In this newer age of "robo calling" and social media, the weekend before a significant election has become a lot more intense and interesting than in the days of old, before these sophisticated means of delivering down-to-the-wire messages existed. Some might offer that these means are more irritating than helpful or effective.
A friend called Sunday evening to either gripe or gloat—it wasn’t particularly clear which was more important to him—about his weekend experiences. He seemed almost gleeful about the upbeat call he claimed he received from one Sarah Palin, although he admitted she did all the talking. He mentioned that on Mothers’ Day he received a call from the Attorney General’s mother. And on Saturday, just when he was tuned in to the Husker baseball game, a doctor from Valentine called to influence his vote, even though he didn’t know her and has never visited that community. He also had to get off the couch a few times to answer calls that polled his party affiliation and voting expectations (and pushed a bit). And then there were times that when he answered there was silence. Apparently, the tape didn’t start. That was also a nuisance.
Elsewhere
While on the topic of upcoming elections, we’ll be watching with considerable interest what happens June 12 in North Dakota on a ballot initiative. Measure 3 would amend Article I of the North Dakota Constitution by adding this provision:
"Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act based upon a religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as exclusion from programs or access to facilities."
This proposed, state constitutional amendment addresses an increasingly worrisome deficiency regarding legal protection for the Free Exercise of Religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Historically, the Constitution protected religious belief and conduct unless they were outweighed by some compelling government interest. In 1990, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that the First Amendment only protects religious exercise from laws or regulations that target religion. Laws and regulations that control conduct that can have either a religious or non-religious motive need only have a rational basis, a much lower standard.
Subsequently in response, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which restores the compelling-interest standard as a protection for religious freedom. But RFRA does not apply to state laws and regulations.
Given the jurisprudence, an effort is being made in North Dakota, by the more secure means of a constitutional amendment, to join 27 other states—not including Nebraska—that have legislatively restored the compelling-interest standard for judicial review of state and local laws and regulations that burden religious exercise.
Also from the religious-liberty front: Information about the Fortnight for Freedom being developed and promoted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will soon be available on the Nebraska Catholic Conference’s website: www.nebcathcon.org. The fortnight leading up to Independence Day is being molded as an opportunity for the Church and the believing faithful to express their belief in religious freedom, to pray, including a special novena, and to learn. Watch for this.
Generous Offer
Something left over from the Unicameral session that ended in mid-April:
Enacted over a Governor’s veto, LB 599 restores access to prenatal care for the unborn children of impoverished pregnant women regardless of their immigration status. Probably the most unusual happening on this bill was when, late in the evening of the second-round vote, Senator Rich Pahls announced that he would donate a month of his legislative take-home pay, about $800, to help pay for prenatal care. And, he challenged his legislator colleagues to do the same, in lieu of passing the legislation. What’s more, if all other 48 would do so, he was willing to give up his entire year’s salary for the cause.
By all appearances, this was sincerity and not showmanship or gamesmanship. It was Senator Pahls’ way of expressing his concern. He abstained from voting on the motions to pass the bill and to override the veto. He voted to pass LB 599A, the appropriations measure that accompanied the policy decision, but then voted against overriding the veto on that bill.
As for the money? As far as we know the outcome has not been reported. Even full participation by all 49 legislators most likely would have been short of the need. Moreover, would they have sustained their financial commitment for ensuing years?
And finally…
We agree wholeheartedly with the many who have pointed out that what renowned columnist George Will wrote about the 40th birthday of his son, Jonathan Frederick, who has Down syndrome, is must reading. Access it: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-will-40-years-and-going-with-down-syndrome/2012/05/02.html.
The 102nd Nebraska Legislature finished the second of its two regular sessions with ceremonies honoring its nine members whose current service ends this year due to term limits. Rightfully, these were bittersweet, but truly "feel-good" moments.
Nonetheless, the ceremony was preceded by intensity and drama on the last day, April 18, as the legislators considered motions to override four vetoes by the Governor.
Thirty votes are needed for an override to prevail. The motions were taken up in the following order.
First was LB 806, proposing to authorize pari-mutuel betting at the established horse-racing facilities in the state on randomly selected, electronically re-enacted, "historic horse races." The veto override failed by one vote.
Second was LB 357, proposing to authorize cities and towns to increase the local-option sales tax to as high as two percent, subject to approval by the local governing body and voter approval as well. The motion to override prevailed "on the number," 30-17.
Third was LB 1020, proposing to tap some funding from the education component of state lottery proceeds for capital construction and startup costs for school-based health centers. The weakness of this idea as a matter of public policy was reflected in the veto-override attempt falling three votes short.
The last of the override motions was the most controversial, most dramatic and, from our perspective, most significant. It was LB 599, proposing to restore access to prenatal health care for unborn children of impoverished pregnant women who are not eligible in their own right, most often because of unauthorized immigration status.
For more than two decades Nebraska provided access to prenatal health care for poor, pregnant women and their unborn children by means of Medicaid, irrespective of the mother’s ineligibility, e.g., immigration status. The unborn child was regarded as the recipient of health-care benefits. But federal Medicaid rules do not recognize unborn children as eligible recipients in their own right. In November 2009, the federal agency (CMS) realized that Nebraska’s approach was in error and ordered it halted.
The unborn-child option of the joint federal-state Children’s Health Insurance Program was identified as the alternative means of restoring this medically-wise and fiscally-prudent policy of providing access to prenatal health coverage for all unborn children in impoverished circumstances. It led to passage of LB 599 on April 11.
Governor Heineman vetoed the bill on grounds that taxpayer-funded prenatal health care should not be provided for "illegals," the inappropriate term he often uses in the political realm.
From the perspective of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, which supported restoration of such coverage from the onset of its retraction, LB 599 was not just about access to vitally important prenatal health care coverage, which indisputably assists the health and well-being of the child in utero, at birth, in infancy and later in life. Fundamentally, the core of LB 599 also presented a rare and unique opportunity to respect and uphold the individual humanity and dignity of unborn children as a matter of public policy. The federal policy option defines and treats the unborn child as a child.
For reasons known fully only to them, a number of legislators who otherwise are associated with a pro-life position on abortion-related issues did not see fit to embrace and apply this opportunity as the ultimate priority for their voting.
And yet the veto was overridden. From the perspective of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, the pro-life position prevailed. It happened by virtue of affirmative votes by 30 legislators, for whom commendation and gratitude are certainly warranted.
The following legislators voted consistently for LB 599 and in particular to pass the bill notwithstanding the objections of the Governor: Senators Greg Adams (York); Brad Ashford, Tanya Cook, Brenda Council, Burke Harr, Gwen Howard, Bob Krist, Steve Lathrop, Heath Mello and Jeremy Nordquist (all Omaha); Bill Avery, Kathy Campbell, Colby Coash, Danielle Conrad, Ken Haar and Amanda McGill (all Lincoln); Tom Carlson (Holdrege), Mark Christensen (Imperial), Abbie Cornett (Bellevue), Annette Dubas (Fullerton), Speaker Mike Flood (Norfolk), Mike Gloor (Grand Island), Galen Hadley (Kearney), John Harms (Scottsbluff), Russ Karpisek (Wilber), LeRoy Louden (Ellsworth), Paul Schumacher (Columbus), Kate Sullivan (Cedar Rapids), Norm Wallman (Beatrice) and John Wightman (Lexington).
A special salute is due those who had a leadership role. These included: Speaker Flood, whose floor speech and active involvement had a significant impact; Senators Campbell and Gloor, chair and vice-chair respectively of the Health and Human Services Committee, which sent the bill "to the floor" and kept its purpose meaningful over a two-year period; Senators Nordquist, Krist and Lathrop, among those who encouraged their colleagues and who advised supporting organizations; and Senator McGill, who designated LB 599 as her priority bill.
After a Friday-Monday extended break for the Easter weekend, state lawmakers have just three days remaining in their 2012 regular session. Thursday (April 12) is the anticipated day for adjournment sine die, but the last day, the 60th, could be held set back in order for the Legislature to consider any vetoes made by the Governor after Wednesday, the 59th legislative day. It’s a balancing of interests: the Governor has several days after the Legislature passes a bill to exercise his veto authority; the Legislature would like to know all his decisions before ending its session.
After 57 days of session, the 49 legislators have finished a lot of their "heavy lifting." Some significant decisions remain, including some with spending implications, but with the mid-biennium budget adjustments completed, the remaining route to the finish line is mapped out. There still could be some bumps and potholes in the surface.
The budget package is unique and interesting. It provides for some deficit appropriations and some new funding (LB 968), transfers funds to cover other items (LB 969), taps into some of the state’s cash reserve for major projects, including $50 million for a cancer research center at UNMC and $15 million for Nursing and Allied Health Professions at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (LB 131), and appropriates nearly $7 million to pay claims against the state authorized by the state claims board (LB 1072).
Also tied to the budget process this year was the Governor’s desire to provide tax cuts. As the bill introduced for this purpose on his behalf, LB 970, went through the committee and floor-debate processes, components dealing with the inheritance-tax and corporate income tax were eliminated and the reduction appeared to be settled as just over $97 million in individual income taxes over the next three years. For most taxpayers it will be modest relief.
The chairperson of the Revenue Committee and principal floor manager of LB 970, Sen. Abbie Cornett of Bellevue, called it a "down payment on the tax relief we promised in January;" whatever that means.
With just three days remaining, this is also a worthy time to update a few bills of interest to the Nebraska Catholic Conference, and addressed previously in this column.
LB 461, as proposed to be amended by its sponsor, Sen. Pete Pirsch of Omaha, on behalf of a coalition of pro-life advocacy organizations, including NCC, ran into a buzz saw of angst-based pushback from lobbyists for health care organizations, led by the Nebraska Hospital Association and the Nebraska Pharmacists Association. They and others expressed concerns about the scope of the amendments and potential consequences. They left few scenarios untapped in vigorously reacting with a "parade of what-if horribles," mostly exaggerated, but still effective in attacking the formulation, if not the premise, of the proposed amendments. As a result, the process stalled and LB 461 remained stuck in the Judiciary Committee.
The proposed amendments would have statutorily protected rights of conscience of health-care providers and facilities on a comprehensive basis. Providers and facilities would have been protected from discrimination and adverse administrative actions when exercising their right not to participate in any health care function that would violate their religious beliefs and/or convictions of conscience.
Senator Steve Lathrop of Omaha, a member of the Judiciary Committee, led discussions to try to find a consensus among the opposing views, but the overall matter was too complex and the divide of views over the value ascribable to convictions of conscience too wide to achieve results before time ran too short.
The goal of protecting rights of conscience in health care is far from dismissed. It is compelling and will be pursued again next year as better, tighter legislation.
LB 1145 moved smoothly through the legislative process to passage and anticipated approval by the Governor. It gives Nebraska a stronger response to the serious, but largely hidden problem of human trafficking for sex or labor. It will increase public awareness by establishing a state commission, which will engage the assistance of the National Human Trafficking Resource Center. The legislation also strengthens criminal penalties for forcing or enticing a person into prostitution.
LB 50, first introduced in 2011 and carried over to 2012, did not make it out of the Revenue Committee. That’s a lousy outcome for the legislative idea embodied therein. The bill proposed to establish a state income-tax credit for donations to organizations that would distribute their revenue as private-school tuition scholarships.
For the parents and patrons of Catholic schools who contacted one of more of the Revenue Committee members about LB 50: thanks for taking action. Your collective expressions caused the legislators to notice your advocacy and established a foundation for more effective advocacy in the future. For the many who were urged to speak out but didn’t, you could still do so now, by expressing your disappointment over how LB 50 was ignored by the Revenue Committee; and then again next year when a new bill proposing this good idea is introduced.
As documented by Americans United for Life from the Annals of Congress, an early draft of the First Amendment written by James Madison included the following: The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed" (emphasis added). Though not specifically included in the finally adopted version, this wording indicates the intent of the Founders and a fundamental principle of the First Amendment.
Perhaps that expression of principle influenced the framers of the Nebraska Constitution in 1875, because the principle is captured and set forth in a similar manner. Article I, Section 4 on religious freedom presents this statement of guiding policy: "No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted." (emphasis added)
The state constitution also includes this significant provision as Article III (Legislative Power), Sec. 30: "The Legislature shall pass all laws necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this constitution."
These two provisions of the Nebraska Constitution are relevant to a compelling and escalating concern; namely, protecting the religious freedom and rights of conscience of health care providers, both individuals and institutions. Ideological and political aggressiveness regarding health care and health professions, particularly in relation to morally problematic services, such as abortion, sterilization, contraception, artificial insemination, euthanasia, assisted suicide and counseling to affirm and enhance immoral relationships, increasingly threatens to penalize and drive away persons of faith and conscience. Discrimination in employment and governmental coercion in licensing are mechanisms by which health care providers can be forced to choose between their professions and their convictions of conscience.
This is not about who pays for health care. That’s another context involving threats to conscience. This is about providers and their rights of conscience.
A number of organizations and websites provide evidence of attacks on the freedom of health care providers and institutions to provide health care without violating their religious beliefs and moral convictions. Pharmacists have been targets, as abortion advocates seek to require them to dispense "emergency contraceptives" and others that have post-fertilization, life-ending mechanisms of action.
Here in Nebraska, for instance, licensing boards for Mental Health Practice and Psychology have shown intent to require licensees to provide, or be complicit in providing, counseling services to affirm and enhance same-sex relationships.
Nebraska public policy is limited with regard to protection for religious freedom and rights of conscience throughout health care. The cited provisions of the Nebraska Constitution notwithstanding, the Legislature has not acted to prevent interference with rights of conscience comprehensively. Except in limited instances involving abortion, such rights have not been codified or provided with remedies.
LB 461, as proposed to be amended by its sponsor, Senator Pete Pirsch of Omaha, would establish by statute that individual health care providers have the right not to participate in any health care function that would violate their religious beliefs, moral convictions and/or ethical principles. Likewise, the proposed amendment would establish that health care facilities have the right not to participate in any health care function that would violate their institutional conscience as determined by reference to its existing mission statement, constitution, bylaws, etc.
For purposes of the legislation, "participate" and "health care function" are defined comprehensively.
The amendment protects health care providers and institutions from being required by employers, or governmentally coerced, to participate in any health care function. In this context, it would prohibit discrimination in employment and immunize providers and facilities from civil, criminal and administrative liability. Authorized remedies would include civil causes of action for damages and/or injunctive relief.
Sen. Pirsch’s sound amendment is awaiting action by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee. Efforts are being made to address sincere concerns about the scope and wording of the amendment, and to separate legitimate concerns from misconceptions, exaggerated reactions and bogus interpretations of the legislation.
Unfortunately, time is running short on the session—only 14 working days remain. The matter is urgent. Nebraskans—especially those involved in health care—who wish to see these basic rights protected in law, to see the guiding principle in the state constitution brought alive with substance, should contact state legislators, especially members of the Judiciary Committee, and express support for the amended version of LB 461. Contact information is available at the Legislature’s website (www.nebraskalegislature.gov). More information is available at: www.nebcathcon.org.
Having moved past the mid-point of its 2012 regular session—37 of the 60 legislative days were completed as of March 1—the Nebraska Legislature is focused on legislation with priority status. Each of the 49 lawmakers has chosen a priority bill and each of 14 standing committees, plus the Executive Board, has designated two priority bills. In addition, the Speaker of the Legislature has prioritized 25 other proposals.
The Speaker, Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk, will determine the scheduling of the 104 priority bills for the remaining days of the session. Some time might be set aside as well for moving some minimally substantive, non-controversial measures through the process on a time-limited basis known as the consent calendar.
From the perspective of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, LB 599 is a highly significant priority bill. It would reinstate a pro-life policy that was rather suddenly terminated two years ago, after decades of assisting the health and well-being of unborn children of impoverished mothers.
In late 2009, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services notified Nebraska that its decades-long policy of providing access to prenatal health care through Medicaid had to be terminated for some unborn children. The reason? Medicaid does not include the unborn as eligible recipients of financially-assisted medical care, which is the way the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services had long been administering coverage for prenatal health care. Nebraska was warned that Medicaid only considers the eligibility of the pregnant woman. Under Medicaid rules, pregnant women who, even though they qualify as impoverished, are nevertheless ineligible for prenatal care coverage if they are unauthorized immigrants or incarcerated or subject to public-assistance sanctions.
So, Nebraska had to stop what it had been doing on behalf of some vulnerable unborn children in impoverished families. It was estimated the number of cases so impacted on an annual basis was more than 1,500.
Nevertheless, a way of re-instating access to prenatal care for these vulnerable unborn children, notwithstanding the disqualification of their mothers, was readily apparent. Another federal-state joint program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, recognizes the unborn as eligible recipients in their own right. For CHIP purposes, the definition of "child" explicitly includes unborn children "from conception to birth."
CHIP has a specific unborn-child option that states can apply for and implement. What’s more, the state’s financial match rate is less for CHIP than it is for "regular" Medicaid. This is a significant economic factor, but an even more significant economic factor is the undisputable evidence that prenatal health care results in healthier babies and considerable cost savings over time.
In early March 2010, Archbishop George Lucas, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and Bishop William Dendinger joined in writing to Governor Dave Heineman, urging him to authorize application for the CHIP unborn child option.
Describing it as "an important and urgent Pro Life matter," the Bishops wrote: "The immigration status of their mothers should not be allowed to adversely affect the health and well-being of the unborn children. When balanced against the legitimate public-policy concerns about illegal immigration, caring for the unborn children should be the higher priority, as the right thing to do."
Regrettably, the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services has declined to apply for CHIP’s unborn-child option. Readily apparent is that Governor Heineman’s administration has chosen to view this as an immigration issue rather than a pro-life or health-care issue. "No benefits for the illegals" is the political mantra.
The flaw in that assertion is that these unborn children, who are at risk of not receiving vitally important prenatal health care with this means of access denied, are not "illegals." Either they have no immigration status or they are presumptive citizens, because they will be citizens upon birth. In any event, they are CHIP-eligible.
In 2010, an effort was made—through LB 1110—to legislatively direct Nebraska DHHS to apply for the unborn-child option under CHIP. That effort failed to garner enough support. LB 599 is a renewed effort to accomplish the objective.
There are at least four reasons why LB 599 is a significant pro life issue; for which pro life Nebraskans urgently need to speak up in support of the unborn as the Legislature decides on public policy. First, it is potentially harmful to the health and even the lives of unborn children not to provide for their prenatal care. Second, failing to implement this specific and readily available means of access to prenatal health care for unborn children unjustly punishes them for the circumstances and actions of their mothers. Third, the lack of access to prenatal health care could be a decisive factor in causing some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth, each time a tragedy. Fourth, denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to the individual human dignity of the unborn and to pro life principles.
For more information ion this issue, visit www.nebcathcon.org.
The federal Department of Health and Human Services’ arrogant efforts to coerce all employers, including all but a narrow category of those with religious and moral objections, into purchasing health-insurance plans that cover abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, are receiving the uproar and criticism they deserve. The threat this "preventive services" mandate poses to religious liberty is unmistakable.
Including these products and procedures as governmentally emphasized, cost-free health care for virtually all who are insured, regardless of the moral objections of those who provide the coverage or pay the premiums, is not the only context in which religious liberty is under mounting pressure.
Last May, the same federal agency added a new requirement to its contracts for services for victims of human trafficking so that the Migration and Refugee Services agency of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had a record of exemplary, effective services, would be barred from participation if it did not provide the "full range" of reproductive services—namely, abortion, sterilization and contraception.
Last March, the U.S. Department of Justice stopped defending the congressionally enacted Defense of Marriage Act. Then in July, DOJ began filing briefs that actively attack DOMA’s constitutionality, arrogantly claiming that supporters of the duly enacted law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice. If "bigot" is applied by the government to churches and religiously motivated institutions and individuals because of their teachings and religious convictions about marriage as a natural union of a man and a woman, conflict over religious liberty will exist for years to come.
Issues of religious liberty and freedom of conscience are not exclusive to federal policy actions. There are state-level examples as well.
Several years ago, the Archdiocese of Boston was forced out of its adoption ministry because, as a matter of fidelity to the Church’s teaching on marriage, it could not place children with homosexual and lesbian couples as the state government was dictating. More recently, in Illinois, the state cancelled contracts with Catholic Charities agencies because they were not providing adoption and foster-care services in a manner consistent with a new state law that legalized same-sex civil unions.
Individuals are affected by threats to religious liberty as well. In New Jersey, a dozen nurses had to file a lawsuit against a state medical facility in order to overcome an employment dictate that they assist in abortions. In New Mexico, a photographer who declined to provide professional services for a same-sex commitment ceremony because of her religious convictions was ruled to have engaged in unlawful discrimination by the state’s human rights commission.
Here in Nebraska, a serious matter pits governmental coercion against religious liberty. Unless state officials resolve this in a way that respects convictions of conscience, it is likely that Catholic diocesan agencies will be forced to terminate their counseling ministries, including those provided as charity care.
The state licensing boards that govern Mental Health Practitioners (also encompassing the affiliated categories of marriage and family therapists, social workers and professional counselors) and Psychologists, as well as the State Board of Health, are pushing for regulations that would delineate "unprofessional conduct" to include an open-ended proscription of all discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity;" neither of which is defined. The Nebraska Catholic Conference has taken a stand that defining unprofessional conduct in such a manner will dictate the type and scope of counseling that must be provided or for which referrals must be made.
No person is denied access to any of the counseling services that diocesan agencies can and do provide in accord with Catholic moral teaching and values, using state-credentialed staff as required by state law. The issue at hand is not at all about excluding persons from services; it is about accommodating exclusion of a narrow context of services; namely, therapy or counseling that has as its purpose to validate, affirm, support and/or enhance behavior (e.g., sexual expression outside the bond of marriage between a man and a woman) that the credential holder considers immoral.
The firmly held position of the Nebraska Catholic Conference is that individuals who hold professional credentials have a right of religious liberty to act in accord with their religious beliefs and moral values. They should not be coerced into participating—whether by providing or by the complicity of making a referral—in professional services that contradict their religious beliefs and/or convictions of conscience. They should not be forced into the untenable position of either acting contrary to their convictions or being subjected to administrative punishment, including license suspension or revocation.
Without effective accommodation for religious beliefs and convictions of conscience, these regulations that the licensing boards intend to be a shield against discrimination will instead be a sword used to dictate the scope and type of counseling services that must be provided or for which a referral must be made. Fortunately, the Director of Public Health has not allowed this unjust policy, this trampling of religious liberty, to occur. But conscience protection has not been settled on either.
As the Nebraska Legislature maneuvers its way through the 39 legislative days remaining in its 2012 regular session, the word "cuts" is again going to be a prominent part of the session-related vocabulary.
That’s "cuts" as in spending cuts, which has become a fairly common usage during the economic downturn of recent vintage. Then there’s the common, but now relatively new idea in the current mix, "tax cuts," which pops up as the state’s economic outlook brightens and achieving greater stimulation is argued.
