newcomers. Both say, in essence, that the body politic is both challenged and encouraged to receive newcomers with a genuine spirit of welcome. This bill is an important building block.

I would like to close by reading two short excerpts from Welcoming the Stranger Among Us…..Both are relevant to the context and purpose of LB 745:

These immigrants, new to our shores, call us out of our

unawareness to a conversion of mind and heart through which

we are able to offer a genuine and suitable welcome, to share

together as brothers and sisters at the same table, and to work

side by side to improve the quality of life for society’s marginal-

ized members. (p. 4)

‘…[M]ulticultural’ may describe a society in which multiple

cultures exist peaceably side by side, interacting in common social,

economic, and political practices, while remaining distinct in others;

respecting one another, learning from one another; and each changing

at its own pace accordingly. The call for ‘incorporation’ articulated in

this letter shares in this spirit. It is not a call for ‘assimilation’ or the

disappearance of one culture into another, but for continuing cooperation

in pursuit of the common good and with proper respect for the good of

each cultural tradition and community. (p.60)

These quoted statements catch the spirit of LB 745 in our estimation, and that spirit deserves support as a matter of public policy. We urge you to advance LB 745 to General File.

Thank you.

Testimony in Support of LB 791

To: LEGISLATURE’S JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

From: James R. Cunningham, Executive Director

Subject: LB 791 – Abolish the Death Penalty

Date: March 13, 2003

Protection, Punishment, But Not Death

Senator Brashear and members of the committee, good afternoon, for the record, my name is Jim Cunningham and I am appearing on behalf of the Nebraska Catholic Conference in support of LB 791. The Conference is a state-level association that represents the mutual interests and concerns of the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha and the dioceses of Lincoln and Grand Island on matters involving public policy, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops.

There have been in the past, and may yet be, misconceptions regarding the official position of the Catholic Church on the issue of capital punishment. Catholic teaching, as promulgated in the Modern Catechism, does not condemn the death penalty in principle. It is not regarded as intrinsically immoral. Public authority has a legitimate purpose in punishing criminals and the right and duty to defend human lives against aggression and to do what is necessary to protect public order and the safety of persons; this does not in principle exclude recourse to the death penalty. However, Catholic teaching incorporates an extremely important caveat on the use of the death penalty and that is, if non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect public order and safety, then public authority must limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. (The relevant paragraphs from The Catechism of the Catholic Church are attached to this testimony.)

In practice, application of this teaching regarding the death penalty has become clearer in recent years; a new understanding has evolved. Much of this is due to the clear and energetic teaching efforts of Pope John Paul II. In his great and important encyclical, "The Gospel of Life," the Pope formulated a standard for application of this teaching, a test for the death penalty, if you will. That test is this: is the death penalty absolutely necessary; that is, are there no other means left to defend against aggressors, preserve public order and protect the safety of individuals and families? In his role as head of the Church worldwide, the Pope himself responds that the cases of absolute necessity are extremely rare if not practically nonexistent.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference has analyzed and considered LB 791 within this framework. In the collective judgment of the Conference, the response to the test of whether the death penalty is absolutely necessary is unambiguously no, of course not. The death penalty fails the test. In this modern, technological age, in this developed society, means other than the death penalty are sufficient; the necessary conditions clearly do not exist to justify its use. What’s more, in our culture, which too frequently resorts to death and violence as a response to social problems, as evidenced by the killing of millions of innocent human beings through abortion, using the death penalty when it is unnecessary to do so diminishes all of us even more and contributes even more to the growing disrespect for the dignity and value of human life. The death penalty, having failed the test of absolute necessity, offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.

In their 1994 Pastoral Letter, "Confronting a Culture of Violence," the Catholic Bishops of the United States said, "Increasingly, our society looks to violent measures to deal with some of our most difficult social problems. Violence is not the solution; it is the clearest sign of our failures…. We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing."

We know and fully understand that many people have legitimate concerns and fears about violence and the frequency of serious crimes in our communities. As a society we need to do everything we can to deter, and respond promptly, to this violence that undermines a stable society. Furthermore, the needs of victims and their loved ones must be addressed; society must finds ways to support them, compensate them, and help them heal. However, much of the support for capital punishment, we believe, stems from a desire for revenge or from a desperate attempt to balance the terrible damage wrought by a capital crime. And such feelings are understandable in the face of brutal and senseless violence inflicted upon innocent people. Justice is a legitimate desire. However, justice cannot be achieved through vengeance. Vengeance is never a worthy human motive.

In our view, all Nebraskans personally and collectively face the challenge of turning away from the culture of death and toward a culture of life. This means addressing any and all ways in which killing is proposed as the solution to a problem. The Nebraska Catholic Conference, through our affiliate program, the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, works for and encourages attitudes that are unconditionally pro life. Such attitudes are consistent in connecting opposition to abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide to the unnecessary use of the death penalty. We believe that being unconditionally pro life in this way leads to no other conclusion than that the death penalty should be abolished in Nebraska and replaced with incarceration for life and provision for restitution, as proposed by this legislation. This would provide for punishment and adequate protection of society in a manner that more fully conforms with the inherent dignity of each human being and better corresponds to preserving and enhancing the common good.

We urge the advancement of LB 791 to General File.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Testimony in Support of LB 959

TO: LEGISLATURE’S JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

FROM: Greg Schleppenbach, State Pro Life Director, Nebraska Catholic Conference

SUBJECT: LB 959

DATE: February 25, 2005

Senator Brashear and members of the committee, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, representing the mutual interests and concerns of the Archdiocese of Omaha and the dioceses of Lincoln and Grand Island, supports LB 959 and urges that it be advanced to General File. Our support is based upon the following reasons:

First, LB 959 is remedial in purpose and effect. Under current law, the parents or guardians of an unborn child who suffers non-fatal injuries as a result of the wrongful conduct of a third party may be barred from recovering for the injuries on behalf of their unborn child. This bill will clarify this context and enhance the ability of the legal system to compensate parents whose unborn children are wrongfully injured. It promotes justice and fairness, common sense and compassion. For families who anticipate and welcome their children from the moment pregnancy is known, public policy should not suggest to them that the injury inflicted on their unborn child is any less real or less significant than an injury inflicted on their child after birth.

Second, this bill will promote consistency in Nebraska’s recognition and protection of the interests and value of unborn children, in contexts other than abortion. This will follow the approach of public policy heretofore established in contexts such as probate laws that protect the rights of unborn children to share in the property of a deceased parent; laws recognizing economic needs of all children, including those still on that part of life’s journey in the womb, such as establishment of paternity and programs of public assistance; laws proscribing homicide, as evidenced by Sections 28-388 to 28-394, enacted in 2002 as LB 824; and laws providing a cause of action for the wrongful death of an unborn child under Section 30-809. Since it is constitutionally permissible for Nebraska to recognize, protect and value unborn children under the law authorizing causes of action for non-fatal injuries in the same vein as wrongful death, Nebraska should do so.

Third, the public policy acknowledgment that this change in law will make regarding medical and scientific advances that provide reliable, irrefutable evidence of the humanity of the unborn child is justified and important.

Regardless of how one views the moral status of prenatal human life, LB 959 should elicit enthusiastic support. For those who look upon prenatal human beings as deserving of recognition and protection under the law, LB 959 will further affirm that understanding, at least outside the context of abortion. For those who believe the moral status of prenatal human beings should be determined by the mother, this bill will further ensure that the choice to give birth to a child is respected and protected.

We urge this committee to advance LB 959 to General File.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Statement in Support of LB 1083

(Presented to Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee at Public Hearing, 02/25/04)

The Nebraska Catholic Conference is an association of the three Roman Catholic dioceses in Nebraska, organized to officially represent their mutual interests and concerns on matters involving public policy.

At a recent meeting of the Conference’s governing board, it was determined that LB 1083 must be supported, because it sets the course for a concerted effort to improve the availability, accessibility and coordination of behavioral health services in Nebraska. We look upon this as a vitally important undertaking. We have heard many of those who are directly involved in the current system firmly state that reform is critically necessary and that LB 1083 is the right approach. We agree, and join in their advocacy.

Our position on this bill stems fundamentally from Catholic social teaching, the foremost principle of which is the sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of each human person. Certainly, those members of society who are afflicted with mental illness and addictions deserve genuine access to an adequate, effective system of behavioral health services, to enhance their lives and dignity.

We also draw upon the principles of community, solidarity and subsidiarity. Catholic tradition teaches that human beings grow and achieve fulfillment in community. Solidarity proclaims that we re our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, wherever they live. Subsidiarity counsels that a community of a higher order, e.g. the state, should support a community of a lower order and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. We think these principles present valid considerations and underscore the importance of community-based services and continuum of care.

We also understand that LB 1083 presents a means for making greater use of Federal funding, which is a worthwhile objective in the overall approach for meeting human needs during times of budget stress.

We urge that there be no hesitation in moving LB 1083 to the full Legislature. It responds to a serious need and presents an opportunity that should not be bypassed.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. Also, thank you for making this statement part of the record on LB 1083.