On the spending-cuts side of the equation, much of the attention will likely be focused on Nebraska’s medical-assistance program, i.e., Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which helps pay for health care for low-income and medically needy populations, including adults, children, seniors and those with chronic illnesses and disabilities. On Dec. 1 last past, the state Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Medicaid and Long-Term Care notified the Legislature, as required by law, of proposed cuts within its implementation of the Medicaid program, primarily in the form of increases to copayments for eligible recipients and limits on services.
State law requires DHHS to hold off on proposed administrative changes until after one regular session of the Legislature. The purpose is to provide the Legislature with an opportunity to consider the proposed actions, including cuts, and to overturn or modify them by legislation if there is enough support to do so.
Among the changes being proposed by DHHS—the essence of which amounts to cuts in coverage—are an increase from $1 to $2 in copayments on physical, speech and occupational therapies; an increase from $3 to $50 for non-emergency visits to emergency rooms; a limit of 240 hours per year on home health services (nursing and aides) for both adults and children; the elimination of private-duty nursing services, an increase in the level of care needed to receive personal care services; a limit on personal-assistance services to three-and-a-half hours per day and a 60-hour limit per month; elimination of oral nutritional supplements provided through the durable medical equipment program; a limit on behavioral health therapy visits to 60 per year. In addition, proposals are prepared to eliminate some items from coverage, e.g., eyeglasses, hearing aids and dentures for eligible adults, if federal Medicaid cuts happen.
Some costs would shift to other services or programs, but the net savings from the planned changes is projected to be $7.7 million for the second half of Fiscal Year 2013 and $15.4 million for Fiscal Year 2014.
In response to the proposals from DHHS, Omaha Senator Jeremy Nordquist introduced LB 952. It would prohibit implementation of the proposed changes, which amount to cuts in services. The bill was assigned to the Appropriations Committee, which held a public hearing Jan. 30.
On the other side of the "cuts" equation there’s LB 970. It was introduced by the chairperson of the Legislature’s Revenue Committee, Sen. Abbie Cornett, on behalf of Governor Heineman. The proposal has three facets. It would reduce the individual state income tax by lowering the tax rates and expanding the income brackets. It would reduce the top corporate income tax rate. And it would entirely repeal the inheritance tax, which is imposed on the beneficiaries of decedents’ estates and paid to the counties.
The fiscal note on LB 970 projects a drop in state revenue of $51.8 million for the budget year that ends June 30, 2013 and considerably more than that in out-years.
So, there is an interesting juxtaposition of proposals here. Cuts in medical-assistance spending on one hand; cuts in revenue on the other. It certainly seems to raise questions of whether or not the state can afford the tax cuts, or whether the cuts in medical assistance are really necessary and justified. What’s more, there are other pressing needs as well, such as child-welfare reform, meeting the needs of those with developmental disabilities and all components of education. Keep in mind, too, that last year the Legislature and the Governor agreed to ear-marking some General Funds for construction and maintenance of highways and roads.
It all boils down to decisions about priorities. These are tough decisions for the policy makers, which they will confront between now and mid-April. Stay tuned.
And finally…..
After about four hours of floor debate last week, LB 276, proposing to repeal the death penalty and replace it with imprisonment for life without parole, moved quietly to the side of the road, so to speak. Most likely it won’t be on the Legislature’s agenda any more this session. Regrettably, the votes aren’t there to pass it.
As long as the desire for revenge is a greater motivation for lawmakers and their constituents than a desire for effective justice and true concern for victims, legal authority for state-imposed killing of convicted murderers—answering violence with violence—will remain in place.
As one of the early, official acts of their 2012 session, Nebraska lawmakers overwhelmingly passed Legislative Resolution 362, recognizing Jan. 5 of this year as the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Unicameral Legislature.
It was on that date in 1937, that U.S. Senator George Norris missed the opening of Congress in order to address the first members of the first Unicameral. Norris’s speech emphasized the opportunity those legislators had to expand the horizons of representative government through the innovative device of a unicameral. It was a concept he championed—the "Nebraska Experiment"—believing that a one-house system would curb abuse of conference committees and promote transparency in government proceedings. His concept also included election of the legislators on a nonpartisan ballot.
Nebraska voters had approved the idea at the General Election in 1934. Thereby, Nebraska became the first and only state with a one-house legislature. That’s still fact.
Norris represented Nebraska for five terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, from 1903 through 1912, and then for five terms in the U.S. Senate, from 1913 through 1942. Three of his famous undertakings were sponsorship of legislation creating the Tennessee Valley Authority (1933), which enabled dam construction on the Tennessee River to control flooding and general low-cost electricity; legislation creating the Rural Electrification Act, which brought electricity to rural areas throughout the country and ensured public ownership of the power generation and delivery system; and the Norris-La Guardia Act, which was a boon to working men and women throughout the nation.
Norris died in McCook in 1944. A law enacted in 1981 already designates Jan. 5 of each year as George W. Norris Day. In addition, in 1984, the Legislature’s chamber at the State Capitol was named in his honor.
Transitional Program Helps with Pre-Existing Conditions
The fate of federal health care reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, is "up in the air" to say the least. It’s the law, but it’s under significant legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear and decide at least some of the constitutional issues. The Act might survive. It might fail in part. It might collapse in total. It could be that. Justice Anthony Kennedy controls the fate, as he once again appears to be the swing vote on a major issue. Stay tuned.
Parts of the Act are already operative. One such part is the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). Available since July 2010, it provides a health care coverage option for children and adults throughout the country who otherwise are denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. Currently in most states, private health insurance companies can refuse to insure an individual for that reason.
Nebraska is one of 23 states in which the plan is federally operated.
In order to be eligible to enroll in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, an individual has to be a citizen or national of the U.S. or reside here legally. He or she has to have been without health care coverage for at least the last six months. And he or she must have a pre-existing condition or have been denied coverage because of a health condition. The latter two criteria are state-law determinations.
Applicants who are approved as eligible can choose from three plan options, with different levels of premiums, calendar-year deductibles, prescription deductibles and prescription co-pays. One option is a Health Savings Account. Each option covers preventive care at 100 percent, with no deductibles.
PCIP covers a range of health benefits, including primary and specialty care, hospital care, and prescription drugs. There are no waiting periods for coverage to kick in after its effective date, even if it’s to treat a pre-existing condition. There is no lifetime maximum or cap on the amount of covered health care. There is provider choice.
For PCIP/Nebraska, premiums range from $132 per month to $568 depending upon the age of the insured and the coverage option selected. For example, the potential premium for a 50-year-old under the standard plan is $303. The maximum a Nebraska participant can pay out-of-pocket for covered services in a calendar year is $5,950 in network and $7,000 out-of-network. Nebraska’s provider network includes more than 6,700 physicians, 460 pharmacies and 73 hospitals throughout the state.
The current PCIP program is considered transitional; to last until 2014. Then, if what is scheduled to happen survives the legal storm, insurers will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to individuals with any pre-existing condition.
More information about the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is available at www.pcip.gov. Click on "Find Your State" to learn how it works in Nebraska.
And finally… Nebraska’s 49 legislators are paid a salary of $12,000 a year. That’s been the salary since 1988. It’s in the state constitution. It’s unreasonably low. On the second day of this session, Senator Scott Lautenbaugh from Omaha introduced a legislative resolution (LR373CA) proposing to place before the voters in November an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution that would boost the salary to $32,000 per year. There might be enough support to move something less than that to the ballot.
When he met in October with Italy’s interior minister, Pope Benedict XVI described civic leadership as having "an almost sacred character." "Therefore," the Pope stated, "it must be exercised with great dignity and a deep sense of responsibility."
Those values the Pope emphasized—dignity and responsibility—would certainly seem to be highly regarded standards for all contexts of the exercise of temporal authority. For instance, they come to mind in the context of the second session of the 102nd Nebraska Legislature, newly underway at the State Capitol, having convened on Jan. 4 for up to 60 days of lawmaking.
Fortunately for Nebraskans, dignity and responsibility prevail far more often than not when the Legislature is doing its business.
The second regular session of each Nebraska Legislature—the "even-year" session"—has legislation available for action right from its opening gavel. This is due to the fact that legislation not finally decided during the first year of a Legislature—always odd-numbered years—"carry over" to the ensuing year. Legislative bills introduced in 2011, but neither passed nor indefinitely postponed, began this session at the stage of the process they were at when that first session ended.
Approximately 400 legislative bills (also including a few substantive resolutions that are addressed procedurally as bills) carried over from 2011 to this year. The total includes 38 bills that are on "General File," which is the first stage of floor debate by the body as a whole. The session started with seven bills at the second stage, "Select File," and one held on Final Reading. The other 350 or so carry-over bills are under the jurisdiction of the committee to which they were assigned. Every one of these bills was the subject of a public hearing conducted last year by the respective committee.
While there is carry-over legislation to work on, new legislation is being introduced as well. Once the committees begin holding public hearings on these newly introduced bills, the legislators will spend mornings in floor sessions and afternoons in their committee assignments.
With the foregoing information as background, what’s an example of a carry-over bill that is likely to attract early attention?
Perhaps it will be LB 276, which proposes to repeal the death penalty as punishment for aggravated first-degree murder. It would replace execution with imprisonment for life without parole, subject only to the constitutionally-established authority of the Board of Pardons—three elected statewide office-holders: Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State— to commute life sentences to specific terms.
LB 276 had a public hearing last March 4 and was subsequently advanced to the full Legislature, i.e., General File, by a 6-2 vote of the Judiciary Committee. It was not designated a priority bill, so it received no action and remained on General File.
While it may be doubtful that LB 276 would have enough support—not just to advance and pass with 25 votes, but to reach 30 in order to override an almost-certain veto by the Governor, the debate nonetheless would be worthwhile.
In addition to the longstanding policy arguments relating to capital punishment, as well as new data and information, there are two other, more specific aspects we hope draw attention and comment if this debate occurs.
First and foremost would be more information and more probing about the messy situation Nebraska has been in regarding acquisition of drugs to carry out a lethal-injection execution. Whether Nebraskans, including the legislators, view this quagmire as a prevailing reason, or yet another reason, to repeal the death penalty, or not, this matter ought to be thoroughly scrutinized as a matter of legislative record.
Secondly, we hope there would be some expression of concern about what happened at the Republican presidential-candidate debate in California in early September. As part of his introduction of a question about the death penalty, national newsman Brian Williams, serving as the moderator, mentioned the candidate’s (Texas Governor Rick Perry) record of authorizing 234 executions in a little more than 10 years. The audience burst into clapping and cheering. It was a chilling reaction to such a somber reality. How does it reflect on society? How would both defenders and opponents of the death penalty explain it? Such questions are ripe for discussion.
And finally.... The Unicameral Legislature, which consists of 49 state senators, has two new members in 2012. They fill vacancies that occurred since the 2011 regular session concluded. District 33 office holder, Senator Dennis Utter from Hastings died Dec. 27. He served admirably, as a competent and dedicated legislator, who made valuable contributions to legislative outcomes. His replacement had not yet been appointed as of the first day of the new session. Senator R. Paul Lambert, from Plattsmouth, was appointed by Governor Heineman on Oct. 7 to replace Dave Pankonin, who resigned as the legislator for District 2. Senator Lambert had a "baptism by fire," as his service began in time for November’s special session on the pipeline issues.
As reported and hailed by the American Federation for Children, the state Department of Revenue in Georgia has already approved $50 million in donations for 2011 pursuant to the Georgia Scholarship Tax Credit Program.
This program allows individuals and businesses to receive state income-tax credits for donations to specially established organizations that provide tuition scholarships so that children in the state can attend other-than-public elementary and secondary schools. More than 6,000 scholarships were awarded for this school term.
Individuals in Georgia can receive a credit against their year’s tax liability for up to $1,000 in scholarship-program donations. For married couples, the cap is $2,500. For businesses, the annual maximum is 75 percent of their state income tax liability.
The $50 million represents the maximum allowed for 2011 by the authorizing legislation. It marks the first time the ceiling has been reached, but the program has only a three-year history. As a testament to its success and value, Georgia lawmakers this year passed a modest expansion, which will increase the statewide maximum each year from 2012 through 2018 by the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index.
Georgia’s scholarship tax-credit program is not unique. Similar policies are in place and working in Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Iowa. A newly enacted program is getting underway in Oklahoma.
In Iowa, legislation approved on July 29 of this year increases the cap on available tax credits to $8.75 million for the 2012 tax year, up from $7.5 million. Based on the program’s history, that increase will make available approximately 1,500 more private-school scholarships.
More information about these existing programs is available from websites such as www.edchoice.org and www.federationforchildren.org.
Legislation proposing to establish a tax-credit-supported scholarship program in Nebraska exists in the form of LB 50. It was introduced last January by Omaha Senator Bob Krist. After a public hearing in February, the bill was not acted upon by the Legislature’s Revenue Committee, but, importantly, is carrying over to the 2012 legislative session, still under the committee’s jurisdiction.
LB 50 proposes a state income-tax credit for donations made by individuals and corporations to specially established, state-certified organizations that would be obligated to distribute almost all of their annual revenue—a small portion being reserved for operational costs—as private-school-tuition scholarships. The maximum amount of each credit would be 65 percent of the taxpayer’s qualifying donations during the year. LB 50 proposes a ceiling of $10 million in total tax credits for the first year.
In 2009, an independent fiscal analysis of LB 67—a predecessor of, and similar to LB 50—determined that a savings of $51 million in state expenditures could be realized over a 10-year period, given certain presumptions about program design and usage.
Parents and patrons associated with Catholic schools in Nebraska should get behind LB 50 and take action to achieve Revenue-Committee advancement of the bill to the full Legislature early in the upcoming session, which starts Jan. 4. If the bill does not receive favorable action in 2012, its life will be ended and the process will have to start over with a new bill in 2013.
The Revenue Committee has eight members. They are Senators Abbie Cornett (chair), Galen Hadley, LeRoy Louden, Dennis Utter, Pete Pirsch, Paul Schumacher, Deb Fischer and Greg Adams. An affirmative vote from five of the eight will be necessary for the bill to advance.
Each of these senators can be contacted by e-mail using their first-name initial and last name @leg.ne.gov (example: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) or by links found at the Legislature’s website: www.nebraskalegislature.gov.
More information about LB 50 is available by visiting the Nebraska Catholic Conference’s website: www.nebcathcon.org/education or by contacting Jeremy Murphy, the Conference’s Associate Director for Education Issues and executive secretary of the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; 402-477-7517.
And finally….
The University of Nebraska Board of Regents did not vote on the proposal to extend spousal-based employment benefits to the cohabiting partners (irrespective of gender) of unmarried employees at its meeting Dec. 8. The matter was postponed until a later meeting, most likely that scheduled to take place Jan. 27.
There is still time for constituents to contact the members of the Board of Regents regarding this proposal, which would treat cohabiting partners the same as spouses, thus manipulating and undermining marriage. One of the points that can be made is that the proposal is constitutionally suspect under Article I, Sec. 29 of the Nebraska Constitution, which prohibits any state recognition of the uniting of two persons of the same gender in a domestic partnerships or "similar same-sex relationship."
From this observer’s perspective, reflective of the fact that the Nebraska Catholic Conference had no particular, substantive stake or interest in the outcome, it appears that the Nebraska Legislature had a remarkably successful special session during November. Perhaps it will be judged historic, given the nature and scope of the interests and issues.
The 49 legislators spent 15 legislative days, between Nov. 1 and Nov. 22, addressing "the pipeline issue." They ended up passing a bill, LB 1, which creates a regulatory framework for the future siting of oil pipelines in the state; and another bill, LB 4, which authorizes the state Department of Environmental Quality to do a supplemental environmental impact study (EIS) for any oil pipeline project, in collaboration with the federal government.
This legislative activity happened as a result of concerns about the location of TransCanada Corporation’s Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska. Landowners and environmentalists in particular had a strong outcry against routing the pipeline through the Sandhills region, over the precious resource that the Ogallala aquifer is. The concerns rose to a level that Governor Heineman viewed as extraordinary circumstances, triggering his authority to call the Legislature into a special session.
Leading to action by the full Legislature, more than 150 people testified during 25 hours of public hearings conducted as part of the special session.
All of the circumstantial details seem heavily complicated, but apparently there was a seismic breakthrough on day nine of the session. That’s when the Legislature’s top officer, the Speaker, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk, announced that TransCanada had agreed to move the Keystone XL pipeline route out of the Sandhills.
With that development, LB 1 became feasible and LB 4 became the vehicle for the state to have a role in determining the substitute route. Both bills then moved quickly through the legislative process. LB 1 passed on a 48-0 vote—one legislator was absent, but entered a statement for the record that he would have voted "aye." LB 4 passed on a 46-0 vote; two senators abstained and the absent member again recorded that he would have voted "aye." Both bills quickly received the Governor’s approval.
Two other bills were passed by the Legislature without opposition and approved by the Governor as part of the special session. These bills spend money, giving state taxpayers a role in the special session. LB 4A appropriates $2 million from the General Fund to pay for the upcoming EIS, in order to ensure its independence and credibility. LB 2 appropriates about $143,000 to pay for the costs of the 15-day special session.
The special, perhaps historic, process had a cost, but the elected officials, even the most fiscally conservative, concluded that success was worth it.
***************
Add Utah to the list of states being sued by the U.S. Department of Justice on grounds that "it is clearly unconstitutional for a state to set is own immigration policy." Other states with such laws under challenge are Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina.
Three parts of Utah’s laws are being challenged. One is the requirement that law enforcement officers verify the legal status of all who are arrested for felonies and high-level misdemeanors. Another is the authorization of warrantless arrests of suspected unauthorized immigrants. The third is the new state crime for harboring or transporting any unauthorized immigrant.
Sections similar to all three of these constitutionally suspect provisions are included in Nebraska’s LB 48, which is held by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
The lawsuit filed against Utah’s legislation does not include its unique guest-worker permit, or its provision that allows employers to sponsor immigrant workers. These provisions are constitutionally problematic as well, for entering a realm preempted by federal law, but DOJ has concluded that they are not yet ripe for challenge.
Meanwhile, Alabama’s "tough new immigration law" recently added a new twist to its growing notoriety.
Several years ago, Alabama used tax incentives to lure the first Mercedes-Benz production plant to the U.S. Two weeks ago, a company executive had only his German ID card when he was stopped for a traffic infraction. That card was insufficient under the new law to document legal presence in the U.S. So, in accord with the law, the executive was taken into custody—put in the pokey—until someone retrieved his passport.
And finally… Among several smug assertions in his "Midlands Voices" op-ed article supporting proposed eligibility for University of Nebraska employment-benefits for domestic partners of unmarried employees, a UNO professor included this: "If…President Milliken’s proposal takes effect, no one will be forced to do anything. Those who do not support same-sex or opposite-sex partnerships need not adopt one."
Nebraska taxpayers would be forced to pay for the state’s subsidization of the cost of the expanded benefit, as well as costs of litigation if the suspect policy is challenged for violating the Nebraska Constitution. Nebraska citizens would be forced to accept their state university system holding up cohabitation and domestic partnerships as the equal of marriage.
Perhaps as soon as December 8 upcoming, the eight elected members of the University of Nebraska Board of Regents will vote on whether or not to expand eligibility for participation in the University system’s employee-benefits program to include cohabiting partners of unmarried employees.
Under the current program, married employees can elect to have their spouses (and dependent children) covered by their employee benefits. Under the proposed, expanded program, spousal benefits now available to the husbands and wives of married employees—most notably taxpayer-subsidized group health-insurance coverage—would be extended to the cohabiting partners, whether of the same or opposite gender, of unmarried employees. Similarly, a new category of family coverage would be created for unmarried employees, their cohabiting partners and their dependent children.
The expanded coverage is being proposed and pushed by the president of the University of Nebraska system and the chancellors of the four campuses: Lincoln, Omaha, Kearney and the Medical Center. They say it is necessary to compete in the major marketplace for hiring faculty and staff.
In order to steer attention away from the idea of same-sex domestic partnerships, presumably, the administrators are proposing what they describe as an "employee-plus-one" category. It would enable any unmarried, U of N employee to extend his or her benefits coverage to a "qualifying adult." This would be someone, regardless of gender, who is at least 18 years of age; who has resided in the employee’s household for at least the past 12 months and intends to remain there indefinitely; and who is directly dependent upon, or financially interdependent with the employee, as documented.
As important as who can be a plus-one, there also are explicit exclusions from the category, i.e., blood relatives: parents, siblings, nieces, nephews, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and children other than those eligible for coverage as dependents. Also excluded are renters, boarders, tenants and employees.
There are economic, legal, social and moral considerations why the so-called "employee-plus-one" expansion of employment benefits by the University of Nebraska is a matter of legitimate public concern, notwithstanding the significant importance of access to health-care coverage. The proponents’ presupposition that the University of Nebraska will be better off if it provides for plus-one benefits deserves scrutiny.
University administrators have estimated the cost of adding the plus-one category as between $750,000 and $1.5 million per year. (That’s the health-insurance cost; it doesn’t include any cost of extending other, "soft" benefits.) Compared to current overall costs, it’s modest. Nevertheless, it’s not an insignificant amount of additional expenditure. Quite likely, it will be paid for by the taxpayers.
In 2000, 70 percent of Nebraska’s voting citizenry approved a two-sentence amendment to the Nebraska Constitution, which became Article I, Sec. 29: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."
State officials and agencies, including the University of Nebraska, are prohibited by this part of the constitution from according recognition to any uniting of two persons of the same sex in a marriage-like relationship. The proposed plus-one benefits program excludes blood relatives, who can’t marry an employee. Same-sex partners also can’t marry an employee under Nebraska law, but they are not excluded. The plus-one proposal thus appears to be a pretext for providing state benefits to same-sex cohabitants of university employees. At best, it is constitutionally suspect and open to challenge.
Most significantly, making unmarried, cohabiting partners of university employees eligible for spousal-equivalent benefits, the same as if the parties were married couples, raises issues of social policy and morality.
The idea manipulates marriage and family. It says, in effect, that marriage is no different than merely living together for some time with some level of economic interdependence, thus further undermining the institution that is still the foundation for family and for providing a healthy environment for children.
In effect, the policy would say that marriage doesn’t matter. Is that what Nebraskans want their tax-supported state university to stand for as a matter of policy and education? Does that serve the common good?
Instead of being just like other institutions, including those in the Big Ten, why not stand above them and compete for personnel on the basis of truth?
Nebraska citizens and taxpayers who are concerned about this proposal affecting marriage and family should express their concerns in brief messages to the members of the Board of Regents. And, sooner rather than later. The eight Regents are Tim Clare, Lincoln; Howard Hawks, Omaha; Chuck Hassebrook, Lyons; Bob Whitehouse, Omaha; Jim McClurg, Lincoln; Kent Schroeder, Kearney; Bob Phares, North Platte; and Randy Ferlic, Omaha. Their e-mails are first-name initial and last name @nebraska.edu. Visit nebraska.edu/board/board-members.html.
Nebraska U.S. Senator Mike Johanns, along with Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, spearheaded a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius protesting her agency’s regulation that would specifically include contraceptives and sterilization in mandated insurance coverage for "preventive services." Twenty-six other Republican senators signed onto the letter.
The message to the Secretary is spot-on correct. In part it states:
"Whatever the merits of your description of IOM’s (Institute of Medicine) objectivity, relying on IOM does not absolve you of your own obligation as a pubic servant, and a Senate-confirmed executive-branch officer, to consider the ramifications that IOM’s recommendation would have on religious persons and institutions."
And more:
"Ultimately, our concern is with the lack of due consideration given by you and your Department to the adverse impact that IOM’s recommendations would have on our core constitutional value of religious liberty."
The Johanns-Hatch letter also quotes from comments submitted by the Catholic Bishops of Kansas in objection to the preventive-services mandate, which stems from provisions of the federal health-care-reform legislation. Earlier in her political career, the HHS Secretary was the Governor of Kansas. Included in the quoted statements is the Bishops’ description of the policy proposal as the "heavy-handed exercise of federal power."
In addition to Senator Johanns’ involvement, U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry from Nebraska’s First Congressional District is the co-introducer of legislation that seeks to trump the coercive impact of the preventive-services mandate and restore respect for religious liberty and rights of conscience.
Terrific Civics Lesson
It appears probable that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of a key part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, federal health-care reform legislation, during its current term, which runs until next June. Less than a month ago, the U.S. Justice Department, on the side of upholding the law, decided not to appeal the decision of a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to the full court. That set up an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is likely to take the case, because there are different appellate decisions in different circuits. And, there might be a ruling prior to the 2012 General Election.
The provision of the law being most specifically reviewed and decided is that which would require all Americans who have taxable income to certify by 2014 that they have health insurance and if they don’t, they would be subject to a tax penalty. Whether or not the law in its entirety is at stake is speculative at best.
Last June, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Obama Administration and ruled that the provision is constitutional. In mid-August, the 11th Circuit’s decision was that the insurance-or-penalty requirement is unconstitutional. In early September, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit tossed out two challenges to the law on various grounds, including lack of standing on the part of the Attorney General of Virginia. Yet pending is a ruling from the D.C. Circuit. Moreover, the current score at the District Court level, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal, is three decisions that uphold the law and two that don’t.
Big issues aside, PPACA is evolving into a great civics lesson, involving the roles and power of all three branches of government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. What’s more, interpretations of the U.S. Constitution on a matter as pervasive as health care constitute a fascinating dimension of the public-policy processes.
And finally…
And finally, from another realm…. Do you think some of those snooty Big-Ten-Conference traditionalists paid attention to the fact that newcomer Nebraska already has won its first conference championship? Kudos to NU’s speech and debate team. The margin of victory nearly doubled the score of runner-up Northwestern. Some Big-Ten old-timers probably assumed Nebraska was just a volleyball and football school.
In 2009, a decision was made and an initiative launched by the Heineman Administration to privatize to a considerable extent Nebraska’s child-welfare services, which encompass foster care and interaction with the juvenile-justice system.
The thought was, apparently, that it would be cost-effective, fiscally prudent, and better all the way around for state government to contract with private-sector firms and businesses for a lot of service-delivery and management.
The reform initiative was given the positive, encouraging title, "Families Matter."
Undoubtedly, state government is motivated by, and committed to, a desire to be responsive to the welfare of vulnerable children and hurting families. That had better be true, for the sake of the common good. But the challenges of responsibly and effectively implementing privatization have proved to be whopping.
Perhaps not unexpectedly, this reform initiative, which gradually and ultimately would result in complete privatization of child-welfare services, has encountered some problems. The transitions from government to private sector have not had smooth sailing. Quite likely, the seas of change have been a whole lot more turbulent than those steering and manning the ship anticipated. As evidence, consider these examples of news and editorial headlines from September just past:
"Foley blasts HHS in audit." "Audit slams state’s management of millions in child welfare funds." "Troubling set of problems." "Key agency taking more fire." "More changes demanded following DHHS audit."
And there’s more: "Why didn’t HHS share highly critical audit with Governor Heineman?" "Heineman’s likely hot over administration’s screw up in child welfare services." "Governor offers no excuses for child welfare reform snags." "Child welfare caseloads still heavy; private contractors have same staffing problems that plagued HHS." "Time to end the confusion; time to fix child welfare system."
The audit given attention generated a 152-page report by the State Auditor of Public Accounts, Mike Foley. He presented the report Sept. 7, at a public hearing conducted by the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee. It created some big waves.
The audit found serious fault with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) with regard to fiscal management, control and accountability as related to child-welfare services. The report cited particular issues of escalating costs—up 27 percent between 2009 and 2011—lack of documentation, lost records, overpayments, a "lackadaisical approach" to scrutinizing subcontractors (assuming such scrutiny is a responsibility under contract) and lack of cooperation with the audit itself.
More than one news outlet referred to the audit report and/or the Auditor’s comments as "scathing."
Since the privatization initiative was launched in 2009, three of the original five contractors have gone out of business or quit. Regarding one of those contractors, the Auditor’s report concludes that the contractor was overpaid under its services contracts with DHHS by more than $1.8 million. Then DHHS entered into a settlement agreement that cost the State an additional $2 million. And then, DHHS somehow overpaid the settlement agreement by $127,472.
Among other findings: contractors failed to meet contractual benchmarks in terms of services provided and, in another instance, according to the audit report, service-providing employees of a subcontractor were paid between $10.50 and $13 per hour, but the contractor was reimbursed by DHHS at $47 per hour.
The Auditor’s work examined management, not quality of services. The latter context, as well as the overall situation, is being investigated by the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee. Look for some form of oversight legislation when the Unicameral convenes a new session in January upcoming.
One of the foremost problems encountered by contractors for child-welfare services—and it isn’t any different when the State is the services provider—is the two-pronged problem of caseloads that are too high and worker turnover. When caseloads exceed sound standards, that’s threatening effectiveness, if not asking for trouble.
In an odd way, this situation is sort of like the situation with Husker football. It’s not time to abandon the ship, but it is time to learn from mistakes, build upon bad experiences and move forward, meeting the challenges and getting better.
In the case of child-welfare, any greater jeopardy, instability or declining outcomes for children are unacceptable. The priority is unmistakable.
And finally... in another realm, from sharp-as-a-tack, George Mason University Law Professor, Helen Alvare: "If you want to give new meaning to the word ‘outsider’ in Washington (D.C.) today, identify yourself prominently as a conscientious objector to birth control as a tool in the ‘war against unintended pregnancy.’ A giant federal health care bureaucracy becomes your enemy. So does one of its closest collaborators, the self-described champion of all things female, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America."
Something’s different about September. Something changes with its arrival. It’s school and the renewed emphasis on education. It’s football and volleyball, and cooler temperatures, and football, and staying closer to home, and football.
It’s also a good time to clear the desk of some accumulated notes and clippings, while trying to keep this Big-Ten thing straight. Are the Huskers Leaders or Legends?
Several e-mailers have sought to make sure we were aware of the controversy that swirled when Nebraska’s Attorney General, while in his candidate-for-U.S.-Senate campaigning mode, compared welfare recipients to scavenging raccoons, albeit pretty darned smart raccoons. Yes, we’ve seen the video, and read plenty about it.
The story he tells is that a rural Nebraska road-repair project has to be halted due to the discovery of some environmentally endangered beetles. So the construction engineers devise a plan to capture the beetles and provide them with relocation rescue. The plan involves using dead rats to lure the beetles into buckets. But the raccoons are watching this and, because they are not stupid, they figure out that the easy way is to wait for darkness and then scavenge the beetles straight from the buckets.
Just like welfare recipients all across America, if we don’t incent them to work, they’re gonna take the easy route—that’s the essence of the candidate’s comments comparing welfare recipients to the raccoons.
We understand why his spokesman would later say the candidate regrets the comments—he should—and that they were "inartful." Yes, and in poor taste, and offensive, and ridiculous. (On the other hand, some of the gestures were pretty entertaining, such as depicting scooping grapes out of a jar and using a hand-held camera to videotape the action.)
Most to be disliked about the Attorney General/Senate candidate’s failed analogy is that it played to misconceptions and stereotypes and failed to acknowledge realities of the welfare mechanism in Nebraska. That mechanism is not an easy route. Welfare-to-work is the policy. Work incentives are used. There are requirements for being eligible and retaining eligibility.
Nebraska policy makers reformed the basic welfare program—aid-for-families-with-dependent-children—a number of years ago. Recipients have to establish they are poor: there are income tests and resource limits. Cash assistance is time-limited and conditioned upon participating in "Employment First," i.e., education, skills-development and/or work programs. Able-bodied recipients must sign agreements obligating them to participate in these programs. Reneging on an agreement ends cash assistance.
There were no strings attached, or conditions to be met, or obligations to be fulfilled in order for the raccoons to gobble up the beetles. So, a lousy comparison.
************
It will be interesting to see how Nebraska policy makers proceed on the health-insurance-exchange component required by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. By January 1, 2013, states have to demonstrate to the federal government that they will have these insurance marketplaces up and running by a year later.
These exchanges/marketplaces are intended to facilitate health-insurance purchasing for otherwise-uninsured low- and moderate-income individuals and families and also small businesses. The exchanges also will be the means by which premium-assistance subsidies will be distributed and for Medicaid and Medicare enrollment.
If a state will not or cannot set up an exchange, either on its own or as part of a regional, multi-state approach, the federal government will step in and do it. A state-federal-partnership model is a newly identified possibility.
Recently, the Nebraska Legislature’s Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee and Health and Human Services Committee conducted a joint briefing, which included presentations from the state Department of Insurance and by the state director of Medicaid Services. They await a lot more guidance from the federal government.
************
From the headlines-that-spark-curiosity file: First, "Death more likely than losing federal job." Job security for all federal workers was 99.43 percent in 2010. Second, "Regent guilty of taking shovel"; a member of the NU Board of Regents was convicted of larceny, but acquitted of trespassing; a lot of arrogance in that tiny story. Third, "Bar Opens in Ohio Statehouse"; yessir, a full-service bar in the basement café.
And finally…. If we didn’t know better, and we think we do, we might have concluded that Aug. 24 full-page newspaper ad paid for by the Democratic State Central Committee about the Attorney General/Senate Candidate—"The Tail (sic) of Jon Cumberland Bruning, Part One"—had some input from former state senator Ernie Chambers. Part of the text was presented in poetic verse and rhyme, accompanied by a cartoon drawing. Senator Chambers was well-known around the capitol for using such a form and approach for expressing his views on legislation and personalities.
And finally #2…… Keep this in mind: there’s an "N" in Legends.
The story of Jose Antonio Vargas is fascinating and compelling; the kind that fits the movie mold. Someday, perhaps.
He is an award-winning journalist who has worked for several high-profile news enterprises, including the San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Daily News, Washington Post and Huffington Post. He covered the role of technology and social media during the 2008 presidential race. He has visited the White House and covered a state dinner. He was one of a team of Washington Post reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech University in 2007.
Jose Antonio Vargas is also an illegal immigrant. He has been unauthorized since arriving in this country 18 years ago. He disclosed his status publicly in an essay published in the New York Times Magazine June 25 of this year.
Vargas is a native of the Philippines. In 1993, when he was 12, his single mother, seeking to provide a better life for her son, arranged for him to fly with an "uncle" to the U.S. to live with his grandparents, who were naturalized American citizens residing in California. He learned later that the "uncle" was really a "coyote," who was paid $4,500 by the grandfather to smuggle the youngster into the U.S., using a fake name and a fake passport. Subsequently, his grandfather found a way to purchase a new, fake Filipino passport in Jose Antonio’s real name and a fraudulent "green card." Using the fake passport, he was able to obtain a Social Security number and card, although that card designated a restriction for INS-authorized work only. His grandfather doctored that card with a well-placed sliver of white tape and then made photocopies that looked like copies of a regular, unrestricted Social Security card.
Vargas graduated from high school in California. He was able to attend and graduate from San Francisco State University, thanks to a specialized scholarship program that had no inquiry about immigration status. During college, matters fell into place for some internships. After graduation, he continued his career as a journalist, which has included "interviewing some of the most famous people in the country."
"On the surface, I’ve created a good life. I’ve lived the American dream," Vargas wrote in his recent essay. "But I am still an undocumented immigrant. And that means living a different kind of reality. It means going about my day in fear of being found out. It means rarely trusting people, even those closest to me, with who I really am…. It means reluctantly, even painfully, doing things I know are wrong and unlawful. And it has meant relying on a sort of 21st-century underground railroad of supporters: people who took an interest in my future and took risks for me.
"I’m done running. I’m exhausted. I don’t want that life anymore."
Some have called Jose Antonio Vargas courageous for his admissions. Others have said there is nothing courageous about admitting to being unlawful and to using fraudulent documents.
"I don’t know what the consequences will be of telling my story," Vargas wrote.
It seems more doubtful than likely that an enforcement action involving deportation will be initiated against Vargas. He doesn’t seem to fit the most recent indication of enforcement policy.
On June 17, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a memorandum advising agency personnel of additional guidance for "exercising prosecutorial discretion consistent with the civil immigration enforcement priorities of the agency…." Particular care and consideration are to be given to the following negative factors: individuals who pose a risk to national security; serious felons, repeat offenders, or individuals with a lengthy criminal record or any kind; known gang members or others who pose a clear danger to public safety; individuals with an egregious record of immigration violations, including those with a record of illegal re-entry (emphasis added) and those who have engaged in immigration fraud.
One impact of the Vargas story is that it adds to the bulk of evidence that the U.S. immigration system is inefficient, ineffective, broken and greatly in need of comprehensive reform. A 12-year-old immigrant who proceeds to cultivate his opportunities into noteworthy accomplishments and success, as well as tax payments, and who, after 18 years of doing so, thinks of himself as an American, should have a path of conditions to earn legalization and should not face the consequences of deportation, which now include a minimum 10-year bar on even reapplying for a visa.
And finally…. It didn’t take long for there to be a legislative push back on the memorandum issued by the head of ICE. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) blasted the memo and is already sponsoring legislation that would freeze the administration’s power to grant "amnesty" to unauthorized immigrants by prioritizing enforcement. Apparently, Rep. Smith has concluded that emphasizing priorities-based prosecutorial discretion is too loose and dangerous. His reaction seems to fit what a media blog from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently called "Whac-a-Mole immigration policy."
As the Obama administration and members of Congress continue to deal with the double dose of difficulty presented by deficits and debt, the complexity and extent of the challenge cannot be over-appreciated.
Regardless of how we might judge the mixture of causes of the current crisis, the reality is that decision makers are confronting incredibly difficult economic, political and moral decisions and choices. The stakes are high, not just politically, but because deficits and the debt stemming from them threaten the economy and burden future generations.
In letters to members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, representatives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed this sentiment: "We also wish to clearly acknowledge the difficult challenges that the Congress, Administration and government at all levels face to get our (nation’s) financial house in order: fulfilling the demands of justice and moral obligations to future generations, controlling future deficits and debt; and protecting the lives and dignity of those who are poor and vulnerable."
The debt limit is the most immediate challenge and priority. It is the total amount the federal government is authorized to borrow in order to meet existing obligations, such as Social Security, Medicare benefits, military salaries, tax refunds and approximately $200 billion per year in interest. Without action, the nation’s debt is predicted to bust through the current ceiling of $14.3 trillion Aug. 2. That’s the deadline. If nothing changes, then on Aug. 3, due-and-payable obligations would substantially exceed available funds, resulting in a U.S. government default, an unprecedented, historical event. The ceiling has been raised before, several times. Failing to do so now would create severe economic consequences in the U.S. and around the world.
A soft solution—but what might ultimately happen, given the political gridlock—would be to merely increase the debt limit again, on a short term basis, in order to dodge the default. In other words, boost the number and carry that "fix" ahead some.
That would be inopportune if not irresponsible, because key players from both sides of the political isle realize that the debt is an accumulation of annual deficits (e.g., $1.5 trillion) and that deficit reduction is essential. But will there be meaningful action? Is there a politically achievable plan for this serious problem?
Deficits are reduced by decreasing spending or by increasing revenue, or by a combination of both. Republicans say, generally, that any tax increases are a deal breaker. Democrats, including the President say, generally, that cuts in entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, are a deal breaker.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, while underscoring the importance of fiscal responsibility and the need to address the budget deficit, calls for a balanced and inclusive approach, shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary spending and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly. The Bishops are by no means alone in calling for a balanced approach; other denominational leaders and advocates for the poor and vulnerable are expressing similar encouragements.
Within the context of deficit reduction, particularly as it pertains to program cuts, the Bishops urge adherence to three moral principles: that every budget decision should be evaluated by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity; that the needs of those who are hungry or homeless, without work, or in poverty should be first priority—preferential option for the poor—and programs for these should be protected (certainly not disproportionately cut); and that government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families struggling to live in dignity during difficult economic times.
To a significant extent, a balanced approach would have spending reductions and revenue increases that are close to equal, with as much of the latter as feasible coming from tax-code reforms that close loopholes and as much of the former as feasible from entitlement reforms that reduce inefficiencies; in other words, reductions in tax expenditures (currently $1 trillion per year) as well as program expenditures. There are policy decisions in these contexts that would draw bi-partisan support, surely. Nevertheless, tax-rate adjustments might be necessary in order to protect the poor and vulnerable from unjust and disproportionate cuts as the process of producing meaningful deficit reduction unfolds.
And finally….
According to information released by the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Senator Daniel Inouye, revenues, adjusted for inflation and population growth, are down 18 percent from Fiscal Year 2001. Moreover, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product—now 14.8 percent—revenues are at their lowest level in 60 years.
According to a think tank, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, almost all successful deficit reductions enacted over the past 30 years—1982, 1984, 1987, 1990 and 1993—have had revenue increases as important ingredients.
The Nebraska Legislature this year finished its lawmaking work early, using fewer legislative days than the number allowed by the state constitution. Historically and traditionally, an early finish is far more rare than common. But even more remarkably, it has now happened twice in the last three years.
The Constitution of Nebraska provides that the duration of a regular session of the Legislature in odd-numbered years cannot be longer than 90 legislative days.
In 2009, the Legislature adjourned sine die (indefinitely) on the 87th legislative day. This year topped that. Adjournment sine die occurred quite casually May 26, the 86th legislative day, at 2:51 p.m. It was one of the least stressful days of all 86.
The early finish does not mean that state legislators took a casual approach or accomplished little. To the contrary, the early finish can be attributed to hard work, efficiency, collaboration, compromise and leadership.
Regarding that last factor, the common denominator for both 2009 and this year was the effective role of the Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood from Norfolk. By his tally, 272 bills were passed.
This Legislature was obligated to pass a state budget for the 2011-2013 Biennium. It accomplished that in relatively uneventful fashion, at least in terms of tense floor debate. Involving three rounds of consideration by the full body of legislators, the budget package of eight bills took about an hour in total.
It certainly wasn’t that passing a $7.1 billion, two-year budget was just that easy—far from it. When the session began, the legislative and administrative branches of state government not only faced a constitutional mandate to balance the budget, but a projected shortfall of nearly $986 million as well. "Heavy lifting" by the Appropriations Committee, decisions made regarding cuts in expenditures—some of them pre-identified in the interim between sessions—and cash fund transfers, as well as some timely, upwardly revised revenue forecasts, the Legislature not only balanced the budget, but provided an ending balance that is $3.2 million above the three percent minimum reserve.
As for more discretionary undertakings, a strong sense of need to reform the process through which labor disputes between government entities and public-sector employees are addressed resulted in passage of LB 397 on a 48-0 vote. Significant changes were made to Nebraska’s unique arbiter, the Commission on Industrial Relations. The valid, traditional concepts of labor organizing and collective bargaining were preserved.
The road to this result was far from smooth. Compromise by a myriad of interests was ultimately accomplished, but not without a lot of time and difficult negotiations. Senator Steve Lathrop led the process, but several of his colleagues were actively involved.
Thanks to resolute efforts by Senators Beau McCoy, Tony Fulton and Lydia Brasch, and an overwhelming level of support from their colleagues, this Legislature passed, and the Governor approved, three significant pro life bills. (Visit www.nebcathcon.org for analysis by Greg Schleppenbach in his Life Insight columns.)
Senator McCoy’s LB 22 was perhaps the most significant, because it moves Nebraska sooner rather than later on its discretion to opt out of covering elective abortions under health plans offered through any health insurance exchanges required by federal health-care-reform legislation.
On the other hand, it continued to be disappointing and troubling that far too few senators with pro life credentials expressed a willingness to challenge and overcome the Governor’s staunch, implausible opposition to restoring governmental coverage of prenatal care services for unborn children whose impoverished mothers happen to be unauthorized immigrants. LB 599, which would accomplish this pro-life result, did not have enough support to generate action or attention, beyond a public hearing.
As a result of a decision by its Judiciary Committee, the full Legislature did not get involved with legislation related to federal immigration policies. Generally speaking, Nebraska fits under this headline, which appeared over a national, Associated Press story: "States’ 2011 immigration legislation mostly fizzles."
This was a good outcome insofar as LB 48, LB 569 and LR 28 are concerned. LB 48, the ill-advised, Arizona-like immigration enforcement proposal had a hearing that exposed its numerous flaws and bad policy ideas. LB 569 and LR 28 had to do with federally-based programs: E-Verify and Secure Communities (designated local enforcement) respectively. Both have dubious aspects and warrant further scrutiny.
The bad outcome of the Judiciary Committee’s "no action this year" decision was that LR 39 was held as well, and not advanced and passed. It was something the Legislature could have done without risk. It should have been a slam dunk. It called upon members of Nebraska’s congressional delegation to push for what’s absolutely compelling and most needed; namely, federal immigration policy reform.
State Senator Paul Schumacher from Columbus recently used a traditional legislative metaphor to make an excellent point about an amendment to, and maneuver involving, a bill being given first-round consideration by the full Legislature. He compared LB 669 to a Christmas tree, upon which ornaments are hung.
In its original form, LB 669, which was designated a Speaker’s priority bill, proposed to modify policy regarding the sealing of records in the juvenile justice system. But that purpose was accomplished with an amendment to another, earlier considered bill, LB 463, which was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.
Using LB 463 to accomplish the purpose left LB 669 as a shell at the first stage of floor consideration. So, the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Omaha Senator Brad Ashford, decided to use the shell as a "Christmas tree," upon which to hang as ornaments the provisions of four other bills from the committee’s jurisdiction. The "ornaments" proposed by AM1342—an amendment of 21 pages and 24 sections—included LBs 339, 349, 476 and 451, none of which had been designated as priority legislation and none of which had been advanced to the full Legislature by the committee.
LB 451 is described in its originating statement of intent as offering seven provisions to enhance judicial flexibility. In particular, it was one of those provisions that prompted Senator Schumacher to perceptively describe it as the "bulb" (being hung on the "tree") that "lights up the room." His comment affirmed one made by Sen. Tony Fulton: that what was taking place on LB 669 was not an insignificant matter.
What was originally section 12 of LB 451 became section 23 of AM1342 to LB 669. It proposes to modify current law regarding Nebraska’s "no-fault" system for dissolving marriages. Pursuant to statute 42-361, dissolution requires that a hearing be conducted in open court with oral testimony (or depositions) of witnesses as evidence. Pleadings alone are insufficient.
Section 23 of AM1342, nee section 12 of LB 451, would add a new subsection that would waive the hearing requirement given certain conditions: that both husband and wife agree to the waiver; that both husband and wife certify in writing that the marriage is irretrievably broken; that just one certifies that he or she has made every reasonable effort to effect reconciliation; that all required documents have been filed; and that both husband and wife have signed an agreement that resolves all issues (e.g., spousal support, child custody, support and visitation and asset allocation).
The purported justification for allowing divorce decrees to be issued without hearings is saving court time and expense. That would be accomplished by making some divorces easier, quicker and more convenient for the judges, the parties and the attorneys. That’s apparently why the Nebraska State Bar Association is lobbying for the changes.
The cautions and reservations expressed by Senators Fulton and Schumacher notwithstanding, AM 1342 was adopted on a 28-0 vote and the "Christmas tree" on which it was hung, LB 669, advanced to the second round of consideration.
Whether the changes that would be made by AM1342 are sound public policy is debatable. If both parties agree that the marriage is irretrievably broken and there are no issues to resolve—as Sen. Schumacher observed: no children, no money (assets) to speak of, and no love—then reducing workloads and costs by eliminating the court appearance is intuitively sensible. Still, some unresolved questions loom large.
If both parties have to certify that the marriage is irretrievably broken, then why does only one party have to certify that he or she has made "every reasonable effort to effect reconciliation"? Section 42-360 of current law requires that "No decree shall be entered unless the court finds that every reasonable effort to effect reconciliation has been made." Is certification by one party, in the absence of a hearing, enough evidence to satisfy that standard?
Secondly, Section 42-363 of current and longstanding law requires that "no suit for divorce may be heard or tried until 60 days after perfection of service." It sets a pre-decree waiting period, a stabilization period, to provide the parties time to contemplate the myriad impact of the action and to ensure that no advantage is taken of either party.
But if there is no hearing, because it is being waived, and no dispute to be "tried," is the waiting period also waived as a byproduct? Is Section 42-363 circumvented? Could the divorce be granted merely on the basis of the pleadings? Are those intended consequences of the proposed change? Is it the Judiciary Committee’s intent to facilitate "quickie divorces" in Nebraska?
Unfortunately, the first-round process, as affected by the way AM1342 was handled, didn’t allow much opportunity to examine those issues. Senators Fulton and Schumacher—hopefully they would be joined by others—could cause that examination to happen during the second round of consideration. The policy issues are substantive and significant enough to warrant that.
And finally…..
The Legislature’s special Redistricting Committee has been facing the challenges of realigning elective-office boundaries as a result of 2010 census numbers. This includes both the state legislative districts and the three Congressional Districts. The districts have to be generally equal in terms of population. The definitive tilt to the eastern end of the state—primarily Douglas, Sarpy, Cass and Lancaster counties—is evident by a couple of the committee’s tentatively proposed maps. For example, think about this: Alliance and Falls City would both be in the Third Congressional District. And, Legislative District 49 would shift from the western end of the state to Sarpy County.
Legislation is the essence of public policy. Or perhaps, it’s the other way around. More likely, it’s a combination of each influencing the other. In any event, while the theory might be worth pondering, the practice has impacts and repercussions.
Two substantive issues unfolding during the last third of the 2011 session of the Nebraska Unicameral are good examples of the connection between legislating and forming public policy. In both instances, what’s best for the common good is unclear.
State legislators will determine the outcome on major proposals regarding funding for highways and roads (LB 84) and addressing the substance and process of collective bargaining as it relates to governmental employment (LB 397).
LB 84 is already pretty far down the road. In fact, as of the Legislature’s Easter-weekend break—with 22 days remaining in the session—it was on Final Reading, after withstanding extensive scrutiny and challenge at both of the first two stages of floor debate. LB 84 proposes to earmark for new roads and road improvements one-fourth of every cent of state sales tax collected, beginning in 2013 and continuing for 20 years. In other words, a portion of state revenue that otherwise would follow the longstanding normal course into the state’s General Fund for overall budgetary determinations and allocations instead would be diverted directly to the Department of Roads for its projects.
A quarter of a cent out of a state sales tax of five-and-a-half cents per dollar of purchase doesn’t seem like much, but projections are that it would generate $65 million per year. This would be in addition to the revenue that comes from the state’s gas tax.
Proponents of LB 84, led by Senator Deb Fischer, who is the chairperson of the Legislature’s Transportation Committee, say the move is bold by necessity; that current and projected infrastructure needs demand and justify the priority. To some extent, proponents are counting on more economic improvement and a better fiscal situation for the state’s next spending plan in 2013. Opponents, led by three members of the Appropriations Committee: Senators Danielle Conrad, Heath Mello and Jeremy Nordquist, counter that the economic presumptions are shaky and risky and that earmarking sales-tax revenue is bad budgeting policy and bad public policy, which will negatively affect funding for other purposes, including human services and education.
Those are legitimate concerns. While the need for road construction and improvements all around the state is beyond challenge, presupposed and premature prioritization of that need over more direct human needs portends of a lot of pressure for the Legislature in two years.
Nonetheless, LB 84 has shown considerable strength. The vote on advancing the bill to Final Reading was 36-12.
LB 397 was still a work in progress and still awaiting the first-round of floor debate as the Legislature returned to the State Capitol earlier this week. Stay tuned for this legislative history to play out. It could be as long and contentious a public-policy experience as the Unicameral has had in quite awhile. Not only is this matter extremely complex, but a lot of powerful interests are weighing in from numerous angles.
Under current public policy in Nebraska, state and local governmental employees can organize and bargain collectively, but they can’t strike. Pursuant to authority granted under Article XV, Section 9 of State Constitution, Nebraska uses a five-member, governor-appointed and legislatively approved commission—the Commission on Industrial Relations—to arbitrate public-sector employment disputes that reach an impasse. Its decisions are binding, but appealable into the courts.
From just about every angle, there is dissatisfaction with the process that implements the functions of the CIR. Section 48-818 of the state statutes is the target of a lot of criticism. It requires the CIR to use comparability as its decision-making standard; that is, comparing the facts of disputes to wages and working conditions prevalent among an array of similar employment situations. The commonly cited problem with comparability is its lack of predictability.
Most disputes are resolved without heading to the CIR, but even for those, critics say, resolution is too often influenced by anticipating what the CIR would do, which diminishes the interest of cost containment on behalf of taxpayers.
While it seems likely that LB 397 is on track to cause a major overhaul of the CIR process, some are poised to argue for its abolishment altogether and for greater, if not unlimited, authority in the budget makers, i.e., the elected governing bodies.
Where does the right balance fall as a matter of public policy and the common good? It’s that employer-employee balance that’s largely at stake on LB 397. It’s the reason why LB 397 is so significant, so challenging and so fascinating.
And finally… On April 26, one of the most delightful and special persons associated with the Nebraska Legislature retired. Sally Gordon decided it was time, at age 102. When she was 75, Sally became the first female member of the Legislature’s sergeant-at-arms corps and served with grace and distinction throughout her tenure. We add our salute, congratulations and best wishes.
The Nebraska Legislature has completed more than two-thirds of its regular session for 2011. The 60th legislative day of the 90-day session passed last week. Now the 70th day is in sight—probably April 29—as the next marker. It’s the day by which the Appropriations Committee must advance its budget package to the body of the whole.
This Legislature has a mandate to pass a state budget for the next biennium, which will run in two fiscal years from July 1 of this year through June 30 of 2013. The challenge is exacerbated by a projected gap of more than $940 million between current spending levels and forecasted revenue.
The process started when the Governor presented his budget recommendations in early January, on the seventh day of the session. The nine-member Appropriations Committee took over from that point and has been working diligently to have its package of recommendations ready to go by the 70th-day deadline.
The committee issued a preliminary spending plan several weeks ago. It totaled about $7 billion for the 24-month period and was $11.1 million higher than the Governor’s version. Reports are that more has been added since then.
Establishing a balanced budget is a complex process, especially when spending cuts of the depth dictated by the current fiscal situation are deemed necessary. It is a stressful process of balancing priorities and making difficult decisions. Both the Governor and the Appropriations have major roles, but ultimately the entire Legislature faces the obligation.
Revenue enhancements—call them tax increases if you must—could be used to fill the gap and even permit additional spending for the state’s many obligations and needs, such as the broad array of human and social services, education at all levels, corrections and roads. For instance, a modest bump in the state’s progressive income-tax rates could do a lot, if not everything, to resolve the $940-plus-million dilemma.
But tax increases are pretty much out of the question in the current situation. The Governor put his foot down on that idea from the onset. From an economic perspective, there is concern that tax increases would thwart recovery and growth. From a political perspective, there is concern that voter-taxpayers won’t react kindly to any tax increase.
Even a proposed hike in the tax on cigarettes (LB 436), with its added impact of promoting better health, has dim prospects. As a revenue measure, it could help maintain, if not improve, reimbursement rates for the health-care providers who step up to facilitate Nebraska’s medical-assistance program. The harsher reality is that some Medicaid provider rates are likely to be reduced further from actual costs.
The whole Legislature has already made, and will continue to make, public policy changes that result in cost savings. Already, lawmakers have constricted state aid to local governments. The Education Committee has once again taken charge of modifying the complex formula that provides state aid to public school districts, thereby reducing what otherwise would be a billion dollars of cost and re-distributing $822 million next year and $880 million the following year. There are other examples of responsive actions.
In the midst of the budget challenges, there was some encouraging news. On Feb. 25, the Economic Forecasting Advisory Board presented a better outlook for the upcoming biennium than it had projected the previous October. The Forecasting Board next meets April 28. Its updated outlook could ease some of the stress on the Legislature, or it could make it worse.
Lethal Injection Scrutiny
Sodium thiopental is a fast-acting sedative that is part of a three-drug cocktail used in numerous states to carry out the death penalty by lethal injection. It isn’t manufactured in the U.S. any more. So Nebraska and six other states have purchased it from foreign sources. Nebraska bought doses from a manufacturer in India.
In March, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration required Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee to turn over their foreign-sourced supplies of sodium thiopental to the agency. It is investigating how the drug was obtained during a national shortage. Is Nebraska next?
One Nebraska lawyer has written to the U.S. Attorney General asking for an investigation of Nebraska’s importing of sodium thiopental. Another lawyer filed a motion with the Nebraska Supreme Court on March 24, challenging the constitutionality of the lethal-injection law and the way in which sodium thiopental was obtained.
And finally…….
When an estimated 350 people turned out recently to rally at the State Capitol in support of collective bargaining rights—a worthy cause—the Lincoln bureau of the Omaha World Herald covered it with a 10-paragraph story. Two weeks earlier, when a crowd nearly 10 times larger turned out at that same location to rally, under the banner of the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School parents, in support of parental rights to choose non-governmental schools for the education of their children, the Lincoln bureau of the World Herald ignored it. Go figure.
Did a representative of the public-school teachers’ union in Nebraska really say this: "We believe that every student would do well in a public school and we would like to have them at those schools. If parents decide to send them somewhere else, we’re O.K. with that, as long as they are not taking the tax dollars with them, because we’re struggling in Nebraska as it is for financing for the public schools"?
Of course he did. A response like that can be expected when the Nebraska State Education Association has an opportunity to comment about parents choosing other-than-public schools.
This particular comment was part of a television news reporter’s effort to include "the other side’s" reaction to a major event. That event was the "Educational Freedom Rally" that took place March 22 at the State Capitol in Lincoln.
Planned, organized and facilitated by the Nebraska Catholic Conference through its affiliate program, the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents, the rally drew more than 2,500 Nebraskans—parents, grandparents, students and educators—to the north-side steps of the Capitol and much of the surrounding area. From there, with a high level of energy and enthusiasm, they heard and cheered several speakers, including state Senators Bob Krist of Omaha and Tony Fulton of Lincoln and the Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk.
The purposes of the rally were to honor and emphasize parental choice in elementary and secondary education generally and, in a more specific context, to draw attention to, and encourage support for, Legislative Bill 50 from the current Nebraska Unicameral. This legislation proposes to create a tailored state-income-tax credit as a means of stimulating voluntary contributions to scholarship-granting organizations.
Contrary to what the NSEA might want Nebraskans to think, LB 50 is not about vouchers, the infamous "V" word. Tax dollars wouldn’t "follow" any Nebraska students. The Legislature and local school boards would not lose any of their authority to make independent judgments about financing public schools.
The tax benefit would be realized by individual and corporate taxpayers for monetary contributions to nonprofit organizations specifically established to award private-school scholarships to students from low and moderate-income families. As introduced, the credit against tax liability would be 65 percent of annual contributions.
Each scholarship-granting organization would be required to distribute at least 95 percent of its revenue as scholarships for children entering kindergarten or ninth grade, or transferring at any grade from a public to a non-governmental school.
Several other states, including Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Iowa, already have tax-credit-supported scholarship laws and are showing noteworthy policy results, not only in terms of enabling more families to have a choice in K-12 education, but also in terms of governmental cost savings and tax relief for all taxpayers. "Why not Nebraska?" was one of the rally themes.
The Legislature’s Revenue Committee holds LB 50. For information about this matter, including a link to the bill, visit: nebcathcon.org/education_issues.htm.
Archbishop George Lucas from Omaha was among those who addressed the large crowd at the rally. "It is a privilege to join so many adults and students from all across Nebraska at our State Capitol," he said. "We hope to highlight the God-given right of parents to choose the best educational setting possible for their children. We believe that LB 50 can help Nebraska parents secure that right."
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop William Dendinger of Grand Island also participated in the program.
Omaha businessman Jim Stolze, who serves as president of the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents, spoke at the rally. He said, in part: "We need real change in our state’s educational system, which begins by allowing parents the freedom to participate in the selection of their children’s school, including tools such as tax-credit-supported scholarships."
One other comment about the Educational Freedom Rally: while most of the television stations in the Omaha and Lincoln markets covered the event, neither of the state’s two major daily newspapers—the Omaha World Herald and the Lincoln Journal-Star—did. Apparently, a two-hour rally of more than 2,500 Catholic-school supporters at the State Capitol, with legislators and the Diocesan Bishops and attention on a substantive public-policy issue, was not deemed newsworthy. Shame on them.
And finally…….
On another topic: kudos to the six members of the Judiciary Committee who voted to advance LB 276 to the full Legislature. The bill proposes to repeal the death penalty and replace it with imprisonment for life without parole and order of mandatory restitution. LB 276 is not prioritized legislation for this session, but will carry over to 2012 for a first round of floor debate. The six legislators who made this appropriate decision were Senators Brad Ashford, Brenda Council, Colby Coash, Steve Lathrop, Amanda McGill and Burke Harr.
The tragic and horrific subject of human trafficking has received some attention during the current session of the Nebraska Legislature.
That attention, not a lot relative to many of the other issues being considered by lawmakers, stemmed from two bills introduced by Senator Mark Christensen. The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee conducted public hearings on both bills. Committee members exhibited little immediate interest in these proposals, and it’s quite unlikely that either will be advanced to the full Legislature, but there was a hint that human trafficking could become the subject of a policy study during the interim between sessions.
We hope that happens. That study should have plenty of substance, because Nebraskans are under-informed and naïve if they don’t realize that human trafficking is not just a global phenomenon, but a state concern and policy issue as well. Local law enforcement officials, from Omaha and Lincoln at least, have verified its existence.
Federal law, the Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, defines human trafficking as the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision of, or obtaining of a person for labor or services through the use of force, fraud or coercion. Two general forms fall under this definition: sexual exploitation and forced labor.
According to a 2009 United Nations’ global report on trafficking in persons, sexual exploitation, including prostitution, pornography and the sex-entertainment industry, constitutes close to 80 percent of human trafficking, while forced labor constitutes nearly 20 percent.
The U.S. State Department estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons—predominantly women and children—are trafficked across international borders each year. Approximately 14,500 to 17,500 of these are trafficked into the U.S. annually. Worldwide, this contemporary scourge is a $32 billion industry. After drug dealing, it is the second largest criminal industry in the world, and the fastest growing.
For years the Catholic Church has condemned and spoken out against human trafficking. The modern Catechism teaches: "The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason—selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian—lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity…."
Pope John Paul II wrote: "The trade in human persons constitutes a shocking offense against human dignity and a grave violation of fundamental human rights."
In January of this year, the Bishops of Florida wrote of a particular aspect of this exploitation, which destroys victims’ mental, physical, emotional and spiritual health:
"A troubling trend is the exploitation of minors in domestic sex trafficking. These youth, under age 18, are the runaway and throwaway children in society, picked up on our streets and forced into sex acts in exchange for food and a bed. We grieve for the children whose innocence has been sacrificed in the name of greed and monetary gain, a shocking example of man’s inhumanity to man."
Since 2006, Nebraska has made human trafficking a state crime. Under section 28-831, it is a felony for any person to knowingly subject or attempt to subject another person to forced labor or services by inflicting or threatening to inflict serious personal injury or by physically restraining or threatening to restrain the person. In addition, there are separate, specific crimes in which minors are victimized.
Senator Christensen’s LB 689, with respect to which the Nebraska Catholic Conference presented supportive testimony, seeks to strengthen the statutory definitions of "commercial sexual activity" and "forced labor or services." In addition, the bill would provide for protective responses and support for victims.
Senator Christensen’s LB 513 seeks to address a context in which the line between legal and illegal activities is easily crossed, the escort or private erotic entertainment industry. The legislation proposes a licensing and regulatory structure for "escort agencies" and their employees. The introducer’s statement of intent makes the point that "evidence is emerging that some of these businesses are engaging in the coercion of women and underage girls and boys through human trafficking."
Strong and inspiring testimony on both LB 689 and LB 513 was provided on behalf of a student group from the University of Nebraska. Known as NUSAMS—Nebraska University Students Against Modern Slavery—its spokespersons were articulate and passionate about the group’s research findings and about raising awareness that human trafficking should be a matter of concern in Nebraska.
And finally…….
Debate has been hot and heavy in the Utah Legislature over several proposals to address illegal immigration. State Senator Curtis Bramble didn’t mince words in describing the context: "The fundamental premise of any discussion on immigration policy rests with the failed federal policies—the abject, dismal, pathetic failure of the federal government to do what it is constitutionally mandated to do."
Last year’s harsh, controversial and lamentable change in public policy, by virtue of which the unborn children of impoverished, pregnant women who are unauthorized immigrants were made ineligible for prenatal-care services under Nebraska’s medical assistance program, is not forgotten during the current session of the Legislature. Whether there is enough interest, political will and short-term funding to reverse this horrible decision remains to be seen.
Recall that the federal government all of a sudden realized late in 2009 that Nebraska’s decades-long policy of covering prenatal care for the unborn children of impoverished pregnant women under Medicaid regardless of the women’s immigration status was impermissible. The reason is that the regular Medicaid rules do not recognize the unborn child as an eligible recipient in his or her own right and if the mother is an unauthorized immigrant, that fact makes her ineligible as well, poverty notwithstanding. Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal and state governments—several percentage points higher by the former—and is the primary component of Nebraska’s medical assistance program for the materially poor.
After the federal government’s dictate about Medicaid, Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services could have continued the policy by using the unborn-child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which covers more children from impoverished families and regards the unborn child as the recipient of prenatal care. But Governor Dave Heineman wouldn’t allow it, invoking his "no government benefits for illegals" mantra.
An attempt was made, by means of a late-introduced bill, to legislatively trump the Governor’s position by directing NDHHS to implement Chip’s unborn child option—the federal funding match rate is actually higher for CHIP than it is for Medicaid—but a majority of the legislators didn’t want any part of that action.
A new bill of this nature has been introduced in the current session of the Legislature by Senators Kathy Campbell, Jeremy Nordquist and Brad Ashford. It is LB 599, which has been scheduled for a late public hearing on March 17. Unless funding can be identified for the immediate and short term costs of providing this coverage, longer term savings notwithstanding, LB 599 has little chance of being debated.
If there was any mediating factor in the otherwise harsh and harmful policy decision to not use the available option to restore medical-assistance coverage for prenatal-care services, it was the quite modest factor that labor and delivery fall under the federal-rules definition of emergency medical services, making them eligible for Medicaid coverage regardless of the pregnant woman’s immigration status. Thus, as private medical-care providers, such as the federally qualified community health centers in Columbus and Omaha, as well as the medical professionals with whom they collaborate, have stepped up charitably to provide some of the prenatal-care services otherwise denied, they should be confident they will at least be (partially) paid for the costs of labor and delivery.
Unfortunately, the state’s performance since last May on this unquestionable provision has been alarmingly poor. There have been reports of inexplicable and unreasonable months’ long delays in payment, of lost paperwork and of other bureaucratic errors. Providers haven’t been able to count on responsive actions.
Improvements are underway, apparently, but to ensure that this aspect is attended to more conscientiously and efficiently, Senator Nordquist introduced LB 494. It would require DHHS to process applications for medical assistance—such as those for labor and delivery services for eligible poor women who are unauthorized immigrants—in a timely manner per federal regulations, which is typically 45 days. LB 494 might not proceed to passage, but it will be oversight in its own right and in waiting nonetheless.
And finally……….
This Legislature has the duty of redistricting; that is, using 2010 census figures to reconfigure the boundaries for the state’s federal congressional districts, state legislative districts and several other positions elected on a district or regional basis.
To lead in fulfilling this duty, the Legislature’s Executive Board has appointed nine legislators to serve as a redistricting committee; three who reside in each of the three Congressional districts. From District 1, the three are Senators Bill Avery and Danielle Conrad from Lincoln and Chris Langemeier from Schuyler. From District 2, it’s Senators John Nelson, Scott Lautenbaugh and Heath Mello, all from Omaha. From District 3, Senators Deb Fischer from Valentine, Ken Schilz from Ogallala and Annette Dubas from Fullerton were selected. Senator Langemeier is the chairman. Theoretically it’s a nonpartisan process in a nonpartisan Legislature, but for curiosity’s sake, there are five registered Republicans and four registered Democrats.
Their assigned task is to develop a plan for consideration by the entire Legislature. In days gone by, big maps, colored pencils and, especially, erasures were the tools of this task; now there are sophisticated computer programs that make the process more efficient, but not necessarily less complicated.
Having been convened on 23 consecutive weekdays, state senators—and also legislative staff, the media corps and perhaps even a few lobbyists—were looking forward to the first four-day weekend of the 2011 session. It consists of Presidents’ Day and the preceding Friday.
After the modest break, the Legislature will meet for 13 more consecutive weekdays. Thereafter, Speaker Mike Flood’s calendar calls for four-day work weeks the rest of the way, until final adjournment in early June.
With 31 legislative days completed, thus surpassing the one-third point in the 90-day session, the legislative process has settled in on the routine of morning floor sessions and afternoon committee hearings and executive sessions. The result is that legislation has been moving at all stages. More than 100 bills were advanced "to the floor" by the standing committees by the end of the 31st day.
To help Nebraskans know more about what the Legislature is doing, the Unicameral Information Office has a fine website, which offers numerous features and capabilities. It is www.nebraskalegislature.gov. In addition to daily news from the session, updated information about the status of any bill can be obtained by using the bill-search function. Also, there is a link to the Nebraska Educational Television network’s coverage, which provides streaming video of floor sessions and hearings.
Among bills that already have had public hearings and await action by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee are two that call into question and propose to modify Nebraska’s current public policy that allows minors to be sentenced to life in prison without parole upon conviction of a Class I felony, which is almost always first-degree murder. Both bills were introduced by Senator Brenda Council from Omaha.
LB 202 proposes to allow a person sentenced to life without parole for conviction of a Class I felony that he or she committed when younger than 18 to petition for recall and resentencing after 15 years or more of incarceration and certain other conditions. The bill sets forth specific criteria and a three-part, court review process that could result in a reduced sentence for those able to establish greater maturity and change in their lives. The bill would in no way dictate a reduced sentence, but it would provide opportunity for that to happen. It might be amended to become a commutation rather than re-sentencing.
LB 203 would eliminate the sentence of imprisonment for life without parole for anyone convicted of a Class I felony, i.e., first-degree murder, who was younger than 18 at the time of committing the crime. Instead, those of ages 16 or 17 would be sentenced to 50 years imprisonment and those younger than 16 would be sentenced to 40 years. Typically, this would mean first-time eligibility to petition for review by the state parole board after 25 and 20 years respectively.
Senator Council, herself a member of the Judiciary Committee, stressed to her colleagues that juveniles lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of accountability. She explained that her bills would allow for greater consideration of all the scientific and medical information about brain development.
The Nebraska Catholic Conference, representing the mutual concern of the three dioceses, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops, submitted testimony in support of both bills, which offer alternatives for modifying current public policy. Following is an excerpt from the NCC testimony:
"From the perspective of the Conference—reflective of Catholic social teaching—there is no question that responsibility, accountability and effective punishment are fundamental to the demands of justice and to a just society…. Therefore, in no way does our Conference’s support for either LB 202 or LB 203 have any intent or purpose of minimizing the seriousness of crimes or the concern and compassion unquestionably due to victims and their families. We understand, as you do, the terrible nature and repercussions of all violent crimes, most especially those that shock the conscience and break the heart. We understand—in fact our Church teaches—that the state unquestionably has a right to establish and enforce laws to protect society and to advance the common good.
"Catholic Conference support for LB 202 and LB 203 stems from the view that current Nebraska policy allowing life imprisonment without parole for minors should be reformed, because when this sentence is applied, it eliminates opportunity, not just opportunity for parole review, but much more significantly, all meaningful opportunity for redemption, rehabilitation, reform and reintegration for those who lacked adult development, rationality and judgment when they committed crimes that led them to be punished as adults, and who, by virtue of their youth and immaturity, have an extraordinary capacity for change and reform. None of us are the same person today that we were at fifteen or sixteen years of age.
"From our perspective, LB 202 and LB 203 do not cast aside or offend the balance between the necessity of responsibility, accountability and corrective punishment on one side, and efforts for healing, forgiveness, redemption and rehabilitation on the other side. Rather, the bills uphold and enhance that balance."
Not unexpectedly, an "Arizona-like" immigration enforcement measure is among the more than 700 legislative bills and resolutions introduced in the 2011 regular session of the Nebraska Legislature.
The fact notwithstanding that immigration law and policy are first, foremost and almost exclusively a federal jurisdiction and responsibility, LB 48 proposes the "Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act." It is not identical to Arizona’s infamous S.B, 1070 (as amended a few days later by H.B. 2162) but it is copycat enough to raise the concerns and issues that dog the Arizona law.
The fact notwithstanding that significant portions of the Arizona law have been blocked by a U.S, District Court on grounds they violate the constitutional principle of federal pre-emption, LB 48 includes several of the Arizona-like provisions that are temporarily enjoined in that jurisdiction pending appeals and more extensive litigation. Apparently, any thought that it would be prudent to wait and see what happens to Arizona in the federal courts was deemed a secondary consideration, at least insofar as introducing legislation is concerned, to showing Nebraska as just as much a "tough-on-the-illegals" state as Arizona.
Generally speaking, LB 48 proposes that the Legislature do three things.
First, mandate that "a peace officer" determine the immigration status of a person lawfully stopped, detained or arrested whenever "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is unlawfully present in the U.S.
The Arizona law mandates a "reasonable attempt" to determine immigration status and only "when practicable" as well. LB 48 doesn’t have those hedge words.
In addition, LB 48 also mandates that "the custodial authority" determine immigration status whenever "reasonable suspicion exists that an incarcerated person is unlawfully present in the United States." The mix of circumstances is confusing.
If a check into immigration status would determine that a person is unlawfully present, the peace officer or the custodial authority would be required to immediately notify the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.
Concern about racial profiling being an element of "reasonable suspicion" received considerable attention in Arizona. The law there says that law enforcement officers "may not consider race, color, or national origin… except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitutions." LB 48, on the other hand, says that "a peace officer’s reasonable suspicion shall not be based solely upon a person’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Apparently, those characteristics can be factors, just not the only factors in assessing reasonable suspicion. That’s questionable policy.
In Arizona, the follow-up legislation, H.B. 2162, took out the word "solely." LB 48 uses it. This provision warrants careful scrutiny.
A second thing that LB 48 would have the Legislature do is create five new state crimes relating to federal immigration law or policy.
It would become a Class II misdemeanor for any person in Nebraska not to be registered as alien if required to be registered pursuant to federal law. It would become a Class V misdemeanor for any person to fail to carry a federal certificate of alien registration or a federal alien registration receipt card when required to do so pursuant to federal law. It would become a Class I misdemeanor for any unlawfully present person to work as an employee or independent contractor in Nebraska. It would become a Class I misdemeanor for any person to "knowingly or recklessly conceal, harbor, transport" or "move" an unlawfully present person, or to attempt to do so, for the purpose of shielding the person from detection. And, it would be a Class I misdemeanor for any person to knowingly or recklessly encourage or induce a person who is unlawfully present in the U.S. to come to or reside in Nebraska."
Five new crimes; at what point does putting even more on the plates of law enforcement officers in Nebraska have negative repercussions for public safety?
A third thing that LB 48 would do is prohibit any official, agency or political subdivision in this state from limiting or restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
What’s more, the final paragraph would have the Legislature exhibit arrogance by declaring that it would have passed the Act and every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of it irrespective of anything unconstitutional about it.
It will be interesting to follow how the Legislature, in particular its Judiciary Committee, deals with a bill that has all the issues and confusion that this one has.
And finally…...the Nebraska Catholic Conference, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops, has adopted a position of opposition to LB 48, because it is flawed and confusing legislation that will, despite intentions to the contrary, create distrust and misunderstanding among immigrants and communities, cause unwarranted public expenditures and fail to uphold the common good.
Coming up soon is another of the annual celebrations of Catholic Schools Week across the nation and here in Nebraska. It is appropriate and necessary to celebrate that operating elementary and secondary schools is a vitally important mission of the Church.
The theme of Catholic Schools Weeks always provides an important message. This year’s theme is no different: "Catholic Schools: A+ for America." The double meaning of the second part is clever and provides a strong emphasis.
Catholic schools in Nebraska warrant an A+ grade, certainly for performing such an important and powerful mission of the Church: assisting parents in educating and forming young people academically, socially, morally and spiritually, so they can be happy and fulfilled during their earthly lives and secure their eternal happiness in heaven.
The grade is also A+ for contributing to the common good, to the state and its local communities. Catholic schools certainly are "a plus" for America, for Nebraska, and for communities and neighborhoods. As alternatives to government-sponsored education, they are assets and resources, in terms of both the positive contributions of their independent educational philosophies and the cost savings they realize for all taxpayers. Catholic schools (and their independent and parochial counterparts) are more than valuable enough assets that they should not be taken for granted by government leaders and policy-makers. Rather, they should be encouraged and promoted as a matter of parental choice, for all the contributions they make, including educational competition and quality.
A way of accomplishing this as a matter of public policy would be by making privately operated schools more affordable for more families. Legislation seeking to do this has been introduced in the 2011 session of the Nebraska Legislature.
LB 50, introduced early by Senator Bob Krist of Omaha, proposes to provide a state income-tax credit for individual and corporate contributions to specially formed, state-recognized, charitable organizations, which would be required to distribute no less than 95 percent of their annual revenue as scholarships, to enable children from income-qualified households to enroll in privately operated elementary or secondary schools.
So as not to "double-dip" with the Federal deduction for charitable contributions, the amount by which contributors could reduce their Nebraska income tax liability would be 65 percent of such contributions made during a tax year. There would be no maximum on any taxpayer’s qualifying contributions, but there would be an aggregate cap of $10 million for the first year, with incremental increases in that number thereafter.
Also by the design of LB 50, first-time scholarships would be available to students entering kindergarten, students entering ninth grade, and students transferring from any public school to any privately operated school in any K-12 grade. The means test would require, with respect to elementary students, that household income not exceed three times the standard used by the Federal government to determine eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch. The test would be four times that standard with respect to secondary students. All aspects of LB 50’s design are subject to amendment, of course.
In September 2009, a statewide survey of Nebraskans’ opinions on K-12 education and school choice options found 57 percent statewide support for a tax-credit-funded, private-school scholarship program based on financial need.
Just last June, a fiscal analysis commissioned by the Foundation for Educational Choice forecasted a net savings for both the State of Nebraska and local school districts from LB 67, the predecessor bill from the 2009-2010 legislative sessions. The fiscal analysis also concluded that if 80 percent of the tax-credit scholarships, at an average scholarship of $1,750, were awarded to students who otherwise would attend public schools, the net savings for the state for a 10-year period could be as high as $51 million. (This study is available on the Nebraska Catholic Conference website: www.nebcathcon.org/NFCSP.
Achieving cost savings is important any time, but even more so during a time like this, when government must fill a significant budget gap. The idea of enabling enhanced family choice of the asset that is privately-operated education ought to be considered. Whether the Legislature, in particular its Revenue Committee, will facilitate that consideration in a meaningful way remains to be seen. They have the tool in LB 50.
Catholic school parents and patrons might very well be the collective key to the outcome of LB 50. The more the legislators hear from their constituents on this idea, the more likely it will be that the bill is taken seriously and considered. Contact information is available from the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents, a program of the Nebraska Catholic Conference: www.nebcathcon.org/NFCSP or 402/477-7517.
And finally... The sign outside a fast-food restaurant presents an interesting January message: "Keep your resolution. Add a salad." That’s clever marketing: right, a salad; an encouraging thought of sorts. From the restaurant’s perspective it’s better, of course, that you add a salad than substitute one.
The first regular session of the 102nd Nebraska Legislature is on its journey. The ceremonies of the first day of a new Legislature were on display January 5 at the historic State Capitol. After opening day, ceremony becomes secondary to the main business of considering ideas for policy changes and making new laws.
The ceremonies included the swearing-in of 24 legislators—all having the title "senator," given Nebraska’s especially unique one-house system—who were elected last November. This number, in effect half of the total of 49 legislators, consisted of 19 incumbents and five new members. In addition, Senator Dave Bloomfield from Hoskins was appointed by the Governor last month to fill the District-17 seat vacated by an incumbent who resigned upon being elected to a county office. The new first-year class consists of Senators Burke Harr from Omaha, District 8; Jim Smith from Papillion, District 14; Lydia Brasch from Bancroft, District 16; Paul Schumacher from Columbus, District 22; and Tyson Larson from O’Neill, District 40.
Another first-day task for the new Legislature was election of leadership positions. More often than not over the years, these secret-ballot elections have had some competitive, tense moments and produced some drama. Not this year; the event was pretty much a snoozer. Almost all of the key positions were filled by the incumbent.
The post of Speaker was returned by unanimous acclaim to a proven leader, the skillful solon from Norfolk, Senator Mike Flood. Likewise, Senator John Wightman of Lexington was re-elected Chairman of the Legislature’s Executive Board. The standing committee chairpersons are almost exactly the same as they were last year. An exception is the Health and Human Services Committee. Senator Kathy Campbell of Lincoln was elected for the chair previously held by an incumbent who did not seek re-election.
While the impact of terms limits is still a discussed and debatable topic, this Legislature was not greatly affected, at least numbers-wise. Only one of last year’s legislators was term-limited. Overall, six new members is not a seismic turnover. This Legislature has a noteworthy amount of continuity.
The 102nd Legislature, like its many predecessors, will deal with a myriad of difficult and challenging issues. At the top of this year’s list from the perspective of most observers and pundits are fixing the projected budget shortfall of nearly a billion dollars and determining new boundary lines for the congressional and legislative districts based upon 2010 census data. The budget challenge will be multi-faceted, drawing numerous other issues into debate and negotiation.
Another issue that has been attracting attention, probably more than it deserves, involves state- and local-level authority to enforce Federal immigration laws. At least one legislator has given several hints that he intends to introduce some form of legislation to help the federal government do its job, even though that job is tied to a broken system that Congress has failed to fix. He has claimed that what he proposes will vary from the infamous Arizona law and will protect against racial profiling. Given those self-directed parameters, it will be interesting to see what comes forth.
The legislators won’t be addressing the serious budget woes without preparation. In fact, the preparation has been unprecedented. Pursuant to Legislative Resolution 542, adopted last April 13, an ad hoc committee consisting of the Speaker, the Executive Board chairman and the chairpersons of the standing committees, has reviewed all programs of state government and each agency’s budget authority.
Each of the 14 standing committees was charged with a duty to identify potential cuts totaling 10 percent of the total general fund appropriation for all agencies within the respective committee’s jurisdiction. The result is a list of ideas—now called the "10% Options List"—that the committees believe need to be carefully considered in crafting a new budget that overcomes the projected $986 million shortfall. The ideas stem from programs and funding that may be amended, reduced or eliminated. All that careful consideration will take time, especially for options that require changes in statutes.
And finally….
A tip of the cap please toward Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns for voting to ratify the New START treaty, which governs the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the Russian Federation. While this might not have been a hugely relevant or significant matter in the "big picture," Senator Nelson was on target with his observation that there was no good reason not to support the nuclear arms reduction treaty.
On the flip side of the Congressional coin, the fact that all five members of Nebraska’s delegation failed to support the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act—the DREAM Act—was disappointing, to say the least. They refused to take even a modest, reasonable step toward fixing the broken immigration system. While all five probably would acknowledge the obvious need for comprehensive immigration reform, including border security, what efforts have they made to meet that need? So far, like a lot of their colleagues, they’ve been more a part of the problem than a solution.
"Inappropriate punishment."
Those were the well-chosen words an obstetrician-gynecologist, whose practice is located in Columbus, used to describe Nebraska’s new policy—now nine months old—that denies government-insured prenatal-care services when an impoverished, pregnant woman is an undocumented immigrant.
In his testimony to a panel of state legislators on Nov. 19, the doctor was describing the consequences of the policy for the unborn children, who are undeniably innocent of any unlawful conduct. They are the victims of "inappropriate punishment."
For two decades or more, Nebraska provided medical-assistance coverage (Medicaid) for impoverished pregnant women regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. Nebraska policy regarded the unborn child as the recipient of the prenatal-care services, acknowledging the importance of prenatal care not only for his/her life in utero, but also as preventative care for the long term, following birth.
Late last year, the federal agency that governs the joint federal-state Medicaid program suddenly realized what Nebraska was doing. The policy’s long tenure notwithstanding, it was a no-no under federal rules. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid and unborn children are not recognized as beneficiaries of prenatal-care in their own right.
Among others testifying at the recent legislative hearing were the directors of the Good Neighbor Community Health Center in Columbus and One World Community Health Center in Omaha; both entities are Federally Qualified Health Centers, commissioned by a federal program to provide health-care services on a charitable basis and without attention to citizenship or immigration status. They testified that the constricted policy definitely has had repercussions: significant spikes in the number of uninsured, pregnant women seeking help, typically later in their pregnancies, without any prior prenatal care; undocumented women taking chances that complications won’t occur; births of more low-weight babies, most of whom did not receive adequate prenatal care; and increased requests for information about abortion.
The representative from the Columbus FQHC told legislators that after having no fetal deaths in the previous six years, the center has experienced four since March 1, the date the policy on covering prenatal care changed. Whether these stillbirths can be attributed to inadequate prenatal care is medically undetermined, but the context is real.
The representative of the Omaha FQHC related the case of an emergency in which a woman who had received no prenatal care prematurely delivered her baby at 20-weeks gestation; the baby did not survive.
An obvious, inherent consequence of eliminating a means of access to prenatal-care services was emphasized by several testifiers; namely, the long-term financial impact of health problems that can be prevented or mitigated by adequate prenatal care.
Termination of insured prenatal-care services for the unborn children of impoverished, undocumented women didn’t need to happen. For both the Governor and the state Legislature, an alternative was (and still is) quite available. These policy makers, whether by administrative or legislative action (or both) could have adopted the unborn-child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program.
For children specifically, CHIP extends insurance coverage somewhat beyond regular Medicaid eligibility boundaries. Pursuant to the option, unborn children are included in the definition of children for purposes of insured health care.
What’s more, this coverage qualifies for federal cost share that is about 15 percent better for the state than the rate for regular Medicaid.
In 2010, the CHIP unborn-child option was rejected because the Governor and a majority of state legislators viewed the policy decision as an immigration issue more than a pro-life issue or a health-care issue.
Former U.S. Congressman John Cavanaugh, now executive director of the Bright Futures Foundation, was another who testified before the panel of legislators. He made the point that not a single positive result can be attributed to the policy change.
The Governor, numerous state legislators and other Nebraskans as well would probably beg to differ, on grounds that preventing "illegals" from receiving taxpayer-subsidized medical assistance is a positive result.
But that view fails to acknowledge and respect the individual humanity and dignity of unborn children, disregards their health in utero and post-birth consequences, and ignores the facts that unborn children have no immigration status and are innocent of violating any laws.
The result is inappropriate punishment.
Fortunately, CHIP’s unborn-child option is still available. The lamentable repercussions that have occurred since March cannot be reversed, but more extensive harm can be avoided by policy action.
What’s up with Arizona?
The Grand Canyon state seems to be getting a lot of attention recently, especially with regard to high-profile challenges to its laws, challenges which the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to decide.
On Nov. 3, the Court heard oral arguments pertaining to an ACLU-type challenge to Arizona’s 1997 law that allows individuals to claim tax credits for contributions to non-profit organizations that use the funds to provide tuition scholarships to help children enroll in non-governmental schools. Last year, Arizona’s program awarded 27,000 scholarships to help children pay tuition at 373 schools. (Legislation proposing a similar program in Nebraska, LB 67, was introduced during the last past, 101st Legislature, but was held by the Revenue Committee.)
The rationale of the legal challenge is that since the scholarships can be used by recipients to pay tuition at religiously-based schools, Arizona’s law violates the ban on establishing religion set forth in First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected next spring.
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a challenge to Arizona’s 2007 law that authorizes suspension and revocation of licenses to operate when businesses are found to have knowingly hired unauthorized immigrants. The challenge from businesses and civil rights advocates is that this law violates the preemption doctrine, derived from the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, because it interferes with Federal-law jurisdiction over immigration policy and enforcement.
It is important to note that this Arizona law is not the same one that has been receiving all the political and legal attention recently. It’s not the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act," SB 1070 as amended by HB 2162, passed by the Arizona Legislature and dramatically signed into law by Governor Brewer last April. That law’s most notorious provision is the one that requires state and local law enforcement personnel to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of any individual who is the subject of a lawful stop, detention or arrest "where reasonable suspicion exists" (without any profiling, of course) "that the person is an alien and unlawfully present in the United States."
That law, the key parts of which are currently enjoined, was argued in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Nov. 1. It, too, is likely to be the focus of U.S. Supreme Court review, perhaps some time next year.
On another aspect of the hot topic of immigration, it is worth noting that Nebraska now has eight counties tied into to the Secure Communities program, an initiative of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to improve the identification and deportation of aliens convicted of crimes.
ICE announced Nov. 2 that Secure Communities in Nebraska now includes law enforcement in Adams, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Madison and Merrick counties, as well as Douglas and Lancaster, which were brought in Aug. 17.
Pursuant to Secure Communities, fingerprints taken during the normal arrest-and-booking process are checked against the FBI and Department of Homeland Security databases. Both ICE and local law enforcement agencies are notified if the fingerprints identify the person as an unauthorized or out-of-status immigrant or an authorized immigrant who has previously committed a crime that makes him or her deportable. ICE evaluates the case to determine if it will issue a detainer against the jailed individual.
Advocates for just treatment of immigrants have expressed legitimate concerns about the Secure Communities initiative. For one thing, individuals are screened upon arrest and booking, before they have been convicted of or even charged with a crime. There also are concerns about the accuracy of data bases, about costs and prioritization of expenditures, about the ambiguity of whether or not local communities can decline or limit their participation; and about the fact the program is being rapidly expanded even though ICE has yet to promulgate regulations.
Perhaps an even more compelling concern is the effect this and other local enforcement attempts will have on community-policing endeavors, which rely so much on trust, cooperation and communication. These are apt to be weakened when local law enforcement is linked to ICE and deportation.
And finally….
Remember Tariq Aziz?
Prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein, he was regularly the televised spokesman for that regime, described as its "international face" by the Associated Press. A Catholic, he was the only Christian among Saddam’s closest group. After hiding for a while, he surrendered to the U.S. and was incarcerated. In July of this year his custody was transferred to Iraq’s government.
The latest news involving Tariq Aziz is that on Oct. 26 he was sentenced to death by hanging. Consistent with its international position, the Holy See has urged that the death penalty not be imposed; and may seek intervention through diplomatic channels.
The election is over. The results are known. The collective exhale of relief from both candidates and electors is like the winds that sweep across Nebraska in late October.
The voters in our household tried to stay positive, interested and focused on issues throughout the process, but after receiving several "recorded messages" during the weekend before Election Day, it was difficult to sustain good attitudes. That experience was a little souring—also somewhat entertaining—but not enough so to keep us away from the polls. Voting is always important.
It is also important to sustain interest in the political process even though the election is now a matter of history. Political responsibility and faithful citizenship, which Catholic teaching regards as necessary and virtuous, do not end with casting a ballot. All are called to engage the decision-making processes that affect the common good.
Now is an excellent, compelling time to take a relatively simple step: write a letter or send an e-mail to those newly elected, or re-elected, to represent you in government. Congratulate them. Wish them well as they shoulder important responsibilities and face major challenges. Do this even if they didn’t receive your vote.
Also, just as importantly, let them know of the issues you are interested in, the views you hold and the priorities you assign to those issues. Follow up, not once but on regular, reasonable basis. The objective? Initiating and cultivating a constituent-office holder relationship.
The conclusion of another round of elections means the decision-making processes are soon to renew, for which we all have a continuing responsibility.
Considering the news of just a few days prior to the election, we cannot help but wonder if some of those elected to the Nebraska Unicameral—probably more so for re-elected incumbents—are having some second thoughts about holding that office. We refer to the news that the Nebraska Economic Forecasting Advisory Board increased its estimate of the gap between state spending and anticipated tax revenue.
The Board’s numbers now forecast an unprecedented gap of $1.39 billion for the next budget biennium, i.e., July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2013. The previous forecast, in July, pegged the shortfall at $751 million. The budget problem has grown bigger as considered by the independent forecasters.
The Forecasting Board assumes a 10.4 percent increase in state spending for the two-year period, largely due to replacing federal stimulus funding, and forecasts a 3.3 percent growth in revenues, which is considerably below historical averages.
Since the state constitution requires a balanced budget, legislators and the governor will face a really big challenge in the upcoming legislative session, which begins January 5. Either spending will have to be substantially pared, at a cost to state aid and operations, or measures will have to be taken to increase revenue; i.e., raising taxes/fees. Quite a choice, huh? The decisions will be difficult and stressful.
There is some realistic hope that the situation will improve before the budget decisions are finalized. There will be updated forecasts in February and April, while the regular session will run through May.
Some trepidation is certainly understandable, but rather than having second thoughts about what they have gotten themselves into, it is more likely that those elected to serve in the upcoming 102nd Nebraska Legislature are eager to tackle the challenges.
While the budget and its many component issues will be the Legislature’s foremost priority, it won’t be the only matter addressed in 2011. The scope is broad.
For example, this Legislature is likely to tackle implementation issues stemming from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, federal health care reform. Not only will this be a matter of deciding what has to be done, by when, and how best to do that, but it also will involve paying attention to changes being considered by Congress.
Many of the substantive provisions of PPACA are scheduled to take effect in 2014. Other provisions, however, took effect on September 23 of this year, including banning insurance denials due to pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime health insurance benefit caps and providing for dependent coverage of children through age 25.
And finally….
By December 1 upcoming, a six member task force of legislators is expected to present a statewide strategic plan for cultivating a climate of entrepreneurship that will result in innovation and high-wage employment. The aptly named Innovation and Entrepreneurship Task Force was created by the enactment of LB 1109, the aptly named Nebraska Innovation and High Wage Employment Act.
Part of the strategic plan must include an overview of best practices from other states, including "economic gardening and angel investor programs."
Sounds interesting.
According to a recent news item, approximately 450 Nebraskans are waiting for an organ transplant on an average daily basis. Beginning next year, that number could begin to decline if legislation enacted this year fulfills its intended purpose.
Legislative Bill 1036 offered Nebraska’s lawmakers the essence of the latest version—2006 as updated—of the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). The bill’s intent and purpose are to update and improve governance and coordination of the donation and procurement processes, thereby facilitating more donations of body parts for transplantation, therapy, research and education.
Legislators gave LB 1035 a generally warm, but rather ho-hum reception. Its length (46 pages) and substance notwithstanding, the bill had a smooth, unchallenged trip through the legislative process, under the sponsorship of Senator Brenda Council of Omaha. It was introduced Jan. 21 and given final passage March 26, on a 48-0 vote. It was signed into law by the governor and takes effect next Jan. 1.
As its descriptive title suggests, LB 1036 is sort of model legislation. Its scope is limited to donations from deceased donors as a result of gifts made before or after their deaths. The basic framework and most of the details are the work-product of the NCCUSL, which creates and pushes for legislation that can be generally uniform and harmonized among all the states, on a variety of subjects. Like most states, Nebraska has several Uniform Law commissioners, typically highly influential attorneys. Two of these commissioners did most of the lobbying for LB 1036 and were bolstered in their efforts by the national chairman of the UAGA drafting committee, who visited the state and testified for the bill at the public hearing held by the Health and Human Services Committee.
The original Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was promulgated in 1968 and adopted by every state in a short period of time. In 1987, NCCUSL revised the 1968 UAGA to address changes in technology and practice. Only 26 states enacted that new version; Nebraska was not among them.
But Nebraska hasn’t ignored its anatomical-gift laws since 1968. There has been amendatory legislation several times during the intervening period; significant among such bills were establishment of an organ-donor registry, and a “first-person consent” law, which bars next-of-kin from overturning an adult’s own act of donation.
Before passage of LB 1036 in Nebraska, 38 other states had adopted the essence of the updated 2006 UAGA. While uniformity is the mantra, it hasn’t been achieved on an absolute basis. States have made independent decisions and changes within the framework, including Nebraska with LB 1036.
Among aspects of the UAGA adopted by LB 1036 is explicit recognition of the autonomous decision of anyone who desires not to be an organ donor. The legislation expressly allows for making a “refusal” to be a donor. If a refusal is written and signed, as with a document of gift, it has to be honored, assuming adequate communication.
There is a significant flaw in the way this autonomy is addressed. While there is an active registry and a process for effectuating a positive designation, no similar registry or process exists for the negative designation. It’s a general authorization; if one wants to use it, he or she has to make sure the decision is communicated in a variety of ways. Attempts to correct this flaw by opening the registry to refusals as well as donations were vigorously rejected by the uniform law commissioners, paying heed apparently to objections from the exclusive organ procurement organization in the state.
Catholic teaching encourages organ donation as an act of beneficence and charity, but there are moral principles and prescribed conditions to be upheld, such as informed consent, medical certainty that death has occurred and not causing death. As part of its response to enactment of LB 1036, the Nebraska Catholic Conference plans to provide information and guidance relating to this new law prior to its Jan. 1 effective date. Basic information on the bill is available on the Legislature’s website: www.nebraskalegislature.gov; enter LB 1036 and click on “Go.”
And finally… observations on a different matter:
Thursday, April 29 could not have been a great day for the Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk, at least in terms of the morning’s headlines in the Midlands section of the Omaha World Herald. At the top of the page, there was this one: “Community colleges’ feud flares up.” Down a little on the same page was this one: “Second hospital in Kearney more likely—Talks break down between a doctor group and Good Samaritan.”
Senator Flood, you see, organized negotiation summits and appeared to have successfully brokered compromise agreements in both of those controversies. Those headlines indicated some cracks in those agreements; apparently minds didn’t stay met. Still, from the Speaker’s perspective, his efforts were good enough to keep both controversies from tying up the Legislature in its closing days.
The second and concluding regular session of the 101st Nebraska Legislature completed its 60 legislative days April 14 as scheduled.
No last-day drama; no late-hour adjournment; not even the buzz of a veto override. There was plenty of time to honor the three senators known for sure to not be returning for the 102nd Legislature.
As is naturally and typically the case, the practical results of the 2010 session, and of this Legislature as a whole, won’t be fully known for a while. Often, it takes some time for the true impact of public-policy changes to make a difference. Most of the 196 bills passed this session won’t take effect until mid-July—90 days after adjournment sine die. Some of the bills were passed with an “emergency clause,” which means they took effect when the Governor gave his signature of approval.
From most perspectives, the second regular session of the 101st Legislature was successful; probably not anything historically monumental, but efficient and significant.
The Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk, told his colleagues in his closing speech that “fiscal responsibility” was the standard of the session. With few exceptions, any bill requiring a general fund appropriation did not make it through the process. Following up on last November’s special session, the legislators further pared the current budget and resisted temptations to tap the cash reserve, which now exceeds $300 million, a number that is pretty remarkable relative to other states.
Even though its two regular sessions are now concluded, this Legislature is by no means finished. The cash reserve notwithstanding, a budget deficit now projected at nearly $680 million for the next fiscal biennium is a source of ongoing concern and anxiety for current legislators, most of whom will confront it directly in 2011.
Although unlikely, it’s not out of the question that this Legislature will have another special session before the end of 2010. More unique with respect to the current situation is something the legislators did April 14, the next-to-last day of their session. On a 46-0 vote, they approved Legislative Resolution 542, which was introduced by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Lavon Heidemann.
LR 542 sets in motion a process for preparing to confront the budget deficits in 2011. It encourages the current Legislature’s standing committees and executive board to “examine General Funded functions and expenditures of state agency operations and aid that are required by state law.”
Articulation of what this might mean is found in this statement: “…it is hoped that committees are able to identify statutory changes that de-obligate the state from operating and aid costs for the forthcoming biennium.”
The resolution also expresses the Legislature’s desire “that the Governor submit enabling legislation specific to his budget recommendations.”
Any time budget making involves “de-obligating” and statutory changes, it’s a major situation, much more so than just setting line-item numbers. Given this context, the rest of 2010 is clearly going to be active and meaningful.
The three senators who for sure won’t be back in 2011 will be able to participate in LR 542 and other legislative activity, because their terms continue until their successors are sworn in early next January. They are the district 22 senator, Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center; the district 14 senator, Tim Gay of Papillion; and the district 8 senator, Tom White of Omaha. Senator Stuthman is the only legislator subject to term limits in this election year. Senator White opted to run for another office and Senator Gay opted not to seek a second term. Appropriately, they each addressed their colleagues during the closing ceremony and were applauded for their public service.
Another thought on the recently concluded session: In our own category of “stealth bills,” that is, bills that received less attention than was warranted, but are likely to have a significant impact, we have these two: LB 1036 and LB 1106.
The former is a 43-page rewrite of state laws governing organ and tissue donations, generally consistent with the latest “Uniform Anatomical Gift Act” pushed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
The latter bill authorizes public-school districts to operate health centers under certain conditions and makes the services eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Uniquely, it was handled as a budget bill.
These measures passed on final votes of 48-0 and 49-0 respectively. Both had less than eight hours of floor debate and few questions. We’ll give them more attention in a future column.
And finally… Of the numerous internet reactions we’ve seen on the hot issue of continuing prenatal care services for unborn children from impoverished families regardless of the mother’s immigration status, this may be the most amusing: “Nice try (Senator) Ashford, but my governor knows what’s best to deal with the scurge (sic) of illegal immigration, and it isn’t giving them incentives.”
Perhaps that’s evidence of a winning political calculation?
Only 15 legislative days remain in the Nebraska Unicameral’s regular session for 2010. Some earlier-hinted speculation that legislators might not use all 60 working days allowed for this session now appears remote. A significant amount of prioritized legislation remains on the worksheet.
A bill sure to spark intense debate and likely, but lamentably, a showdown with the governor is LB 1110. It proposes to reinstate longstanding governmentally funded prenatal care and services for unborn children in impoverished families. Codifying the unborn-child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program will allow Nebraska to continue this medically-important coverage for all eligible unborn children in the state irrespective of the mothers’ immigration status.
What’s more, since the federal share of costs is greater under CHIP than under “regular” Medicaid, the state can continue the coverage and still have savings over what the cost would have been had such coverage under Medicaid been allowed to continue.
LB 1110 is a win-win: continuing the long-term benefits of prenatal care for unborn children from impoverished families at a cost lower than what it has been.
For those who are inclined to react to this as an issue of providing benefits to illegal immigrants, notwithstanding the reality that the true recipients of such benefits are unborn children, who are not illegal immigrants but presumptive U.S. citizens, reading both LB 1110 and its fiscal note would be a helpful, conscientious thing to do. Both documents are available through the Legislature’s website.
Those who maintain that churches and charities should step in and meet the prenatal healthcare needs of all those in the impacted category are naively or intentionally unrealistic about the scope and scale of these needs. They also may be ignoring the essential functions and social responsibilities of government.
By now it is well-known through media reports that Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop William Dendinger of Grand Island wrote to Governor Heineman, respectfully asking him to reconsider his announced opposition to LB 1110. The essence of the bishops’ message is the following:
“This is an important and urgent Pro Life matter, Governor. Obviously, the need for, and importance of, prenatal care and services only exist when a woman is pregnant, carrying an unborn child in her womb.... Denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity and Pro Life principles. It is 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 access to coverage for such care could be a decisive factor in leading some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth, each time a tragedy.
“Assisting unborn children to have a healthier start to life makes abundant sense, not only from an economic standpoint, since healthcare needs are likely to be considerably greater without the benefits of prenatal care and services, but also from a human rights standpoint as well. The immigration status of their mothers should not be allowed to adversely affect the health and well-being of the unborn children. When balanced against the legitimate public-policy concerns about illegal immigration, caring for the unborn children should be the higher priority, as the right thing to do.”
The letter was hand-delivered to the governor’s office on March 2. As of March 15 there had not been a direct response. Nonetheless, comments made for media purposes suggest that his opposition to reinstating prenatal coverage for unborn children regardless of their mothers’ immigration status is firm.
The governor’s vigorous opposition significantly increases the challenge for enacting LB 1110, especially for legislators who desire to remain true to pro-life principles of respect for the sanctity and individuality of human life in the womb and safeguarding the health of these vulnerable lives.
In the face of political repercussions, is being pro-life a matter of commitment to fundamental principle or more a matter of lip-service? That’s a dilemma of conscience some legislators might have to face with regard to LB 1110. Politicians who tell voters they are pro-life, but turn their backs on an opportunity to support the unborn deserve to be viewed with skepticism.
To their credit, six of the seven members of the Health and Human Services Committee voted to advance LB 1110 to the full Legislature for floor debate and supported making it a priority bill. Appreciation and commendation are due these six: Senators Tim Gay (chairman), Kathy Campbell (introducer), Mike Gloor, Gwen Howard, Arnie Stuthman and Norm Wallman. The same is true for those who exhibited leadership by adding their names as co-sponsors of this important legislation: Senators Howard, Bob Krist, Colby Coach, Jeremy Nordquest, Ken Hear and Abby Cornett.
And finally…. according to at least three dictionaries, the word “illegal” is not a noun. Thus, referring to unauthorized immigrants as “the illegals” is incorrect. It is also inappropriate and dehumanizing.
Only 15 legislative days remain in the Nebraska Unicameral’s regular session for 2010. Some earlier-hinted speculation that legislators might not use all 60 working days allowed for this session now appears remote. A significant amount of prioritized legislation remains on the worksheet.
A bill sure to spark intense debate and likely, but lamentably, a showdown with the governor is LB 1110. It proposes to reinstate longstanding governmentally funded prenatal care and services for unborn children in impoverished families. Codifying the unborn-child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program will allow Nebraska to continue this medically-important coverage for all eligible unborn children in the state irrespective of the mothers’ immigration status.
What’s more, since the federal share of costs is greater under CHIP than under “regular” Medicaid, the state can continue the coverage and still have savings over what the cost would have been had such coverage under Medicaid been allowed to continue.
LB 1110 is a win-win: continuing the long-term benefits of prenatal care for unborn children from impoverished families at a cost lower than what it has been.
For those who are inclined to react to this as an issue of providing benefits to illegal immigrants, notwithstanding the reality that the true recipients of such benefits are unborn children, who are not illegal immigrants but presumptive U.S. citizens, reading both LB 1110 and its fiscal note would be a helpful, conscientious thing to do. Both documents are available through the Legislature’s website.
Those who maintain that churches and charities should step in and meet the prenatal healthcare needs of all those in the impacted category are naively or intentionally unrealistic about the scope and scale of these needs. They also may be ignoring the essential functions and social responsibilities of government.
By now it is well-known through media reports that Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop William Dendinger of Grand Island wrote to Governor Heineman, respectfully asking him to reconsider his announced opposition to LB 1110. The essence of the bishops’ message is the following:
“This is an important and urgent Pro Life matter, Governor. Obviously, the need for, and importance of, prenatal care and services only exist when a woman is pregnant, carrying an unborn child in her womb.... Denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity and Pro Life principles. It is 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 access to coverage for such care could be a decisive factor in leading some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth, each time a tragedy.
“Assisting unborn children to have a healthier start to life makes abundant sense, not only from an economic standpoint, since healthcare needs are likely to be considerably greater without the benefits of prenatal care and services, but also from a human rights standpoint as well. The immigration status of their mothers should not be allowed to adversely affect the health and well-being of the unborn children. When balanced against the legitimate public-policy concerns about illegal immigration, caring for the unborn children should be the higher priority, as the right thing to do.”
The letter was hand-delivered to the governor’s office on March 2. As of March 15 there had not been a direct response. Nonetheless, comments made for media purposes suggest that his opposition to reinstating prenatal coverage for unborn children regardless of their mothers’ immigration status is firm.
The governor’s vigorous opposition significantly increases the challenge for enacting LB 1110, especially for legislators who desire to remain true to pro-life principles of respect for the sanctity and individuality of human life in the womb and safeguarding the health of these vulnerable lives.
In the face of political repercussions, is being pro-life a matter of commitment to fundamental principle or more a matter of lip-service? That’s a dilemma of conscience some legislators might have to face with regard to LB 1110. Politicians who tell voters they are pro-life, but turn their backs on an opportunity to support the unborn deserve to be viewed with skepticism.
To their credit, six of the seven members of the Health and Human Services Committee voted to advance LB 1110 to the full Legislature for floor debate and supported making it a priority bill. Appreciation and commendation are due these six: Senators Tim Gay (chairman), Kathy Campbell (introducer), Mike Gloor, Gwen Howard, Arnie Stuthman and Norm Wallman. The same is true for those who exhibited leadership by adding their names as co-sponsors of this important legislation: Senators Howard, Bob Krist, Colby Coach, Jeremy Nordquest, Ken Hear and Abby Cornett.
And finally…. according to at least three dictionaries, the word “illegal” is not a noun. Thus, referring to unauthorized immigrants as “the illegals” is incorrect. It is also inappropriate and dehumanizing.
During the remaining couple dozen working days in their current session, Nebraska legislators are likely to spend some time and energy deciding the extent to which they should use state law to dictate organizational, governance and policy changes regarding the Nebraska School Activities Association.
LB 1021 deals with this subject matter. It was advanced to the full Legislature by the Education Committee, albeit with a recommended amendment that would pare its impact. It is the priority bill for Lincoln senator Bill Avery; having been designated for that status, there’s little doubt the bill will be addressed on the floor of the Unicameral.
Among all the many issues, concerns and problems the Legislature can and does deal with, matters such as tax and fiscal policy, energy, health and welfare, the core of education, higher education, roads and infrastructure, water, law enforcement, criminal justice, etc., etc., giving attention to this one is a bit of a head-scratcher. It is connected to education, but only in the context of extracurricular activities.
The Nebraska School Activities Association has a 100-year history of governing and managing interscholastic competition and contests involving high schools statewide, encompassing both public and private high schools.
The NSAA is not a governmental agency. It is not part of, or beholden to the state Department of Education. It is an independent, non-profit, membership-based, self-governing organization with a constitution and by-laws and its own representative, legislative, and judicial processes. Its members are the high schools. They pay dues and activity fees, but by far the greatest amount of revenue is generated from admission and concession sales involved with well-attended district and state contests in athletics primarily; music, drama, speech, debate and journalism are also sanctioned activities.
If the reported numbers are correct, about five percent of NSAA’s annual budget is tied to tax dollars. That budget is $3.5 million, of which $210,000 is paid by the member schools in dues and fees. But that number drops to $182,500 as the public-school, tax-supported share, since approximately 13 percent of the member schools are private and non-tax-supported.
The independent, membership-governance model and the small amount of tax support notwithstanding, Senator Avery and some others apparently have concluded that there are enough public-interest and quasi-governmental elements in the NSAA to justify involvement by the Legislature. He is urging legislative action to address issues he has identified with respect to fairness, accountability, transparency and oversight.
Legislative interest in the NSAA was originally prompted by concerns some parents had in recent years with rules that limited “dual participation” in non-school “club programs” during the concurrent interscholastic sports seasons. From the NSAA’s perspective, this was a matter of protecting the integrity of the high-school programs and watching out for the welfare of the student athletes. For the parents and club coaches it was viewed as an intrusion upon their rights to enable their children and athletes to train and compete to the extent they desired.
The parents and club coaches took their concerns to state legislators, such as Sen. Avery, who, upon examination, identified broader issues of concern.
Make no mistake, there are legitimate issues involving the structure and governance of the NSAA, especially with regard to equity and fairness in the representation to which the association has been accustomed. Senator Avery points to the fact that over 100 years, the NSAA’s top level of governance, its elected, six-member Board of Control, has never had a member of a racial minority and only one female.
Interestingly, as far as we have been able to determine, there never has been a board of control member from other than a public school either. What’s more, there have been rules that have been unfair to private-school members, particularly strict reliance upon public-school-district boundaries for residency, eligibility and transfer rules. Nonetheless, changes have been made over the years and matters have improved.
Obviously, private schools are a minority in the NSAA membership, but they participate actively in the elections and processes and seem generally satisfied with the relationship. By no means are they advocating for intervention by the Legislature in the governance of the NSAA. Like their public-school counterparts they have doubts and concerns about the looming presence of LB 1021 and its repercussions for an independent, non-governmental association.
To its credit, the Legislature’s Education Committee has recommended that LB 1021 be scaled back to a point that it only would impose requirements for open meetings and open records, similar to those that apply to governmental subdivisions. The committee has proposed an amendment to accomplish this. But even that might be going too far. It is unnecessary legislation with consequences for the independence of an organization that ought to be independent. The NSAA’s governing authority and its member schools cannot have been oblivious to the clamor. They have gotten the message. Changes will be made. The Legislature need not dictate change, but should watch it happen.
The recent, sudden, surprising and alarming announcement by Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services that many unborn children will be disqualified from receiving prenatal services under the medical-assistance program needs a quick, life-affirming response. Apparently, it’s going to be up to the Legislature to get this done; to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the unfortunate turn of events.
For at least three decades, and until just recently, Nebraska policy recognized and treated unborn children as the true and ultimate recipients of prenatal services covered by Medicaid, the joint Federal-state program that insures the poor on a means-tested basis. The turn of events is that the Federal government, more specifically the Center for (Medicare and) Medicaid Services (CMS), discovered that Nebraska’s longstanding practice is not in accord with Medicaid rules. Medicaid policy does not recognize unborn children as unique and separate recipients of covered services.
The impact of the resulting order to end the unauthorized practice is affecting two general categories of unborn children. First are the unborn children of impoverished mothers whose presence in the U.S. is unauthorized under immigration laws. Due to their status, these pregnant women are themselves ineligible for all but emergency services and childbirth. DHHS estimates that Medicaid coverage will be terminated in approximately 1,000 such cases.
The second general category is likely to be considerably smaller in number. It consists of those being disqualified not because of their immigration status (they are U.S. citizens), but because not counting the unborn child in the family will drop the income ceiling that tests for eligibility. There also might be a few cases of lost eligibility due to other quirks in the policy, but overall the relevant, disconcerting number is 1,000-plus.
The state already has stopped enrolling new cases of pregnant women who are unable to document their authorized status. Beginning Feb. 1, notices were being sent to all pregnant recipients of Medicaid, advising them that if they themselves are not eligible then prenatal coverage will end as of March 1.
This is a bad situation; one needing correction sooner rather than later. Prenatal care is critically important for the health and well-being of the child post-birth. What’s more, no pregnant woman should feel pressure to abort her pregnancy due to concerns about accessibility to prenatal care or the lack of supportive public policy.
The good news is that there is a fairly uncomplicated way for restoring this important coverage. The solution is related to the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA). Pursuant to this Federal law that governs a joint Federal-state children’s health insurance program—in Nebraska it’s known as Kids Connection—there is an unborn-child option; states can elect to cover unborn children as recipients in their own right, subject of course to means-testing household income.
Logic dictates that children in utero in this country are presumptive U.S. citizens, a status that will be affirmed at birth. CMS has acknowledged and allowed this basis for eligibility for covered prenatal services throughout the term of pregnancy.
Initially, DHHS officials balked at this idea for restoring prenatal coverage for the affected categories of unborn children. They held that because Nebraska originally chose to expand Medicaid rather than establishing a separate CHIP program, it would not be possible to “cherry pick” the unborn child option from CHIPRA. Fortunately, advocacy-group lawyers jumped in to assert that it would indeed be possible to combine the unborn-child option with Nebraska’s Medicaid-expansion, i.e., Kids Connection.
More recently, it appears that DHHS and Governor Heineman’s administration have acknowledged the unborn-child option under CHIPRA, in conjunction with Kids Connection, as a way to continue prenatal coverage for the unborn children of unauthorized immigrants. Nonetheless, there still seems to be reluctance to doing a Medicaid plan amendment in the absence of statutory authorization by the Legislature.
But another issue is also causing reluctance to act administratively on this urgent matter. It has to do with LB 403, which was passed last year by the Legislature as the state’s contribution to helping bail out the Federal government on illegal immigration.
Nebraska law under LB 403 is that public benefits cannot be paid or provided to any non-citizens who lack authorized immigration status. In the case of prenatal services, however, the true and ultimate recipient is not the unauthorized immigrant, but the unborn child, a presumptive citizen.
This is not an immigration issue; it’s a pro life issue. Anyone who tries to make this an immigration issue should be ignored, respectfully, of course.
If indeed an amendment to the statutes governing medical assistance is necessary in order to cooperatively ensure the necessary correction, then so be it; lawmakers should take the lead and get it done.
Likewise, if an amendment to the LB-403 law is necessary, either legally or politically to clear up the matter, then so be it, lawmakers should get that done as well. There is a lot at stake, both in the present and for the future.
When does the monetary cost incurred by government in seeking to dispense the ultimate retribution to those who commit heinous murders become too high to justify? How much is endmost revenge worth in spending taxpayer funds? Can capital punishment be too expensive and irresponsibly wasteful, especially when other crime-fighting and crime-solving needs are underfunded?
Nebraska appears to be in a phase of its death-penalty history that has some lawmakers and others asking legitimate and serious questions about the economic drain and cost-effectiveness of continuing to hang onto the death penalty as the sentence for aggravated first-degree murder. The obvious, less costly alternative would be maximum-security imprisonment for life, with the only possibility of parole resting with three, statewide-elected officials—the Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State—and their rarely used constitutional authority to commute life sentences to terms of years.
Last year, rooted on by lobbyists for the Governor and the Attorney General, a clear-cut majority of the Nebraska legislators resurrected the death penalty. They did so by amending state law to establish lethal injection as the method for execution. This was in reaction to the Nebraska Supreme Court having ruled that the longstanding, sole method—death by electrocution—was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.
During intense debate on the issue, several legislators saw the policy situation as it truly was: an opportunity to move past the economic, moral and legal burdens of the death penalty and toward more effective responses to crime and violence. They brought attention to the issue of cost effectiveness. That didn’t affect the legislative outcome, but it raised real issues, which won’t disappear.
Now, this year, in a new session of the Legislature, the issues have already re-surfaced. It happened last week when LB 306 was called for General File (first round) debate. The bill, chiefly sponsored by Senator Brenda Council of Omaha, proposed to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life without possibility of parole (subject to that sole exception) and with an order of restitution.
LB 306 didn’t have a chance of advancing, but it created another opportunity for Senator Council and Senator Danielle Conrad in particular, to emphasize the issues of cost and cost effectiveness.
Senator Council offered an amendment that called for an official state audit on the comparative costs of the death penalty and incarceration for life relative to the 11 convicted murderers now on death row.
Senator Conrad, a member of the Appropriations Committee, made an especially good point when she cited the fact that due almost entirely to budget constraints—lack of funds to spend—the manpower of the Nebraska State Patrol is at its lowest level since fiscal year 1985-86. Public safety takes a hit, while the death penalty racks up costs.
Even though Senator Council’s amendment to study monetary costs was decisively rejected, it did lead her to introduce the same idea in the form of another, separate bill. LB 1075 will continue the discussion, because it will have a public hearing in front of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, probably in late February.
Numerous studies from other states have found that the death penalty is incredibly expensive, costing millions more than a sentence of life without parole. Many of the extra costs are legally mandated, to reduce the risk of executing an innocent person.
Just last October, a report by the Death Penalty Information Center, citing figures compiled from several states, including Florida, Kansas and California, found that death-penalty costs can average $10 million more per year per state than life sentences.
In December, an economist from Duke University published a study that found that North Carolina would have a net savings of $11 million per year if it replaced its death penalty with imprisonment for life without parole.
Nebraska doesn’t know its death-penalty costs, because there hasn’t been a serious effort to find out. LB 1075 is a vehicle to direct and facilitate just such an effort. Nebraskans ought to know.
Some legislators say deterrence is worth whatever it costs. But deterrence as a justification for the death penalty has been consistently dismantled by facts and logic, to the point it’s unreliable, if not irrelevant.
Some legislators, perhaps even a majority, hold a view that they don’t need to know or care to know the cost comparison, because it won’t make any difference. For them, whatever the cost of inflicting death as retribution and revenge is, it’s necessary and worth it. Apparently, sky’s the limit for this expenditure of taxpayer funds.
One might have to wait quite a long time to hear any of them say that same thing about spending for public safety, enhanced law enforcement, the correctional system, solving cold cases, compensating crime victims, or for any number of education and human service programs.
One thing Nebraskans might hope to count on when the 101st Nebraska Legislature concludes its second regular session in mid-April is that there won’t be 20+ inches of snow on the ground and wind chills well below zero. Goodness.
Not that the Legislature is responsible for the weather, of course, but no Nebraskan needs reminding that those were the conditions when the 49 citizen legislators began their 2010 lawmaking last week at the State Capitol. Welcome back, solons. Of course it wasn’t that long ago—early November—when the Governor called you into special session to reduce the current biennium’s spending plan.
This regular session is the second of the two conducted by each Legislature and is generally limited by law to no more than 60 working days.
This is the segment when legislators “hit the floor running,” because legislative bills that were not passed or indefinitely postponed (killed) last year are still available for action. So, after three transition days of little more than new bill introductions, floor debate began last Monday.
From Jan. 19 through March 1—tentatively—the full Legislature will meet in the mornings and its committees will conduct hearings on new bills in the afternoons. The tentatively scheduled 60th day, for adjournment sine die, is April 14. Remember, less snow and warmer temperatures.
It is important for Nebraskans to stay informed about the myriad of public policy debates and decisions that will be taking place at the State Capitol over the next 13 weeks. An excellent starter source is the Legislature’s official website, www.nebraskalegislature.gov. Also (in addition to this column, of course), there’s Unicameral Update, which is available both online and in hard copy.
For the 34th consecutive year, we’ll be using the space graciously provided by the diocesan newspapers to update and comment on issues of interest and concern for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, which is the public-policy agency operated jointly and cooperatively by the three dioceses in Nebraska, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops. Our website is www.nebcathcon.org and our phone number is 402-477-7517.
Explanation Would Help Address Disappointment
The amendatory wording that Senator Ben Nelson and his staff “stumbled onto”—his description of the circumstances—for prohibiting federal-government funding of elective abortions in accord with longstanding policy (e.g., the Hyde Amendment), thus enabling him, at least in substantial part, to provide the key vote for Senate passage of health-care-reform legislation, is imprecise, troubling and controversial.
To his credit, Senator Nelson took a strong stand—some say courageous—that expanding government funding of abortion should not be part of health care reform. He pledged that any legislation that violated this principle and precedent would not get his vote. Nonetheless, he ended his resistance and thereupon brought an end to an important segment of the process, because, apparently, he became convinced and confident that adoption of the wording he stumbled onto fulfills his objective and his pledge.
But does it? Skepticism, doubt and concern, as well as disappointment, are appropriate pro-life responses.
Does it truly maintain the status quo or is it an “accounting gimmick” and an abortion-funding mandate as some have analyzed? From a pro-life perspective, it is not nearly as sound as the Stupak amendment in the House of Representatives’ bill. But is it better than, equal to or worse than the Nelson-Casey-Hatch amendment that was defeated earlier in the process? That’s a debatable topic. Apparently, Senator Nelson determined that it was not worse.
One thing is certain: Senator Nelson’s last amendment doesn’t fulfill the objective he consistently asserted and the pledge he consistently made just because he says it does. It isn’t better than or even equal to the status quo just because he says it is. He bears a responsibility to thoroughly and clearly explain why his amendment does not expand federal funding for abortion nor violate the principle of the Hyde Amendment. Otherwise, doubt, concern and disappointment will persist.
And finally . . .
There’s a note left over from the Unicameral’s special session on budget cutting.
Because a big part of the mainline budget consists of government operations, at least one representative of every agency, usually the director appeared before the Appropriations Committee to describe the anticipated impact of an across-the-board budget cut and in some instances targeted, program-specific cuts as well. The typical description was that cuts were understandable, acceptable and doable. But almost as typically, caveats and some reluctance were expressed.
One of the agency representatives, who appeared late in the process, near the end of the long list of agency hearings, told committee members at the onset of his testimony that he had observed how common it was for those appearing before the committee to testify, “our agency supports the proposed cuts, but….”
“I have a little ‘but’ as well,” he further testified.
The coverage and payment of abortion in health plans under the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare") was a point of contention that nearly kept the ACA from becoming law. However, after believing assurances by the Obama Administration that the law would not involve taxpayer funding for abortion, several key pro-life Democrat Congressmen provided the final votes needed to enact Obamacare.
Now, it has become indisputable that Obamacare is implicating all taxpayers, and many Americans who must buy health insurance through a state exchange, in the grisly practice of abortion. Richard Doerflinger, from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office, explained this implication in a September 2013 Life Issues Forum article.
"First, the health plans that cover abortion on demand will receive federal tax subsidies when the enrollee meets income requirements. So, in violation of the policy in every other federal health program, your tax dollars will subsidize plans that cover abortion.
"Second, if you find yourself in one of these abortion-including plans, you will be required to pay a surcharge for other people’s abortions. The charge will start at a minimum of $1 a month and increase as needed. Congress made this charge ‘separate’ so it can claim that no taxpayer funds are going to abortions themselves. Yet insurers are forbidden by law to allow anyone to opt out of the payment.
"Third, the ACA forbids the insurer to give you any special warning that your plan covers abortions. The abortion coverage can only appear in the fine print along with all other ‘services.’
"Fourth, the ACA forbids the insurer to tell you how much you are paying for abortions. It must charge you for the full amount of your coverage (abortion plus everything else), then divide the funds into separate accounts later. This is designed to prevent you from refusing to write the separate check for abortions."
"In short," Doerflinger states, "there will be tax subsidies for health plans that cover abortion, and many Americans will be forced by law to pay premiums for abortion itself. Despite claims that there won’t be "taxpayer funding of abortion," the ACA expands federal support for abortion, and restricts the freedom of those who object to paying for it."
The good news is that the ACA gives states the authority to prohibit the coverage of abortion in all plans on the healthcare "exchange" (see: 42 U.S.C. 18023(a) and (c)). And Nebraska is one of 23 states that enacted such a law.
In 2011, the Nebraska Legislature enacted LB 22 which prohibits abortion coverage (except to "prevent the death of the woman") in any healthcare exchange plans established by the ACA. And LB 22 went one step further by also prohibiting abortion coverage in private healthcare plans "except through an optional rider to the policy for which an additional premium is paid solely by the insured."
Hence, Nebraskan’s who choose (or are forced) to purchase a health plan from the federal exchange should know that their plans will not cover deliberately induced abortions performed after implantation. Unfortunately, there is no "opt out" for the so-called "HHS mandate" that requires most plans to cover sterilizations and contraceptive drugs and devices, including those that can cause early abortions.
This mandate, which applies to all but a very narrow category of religious employers, is being challenged—with much preliminary success—in 75 different lawsuits representing more than 200 plaintiffs. See www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/ for updates on these lawsuits.
Hopefully, the unjust and insidious HHS mandate will soon be thrown out as unconstitutional by the Courts, and then thrown into the garbage bin where it belongs.
If you knew that spending a little bit of your time praying could save lives, would you commit the time? This is not hyperbole, it is fact. Every day that abortions are committed at one of the three abortion mills in Nebraska, volunteers come to pray. And as a result, lives are saved.
How do we know this? Because, praise be to God, women occasionally tell us that our prayerful presence is what prompted them to change their mind and choose life.
"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. For those who suffer from a past abortion, however, God’s mercy can seem incomprehensible.
Personal and intensely emotional stories of women struggling with a past abortion give testament to this sad reality. I’ve received such letters in my office and many others can be seen on post-abortion websites like www.hopeafterabortion.com (Project Rachel). Here is an excerpt from one of those letters:
"My personal journey of healing began after six long years of the most deafeningly silent pain… I remember during those dark years, I would wake up each morning, and for a few brief seconds, all was well. Then I would remember what I had done. The grief was all-consuming. But, like so many other women, I kept it locked inside. I had accepted my fate. I was unforgiveable.
"The enormity of what I had done actually made my steps heavier… I cried alone almost daily. For brief periods I could take my mind off of it. Sometimes I would even forget long enough to try and enjoy a comedy at the movies, but then mid-laughter I’d remember and my laughing would stop because, well, I didn’t deserve to laugh.
"Growing up in a Catholic family that attended Mass every Sunday, I never expected that I, of all people, would be in this situation. I convinced myself that I had committed an unforgiveable act. I felt utterly alone. I desperately needed to connect with other women who were suffering as I was, and I longed to be the woman I used to be.
"And then one fateful Sunday morning during Mass, my husband handed me a church bulletin, pointing out the words on the back: ‘Project Rachel — a program for post-abortion healing through the archdiocese.’ I couldn’t believe my eyes.
"It took me several months to muster up the nerve to call. I had done a fine job of beating myself up for years and I certainly didn’t need the person on the other end of the phone to make me feel any worse. But, when I finally called, it was not like that at all. The voice on the other end was warm and full of hope for me. My journey of healing began on that day that I made that phone call.
"Thanks to Project Rachel, I am me again… The power of forgiveness is life altering. I am happy again, and the people whom I love sense that. I will always regret my decision, and I will continue to carry my quiet secret with me. It has become a part of who I am, but it no longer defines who I am."
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 1-888-456-HOPE (4673). Information on Project Rachel and abortion’s emotional and spiritual aftermath is also available online at www.hopeafterabortion.com.
In his 2009 homily on the Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, Pope Benedict XVI 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. 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."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
One of the most rewarding aspects of my job is the privilege of working with so many committed and generous pro-life volunteers at the parish, diocesan and state levels. The Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities calls for implementation at all of these levels.
At the parish level, the Pastoral Plan says the following: "Actively promoting a renewed respect for human life is the responsibility of every Catholic. The parish pro-life committee assists in a special way by helping to make the parish a center of life, a place where parishioners understand the issues and the importance of meeting the needs of those who are most vulnerable—especially mothers and their unborn children, and those who are seriously ill or dying and their families."
In 2007, my office established the Gospel of Life award to recognize and celebrate exemplary pro-life efforts by parish coordinators and other Catholics in their parish and community. One individual is chosen annually from each of the three Catholic dioceses of Nebraska. The award, which includes a Papal blessing, is being presented at the Bishops’ Pro Life Conference Banquet Friday, Oct. 18.
The recipient from the Diocese of Grand Island is Rose Mary Thomas. Mrs. Thomas was the parish pro-life coordinator at St. Patrick Parish in Sidney for the last 15 years, stepping down recently at the age of 82. Her activities involved implementing all aspects of the Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, including educational, prayer and pastoral programs. She also served as St. Patrick’s representative at the twice-yearly pro-life rummage sale, which raised funds for pro-life activities.
In addition to her pro-life work for her parish, Rose Mary helped organize and lead Sidney Right to Life for many years and served on the board of Nebraska Right to Life Board. In her free time she helps with funeral dinners and is a hospice volunteer.
The recipient from the Diocese of Lincoln is Father Jeffrey Eickhoff. In the summer of 2002, Father was appointed as assistant diocesan pro-life director and in 2005 became the pro-life director for the Diocese. He was this year appointed rector of St. Gregory the Great Seminary in Seward.
As pro-life director, Father Eickhoff has provided excellent leadership in organizing an annual diocesan pro-life poster and essay contest, leading bi-annual prayer vigils outside the Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Lincoln, and assisting with planning and implementing the annual Bishops’ Pro Life Conference. Over the past five years, Father has been a driving and invaluable participant on a tri-diocesan committee that is developing a Respect Life Curriculum Resource Guide.
The recipient from the Archdiocese of Omaha is Bonnie Hoffman. For more than 19 years Bonnie has been an active and faithful pro-life coordinator for St. Mary Parish in Wayne. She has faithfully implemented all aspects of the Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities keeping her parish and community informed and active on pro-life issues.
In addition, she has helped organize pro-life prayer breakfasts and the annual Life Chain. Recently, she and others in her parish are embarking on a project to produce a pro-life calendar featuring babies and children from the community.
On behalf of the Bishops of Nebraska and the entire Church, I extend our gratitude and admiration to these three individuals for their exemplary commitment to the Gospel of Life and to the Church’s mission of building a culture of life and love.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Recently, as I was leaving church following Mass, a family was entering for the next Mass. As I looked down at the faces of their children, I noticed one child in particular. She had the most expressive, beautiful, smiling face I’ve ever seen. She radiated an almost supernatural joy.
While I’d like to think she was really glad to see me, I’m sure she greets everyone that way. This beautiful child has Down syndrome. I think our encounter was providential because as I was seeking a topic for this week’s column I discovered that October is Down Syndrome Awareness Month.
One of the regular pro-life emails I receive is from Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). In last week’s e-mail he mentioned that as many as 90 percent of children with Down syndrome are aborted and then said this:
"The devil wants [children with Down syndrome] dead. Why would the devil want them dead? Because they are messengers sent from God to teach us about love. First, they are joyful people. Sure they have bad days like all of us. But for the most part, they are happy and joyful people and so loving it would knock your socks off. They love unconditionally. The devil really hates that. He hates that the most.
"Second, they teach us how to love. It is a hard thing to think about raising and caring for a person with Down syndrome. It is a lifetime of work and frankly it scares those faced with such a task. But, what parents and siblings of such children tell you, it is an amazing experience. It brings you out of yourself. They teach you the joys of sacrifice. And the devil hates that. He hates it when people learn to sacrifice for others. The devil hates it when we place ourselves second or third or fourth."
In this week’s email from Mr. Ruse, he features a paragraph from a novel called "The Clowns of God" by author Morris West who also wrote "Shoes of the Fisherman." In the book, Jesus sits down with a child who has Down syndrome and says, "What better sign could I give you than to make this little one whole and new? I could do it; but I will not. I gave this mite a gift I denied all of you -- eternal innocence. She will never offend me, as all of you have done. She will never pervert or destroy the works of my Father’s hands. She is necessary to you. She will evoke the kindness that will keep you human. She will remind you every day that I AM WHO I AM."
"So this is why the devil wants them dead," Mr. Ruse asserts. "This is why up to 90% of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome are killed by the abortionist’s knife. The devil wants that. He likes that."
In another pro-life article, a mother of a child with Down syndrome speaks to the mother who has recently been told by her doctor that her unborn baby has Down syndrome. "You will love your baby. Really. You have received many subtle and not-so-subtle negative messages about individuals with this condition. These messages are distorted; they are not the truth. The truth is that you will fall in love with your baby, just as you would any of your children.
"It is very normal to feel fear and sadness when you receive the news. You might be tempted to abort your baby because of this fear and sadness. But if you do abort her, your fear may go away, but the sadness will remain. Always.
"However, if you bring your baby to birth, you will discover that your fear was more daunting than reality, and your special baby will transform your sadness into joy! Be not afraid!" Above all, she pleads: "please remember that there are no human words to convey the joy your child with Down syndrome will bring to you. Don’t let anyone talk you out of this very special privilege!"
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This Sunday, Oct. 6, is designated by the Bishops of the United States as Respect Life Sunday. The purpose of this annual event, which began in 1972, is to celebrate the sacred dignity of every human life. Respect Life Sunday is observed in all of the 195 Catholic dioceses in the United States.
In his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II called for every nation to celebrate an annual "Day for Life." He said "the celebration of this day should be planned and carried out with the active participation of all sectors of the local church."
"Its primary purpose," he said, "should be to foster in individual consciences, in families, in the church and in civil society a recognition of the meaning and value of human life at every stage and in every condition. Particular attention should be drawn to the seriousness of abortion and euthanasia, without neglecting other aspects of life which from time to time deserve to be given careful consideration as occasion and circumstances demand."
To assist parishes in celebrating Respect Life Sunday, the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro Life Activities produces the annual Respect Life Program. Begun in 1972, the purpose of this program has been to bring Church teaching on the value and dignity of human life to the Catholic community and the wider public. The program includes educational, liturgical, and prayer resources as well as programmatic ideas.
The theme of this year’s Respect Life Program, "Open your hearts to life!" was inspired by Pope Francis’ call to all people of good will. Cardinal O’Malley, chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Committee explained this spiritual theme. "We must respond to Pope Francis’ call with great urgency. Opening our hearts to life in Christ empowers us for loving, merciful action toward others," he said. "Only a tender, compassionate love that seeks to serve those most in need, whatever the personal cost, is strong enough to overcome a culture of death and to build a civilization of love."
The Respect Life program’s signature flyer explains that opening our hearts to life "means that we reject the killing of human beings from the moment of conception to their natural death—by abortifacient ‘contraceptives’ and abortion, in destructive embryo research and IVF procedures, by denying life-saving treatment to those with disabilities, and by ‘hastening death’ of the elderly and dying in assisted suicide and euthanasia.
"Opening our hearts to life means opposing the death penalty, as well as slavery, human trafficking, terrorism and unjust war, and that we work to eradicate the conditions that prevent our brothers and sisters from realizing their full human potential. To open our hearts to life, however, we must first overcome every tendency to reject people and demands they make in our daily lives.
"Nearly all of us are sometimes guilty of rejecting those who get in the way of our plans or make us feel insecure. We may honk with impatience at the driver in front of us or speak abruptly to a colleague who is slow to learn new skills, and perhaps use harsh words at home when a spouse or child forgot to do a promised task. In all these seemingly minor everyday ways, we tear away at the Body of Christ. And when we act this way in front of our children, the family ceases to be a school of love."
In one sense, it is sad that our spiritual leaders must designate a special day to recognize and celebrate the dignity of human life. But it is necessitated by a "culture of death" that continually assaults human life, and undermines its dignity.
Thanks be to God, our responsibility on earth is not to defeat death, but to faithfully and persistently oppose it. Let us pray that Respect Life Sunday provides the opportunity and inspiration for all of us to embrace this responsibility.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Our Holy Father’s recent statements in a lengthy interview with one of his fellow Jesuits has caused some to worry that his sentiments were dismissive about the seriousness of moral evils like abortion, homosexuality and contraception. For those who are tempted to such concern, I humbly suggest reading the entire interview, or at least an analysis of it by someone who doesn’t wish that such dismissiveness was the pope’s intent.
One of the first reactions I read was from George Weigel, whose keen intellect and fidelity to the Church’s moral teachings I trust. Mr. Weigel believes that Pope Francis’ description of himself as "a sinner whom The Lord has looked upon" is the key to understanding his emphasis on the Church’s primary role of evangelization and conversion.
In response to the question, "what does the church need most at this historic moment," Pope Francis said:
"I see clearly that the thing the Church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the Church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else." And the way to heal those wounds, says Pope Francis, is through an encounter with Jesus Christ.
Mr. Weigel points out that the "moral law is important, and there should be no doubt that Francis believes and professes all that the Catholic Church believes and professes to be true about the moral life, the life that leads to happiness and beatitude. But he also understands that men and women are far more likely to embrace those moral truths—about the inalienable right to life from conception to natural death; about human sexuality and how it should be lived—when they have first embraced Jesus Christ as Lord."
A couple of my own experiences illustrate this point. The first is a conversation I had with a Catholic friend who is an active and generous member of his parish and who is strongly pro-life. He shared with me that earlier in his life he didn’t practice his faith and was also pro-abortion. I asked him which conversion came first. First he returned to practicing his faith and then he realized that he was wrong about abortion.
The second experience was an encounter with a college student. A few years ago, a group called Justice for All (JFA) brought its display of abortion pictures to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus. Over the noon hour one day I ventured over to see the JFA display and noticed a spirited, but civil, discussion between one of the JFA representatives and a student. As I was observing the discussion another student standing nearby said to me, "I don’t know why they bother with the discussion... neither person’s mind is going to change."
I took the opportunity to talk with him about his views on abortion. To each of his arguments in support of abortion I respectfully responded with my best counter arguments. I felt confident in the persuasiveness of my responses but when our dialogue was ending he said something to me that really caught me by surprise. He said, "thanks for not yelling at me!"
I don’t have any idea if he found my arguments persuasive and ultimately changed his views about abortion. But what apparently impressed him most about our encounter was the respect I showed him, not the arguments I made. This was a poignant lesson to me about how our first objective in building a culture of life must be to imitate the person of Jesus Christ; to embody His love and mercy in our encounters with others.
Referring to "Francis’s radical Christocentricity—his insistence that everything in the Church begins with Jesus Christ and must lead men and women to Jesus Christ", Mr. Weigel says, "If you don’t believe in Jesus Christ as Lord—if you’ve never heard the Gospel—then you aren’t going to be very interested in what the Catholic Church has to say in Jesus’s name about what makes for human happiness and what makes for decadence and unhappiness; indeed, you’re quite likely to be hostile to what the Church says about how we ought to live."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The U.S. Bishops’ official pro-life program, the Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, urges pastoral care efforts that encompass "a broad range of services" that "includes spiritual assistance and essential material help…" "Providing pastoral care to those in need is a primary way that the Church expresses its love for all God’s children."
Among the pastoral services urged by the Bishops is an outreach to post-abortive women and men, which can include one-on-one care, support groups and retreats. In Nebraska, and in most states, the one-on-one outreach is called Project Rachel. Project Rachel provides specially trained priests and professional counselors who provide confidential counseling and spiritual care.
September is the month in which we celebrate the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. This Feast provides an appropriate liturgical opportunity to focus on the sorrow that post-abortive woman and men experience and to promote awareness of God’s limitless mercy to those who seek it.
Witnessing the intense spiritual and psychological wounds that abortion causes and then seeing God’s mercy and love heal those wounds through Project Rachel, punctuates the importance of post-abortion ministry to the Church’s pro-life efforts.
In addition to healing hearts and souls, post-abortion ministry can reduce abortions by healing women before they have repeat abortions. Repeat abortions comprise at least one-third of all abortions in Nebraska. Nationwide, repeat abortions are even higher.
During September, my office is distributing various materials to assist parishes in promoting awareness about Project Rachel and the hope and healing that it facilitates. One of the materials is a flier produced by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat entitled "How to talk to a friend who’s had an abortion." One critical way that each of us can facilitate healing among those wounded by abortion is to know how to respond if we encounter someone who is post-abortive.
This flier asks the question, "If a friend confided in you tomorrow that she had an abortion, would you be able to respond in a way that brings her closer to healing?" The flier then provides some guidance:
"If this is the first time your friend has told you about her abortion, she may be afraid that you will be critical or that you will repeat to others what she tells you. She must know that you are a real friend who cares about her, and that you are not sitting in judgment of her."
"Before you talk to her, keep in mind: What does she need today? Someone to listen? A shoulder to cry on? A referral to a professional counselor, a priest or minister? Or even crisis intervention?"
The flier urges us to listen with our heart. "Begin by listening to your friend. Let her pour out the whole story without interrupting her. You don’t have to understand every detail. It’s important that she lets go of some of the burden she’s been carrying and that she no longer feels alone."
Then we should assure her of our love and support. "Much as you’d like to make her suffering go away with the right words, her grief and loss won’t disappear after one conversation. Assure her of your friendship. Tell her you will be there for her and help her find healing."
Let her know where help can be found. "Ask your friend if she has ever heard about help for people struggling after abortion. There are safe places where trained people can help her overcome grief and loss, and give her hope. There are counselors, priests and ministers prepared to help."
Finally, help her begin the journey. Encourage her to contact Project Rachel for help and give her the phone number, 888-456-HOPE (4673), and website, www.hopeafterabortion.com. "Remind her that God’s love and mercy is bigger than any sin. Assure her again of your friendship. Promise to be there, not only today, but in the future. Thank her for having the trust to talk with you. It took courage. Her healing journey has begun."
This flier and other Project Rachel materials can be obtained from my office.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Mark your calendar now for Oct. 18 and 19 as the date of the 2013 Bishops’ Pro Life Conference.
This annual conference dates back to the mid to late 1970s and has built a reputation of excellent topics and speakers, featuring such luminaries as Cardinal John O’Connor, Congressman Henry Hyde, Mother Angelica, Scott and Kimberly Hahn, Raymond Arroyo and George Weigel.
This year’s conference continues the tradition of excellent topics and speakers and brings a national dimension with its co-sponsorship by Human Life International. Human Life International was officially established in 1981 as a continuation of the Human Life Center founded by Father Paul Marx in 1971.
According to its website, "HLI exists for the defense of life, faith and family around the world… Sponsor of more than 70 international conferences and over 50 conferences in the United States, HLI’s missionaries have inspired and trained pro-life leaders, families, seminarians and students in approximately 160 nations." Father Shenan J. Boquet assumed the role of president of HLI in November of 2011.
Recently, HLI established a new national conference series entitled "In Life & Love: Fostering the Good of Marriage and Family Life". The conference proposes different themes and host dioceses each year. The Archdiocese of Omaha was approached to host this year’s conference in October and since it coincided with the annual Nebraska Bishops’ Pro Life Conference, the two conferences became one.
The theme for the conference is "Life, Dignity and Disability: A Faith that Welcomes." As the theme indicates, the conference will focus in particular on the dignity of persons with disabilities.
The conference will begin with a Friday evening reception and banquet attended by all three bishops of Nebraska. Most Reverend James D. Conley, Bishop of Lincoln, will give the keynote address entitled, "Fulfilling Your Prophetic Mission in Our Secular World."
At the banquet, three exemplary Catholic pro-life leaders (one from each diocese) will be presented with the Gospel of Life award. In addition, the winners of the state pro-life essay contest (sponsored by my office and the Knights of Columbus) will deliver their essays and be presented with an award.
The conference continues on Saturday with Holy Mass celebrated by Archbishop George Lucas followed by numerous outstanding topics and speakers. Most notable are HLI president Father Shenan Boquet ("In the Divine Likeness He Created Them"); and popular authors/speakers Peter Kreeft ("Why Does God Will that We Suffer Disabilities?") and Joseph Pearce ("Joyful Suffering with the Missionaries of the Poor").
Breakout sessions will provide attendees with the choice of several additional topics: "St. Germain Cousins, From Suffering to Sacrifice"; "The Effect of Policy Trends on Life, Dignity and Disability"; "Love at First Sight: A Parenting Journey"; "Journey to Love: Responding to a Poor Prenatal Diagnosis"; "The Greatest Threat to Life and Dignity"; and "Human Dignity and Appropriate End-of-Life Care."
The Bishops’ Pro Life Conference has traditionally been held in Lincoln, but because of the HLI co-sponsorship, it was decided to hold the conference in Omaha at the Ramada Plaza Convention Center (72nd and Grover). More information and online registration is available on the Nebraska Catholic Conference website at www.nebcathcon.org.
My office is very pleased to collaborate with Human Life International in sponsoring this year’s pro-life conference. Amidst a culture that dismisses its weakest members as problems or burdens to be eliminated, this event provides a wonderful opportunity to proclaim and celebrate the sacred dignity of every human life, especially those who are weakest and most defenseless.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
On June 28, the Obama Administration issued its "final rule" on implementation of the so-called "HHS contraception/sterilization mandate." This appalling mandate (which applies to many religious employers like Catholic hospitals, schools and charities) requires healthcare coverage for sterilization, contraception, and drugs and devices that may cause abortions.
The mandate went into effect a year ago (August 1) in the case of for-profit employers. Non-profit religious employers who are not exempt from the mandate (entities previously mentioned) were given an additional year (August 1, 2013) to, in the words of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, figure out how to violate their consciences.
The final rule extended the deadline of implementation on non-exempt religious employers from August 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014. However, the mandate still poses a serious threat to religious liberty and freedom of conscience that is unprecedented in federal law.
First, the mandate exempts only religious institutions that fit an extremely narrow definition (unprecedented in federal law) of religious employer. Essentially, it only includes "houses of worship." This narrowing of who qualifies as religious enough to be exempted from the mandate is an attack on our Constitution’s First Amendment protection of religious freedom.
The final rule not only maintains this narrow definition of religious employer but makes matters even worse by preventing dioceses and other exempt employers from extending their coverage to the employees of religion-based service ministries that are not exempt.
Second, the Obama Administration’s (I believe cynical) attempt to "accommodate" the moral/religious objections of non-exempt religious employers has failed. Barring a legal or legislative remedy, as of January 1, 2014, non-exempt Catholic schools, hospitals and charities will be forced to choose between providing healthcare coverage for morally objectionable services and paying crippling fines.
Third, the final rule provides no exemption or "accommodation" whatsoever for individuals or for-profit businesses with moral/religious objections to the mandated services.
The Obama Administration’s refusal to rescind this insidious mandate or to at least exempt individuals and employers who have moral/religious objections to it, means that every effort must be made to invalidate it in the courts or through federal legislation.
According to The Becket Fund (whose website—www.becketfund.org—provides up-to-date information on all lawsuits against the mandate), there are 37 lawsuits that have been filed by for-profit employers against the mandate. Thirty-two of those lawsuits have obtained rulings touching on the merits of the claims against the mandate. Of these 32 lawsuits, 25 have received relief from the mandate by the courts.
There are 30 lawsuits filed by non-profit employers, including by religious organizations such as hospitals, charities, colleges and Catholic dioceses. So far, only one of these lawsuits has received a ruling based on the merits of the case and the court granted relief from the mandate.
The rest of these lawsuits have received rulings only on procedural matters such as timing. For example, many of these lawsuits were dismissed because the courts concluded that the threat of harm to the plaintiff was not imminent since they were granted a one-year moratorium (until August 1, 2013) while the Administration tried to "accommodate" their moral/religious objections. Now that the final rule implementing the mandate is in place, and implementation of the mandate is imminent, most of these dismissed lawsuits will be re-filed in court.
Efforts to eliminate the mandate are also underway in Congress with introduction of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940, S. 1204). This bill would apply longstanding conscience protections found in other areas of federal law to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) thus protecting religious individuals and employers from the HHS mandate. It would also strengthen existing conscience protections in federal law.
Nebraskans are fortunate that our entire Congressional delegation (2 U.S. Senators and 3 Representatives) have co-sponsored the Health Care Conscience Rights Act. They should be thanked and encouraged to fight for passage of this bill. Contacting them has been made easy by going online to www.nchla.org. In addition, our bishops are encouraging us to utilize and promote the great educational materials, including a compelling short video, available online at www.usccb.org/conscience.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
At the beginning of his "how-to" suicide manual, euthanasia apologist Derek Humphrey says this: "If you consider God the master of your fate, then read no further." The Final Exit Network, a pro-euthanasia group, promotes this mantra: "My Life, My Death, My Choice."
Both statements embody a Godless understanding of human life. This view believes that our life is something we "own"; that we—not God—are the ultimate arbiters of our lives.
Judeo-Christian teaching, on the other hand, believes that human life is a precious gift from a loving God; made in His image and likeness, and that we are stewards, not arbiters or owners, of our lives. With this precious gift come responsibilities to treat our life and those lives in our care in a way that honors God.
Catholic teaching on the meaning of life, suffering and death helps us to be responsible stewards of our life and guides us to avoid two extremes when it comes to decisions about medical treatment. The first extreme is actions intended to cause death (i.e. euthanasia, assisted suicide). The other extreme is insisting on useless or disproportionately burdensome treatment to avoid death at all costs.
Most Catholics probably know that Church teaching opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide as grave violations of the law of God. However, I believe few Catholics know that Church teaching does not require us to utilize every medical intervention or treatment to prolong our lives as long as possible.
To assist Catholics in determining which medical treatments/interventions are morally required and which are morally optional, the Church provides principles for such decisionmaking. The Nebraska Catholic Conference (NCC) presents those principles in a document entitled "Medical-Treatment Decisionmaking: Moral Guidance and Considerations from Catholic Teaching" available online at www.nebcathcon.org or by contacting my office.
The document’s introduction presents the basic foundation for our moral obligation to be responsible stewards of our lives:
"[F]aith 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."
Clearly, most decisions that individuals or families must make about whether to utilize or forego medical treatment fall somewhere between the aforementioned extremes. Therefore, the NCC document provides the following 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."
"Nutrition and hydration", the document continues, "should be provided as part of any patient’s normal care, even when the assistance of medical intervention is necessary." However, "if the provision of artificially administered nutrition and hydration is clinically useless…or causes excessive burdens it may be rejected as ethically extraordinary (morally optional)."
The document provides other very useful principles to assist us in making moral medical-treatment decisions. Furthermore, the Church encourages us to have an advance directive for healthcare decisions (in case of incapacitation) and to make sure that it embodies these Catholic principles. Samples of Catholic healthcare power of attorney forms can be obtained free of charge from my office by calling 402-477-7517.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) established the week of July 21 through July 27 as Natural Family Planning Awareness Week. Although this Week is drawing to a close, the awareness and learning about God’s design for married love and His gift of Natural Family Planning (NFP) must continue.
In my last column I mentioned the excellent educational resources on the USCCB website (www.usccb.org/love-and-sexuality) that provide compelling explanations of God’s awesome design for married love. One of those resources is a 2006 statement by the U.S. Bishops entitled "Married Love and the Gift of Life". This document answers several common questions on this topic. For example:
"What does the Church teach about married love? Marriage is more than a civil contract; 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? 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.
"What is natural family planning? Natural family planning is a general name for the methods of family planning that are based on a woman’s menstrual cycle. A man is fertile throughout his life, while a woman is fertile for only a few days each cycle during the child-bearing years.
"Some believe that NFP involves using a calendar to predict the fertile time. That is not what NFP is today. A woman experiences clear, observable signs indicating when she is fertile and when she is infertile. Learning to observe and understand these signs is at the heart of education in natural family planning.
"When a couple decides to postpone pregnancy, NFP can be very effective. NFP can also be very helpful for couples who desire to have a child because it identifies the time of ovulation. It is used by many fertility specialists for this purpose. Thus a couple can have marital relations at a time when they know that conception is most likely to take place."
There are multiple methods of NFP which are based on the three basic ways a woman’s body indicates the fertile and infertile times of her cycle: cervical mucus, body temperature, and cervical shape or texture. They are Sympto-Thermal (Couple to Couple League, www.ccli.org); Billings Ovulation (Family of the Americas, www.familyplanning.net); Creighton Model, www.fertilitycare.org or www.popepaulvi.com); and the Marquette Method (www.nfp.marquette.edu).
Soon-to-be-saint John Paul II said in his encyclical "The Gospel of Life" that the "trivialization of sexuality is among the principal factors which have led to contempt for new life." If we desire a transformation of what John Paul II called a "culture of death" into a culture of life and love, we must diligently seek to understand, live and proclaim God’s design for married love.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The week of July 21 through July 27 is designated by the Bishops of the United States as Natural Family Planning Awareness Week. This annual celebration coincides with the month in which Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical Humanae Vitae, which articulates Catholic beliefs about human sexuality, marriage, conjugal love and responsible parenthood.
In the midst of the epic battle over the Obama Administration’s coercive “HHS Mandate” forcing most healthcare plans to cover sterilization, contraception and abortifacients, there has never been a greater urgency for Catholics to possess a deeper understanding of, and reverence for, God’s vision of human sexuality.
To assist us in possessing this deeper understanding, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops produced some excellent educational materials that can be downloaded for free at www.usccb.org/love-and-sexuality and at www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning.
These materials include three inspiring bulletin inserts that provide a concise, beautiful explanation of God’s vision of human sexuality. They grab our attention, pique our interest and then refer us to materials that provide a fuller, deeper explanation. Here is a sampling from two of the inserts, entitled One Flesh and In Communion:
“Women and men want happy, healthy, lifelong relationships built on trust, honesty, and intimacy. But most of all, we want our relationships to be built on real love. In today’s society, understanding real love can be difficult. As Catholics, we believe Christ shows us the most perfect image of love: his total gift on the Cross. We find the true meaning of our lives when we imitate this total gift of self and draw our strength from it.
“Women and men profoundly and uniquely imitate this love in marriage. They vow to give themselves to each other, completely. Because of their sexual difference, husband and wife can truly become “one flesh.” Through the language of their bodies, their sexual union recalls their vows: giving themselves to one another in love that is total, faithful, and life-giving. Their sexual love is meant to be an intimate communion with the other—mind, body, and soul—the whole person.
“When a couple deliberately contracepts or sterilizes their sexual union, they change the meaning of their love and their relationship to God. In our hearts, we know we are made for an incredible, an amazing, and a natural love to be shared in communion with our spouse. Contraception impedes and even breaks that communion.” (In Communion)
“The teaching on the use of contraception and sterilization may seem challenging, but it is to preserve the true, complete self-gift between husband and wife, the kind of love that brings real, lasting joy and peace. If we have failed to live this in the past, we need not be discouraged. Our loving Father is always calling us back through the Sacrament of Reconciliation and wanting to strengthen us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.” (One Flesh)
“The impact of a contraceptive mentality is not isolated to individual couples. The widespread use of contraception impacts the entire culture, forming societies to be self-seeking, not welcoming to new life.
“Forty years ago the Church through Pope Paul VI predicted that if contraception became widely available, there would be a general lowering of moral standards, that men’s respect for women would decline, there would be an increase in infidelity and the breakdown of the family, and finally, governments would sanction or mandate contraception in social policy. The most intimate relationship of the couple would be manipulated by public authorities.
“Looking around the world today, it is difficult to ignore the growing disregard for women and children, the breakdown of marriage and family life, and the increased threat of government coercion. But the good news is that the Father raised his Son, Jesus Christ, who, through the Holy Spirit, is always inviting us to encounter him, and to accept his invitation to be in full communion with him and with each other. That’s why he gave us the Church, whose task it is to guide every person toward a true and fully loving relationship with God and with one another.” (In Communion).
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
In 1995, Blessed Pope John Paul II issued his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life"). As part of the Year of Faith events, the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization designated June 15-16 as days of celebration of "Evangelium Vitae."
Catholics from around the world were invited to Rome for what the Vatican called "a communal witness to the sacred value of all life: The lives of the aged, the lives of the sick, the lives of the dying, the lives of the unborn, the lives of the physically and mentally challenged, and the lives of all those who suffer."
The event was intended "to celebrate, affirm, and encourage all those who so tenderly and with self-abandonment follow in the footsteps of the Good Shepherd by tending to the physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs of those who are aged, disabled, ill, unborn, homebound, dying or who suffer in any way."
Pope Francis called the event "a special moment especially for those who care about the defense of the sanctity of human life." He urged the faithful to "keep the attention of everyone on the important issue of respect for human life from the moment of conception."
Evangelium Vitae provides an insightful explanation of the origins and roots of what John Paul II calls "a culture of death." One root of the "culture of death" is a distorted notion of freedom characterized by radical individualism (self-centeredness, viewing others as obstacles/burdens instead of as opportunities to give/receive love); relativism (no recognition of moral absolutes or objective truth) and materialism (valuing possessions above people).
The deepest root, "the heart of the tragedy" according to Blessed John Paul, is "the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism." In other words, if our relationship with our Creator is weak, then our understanding of the meaning and value of human life—created in His image—is also weak.
Think about it. If you have never heard of Michelangelo and someone gives you one of his paintings, you’d have no idea of its value. Likewise, if we don’t know God, we are not likely to fully appreciate the meaning and value of human life, and are more likely to violate its dignity. Violating the dignity of human life, like all sin, alienates us further from God and compounds the problem.
Based on these insights, John Paul completes the document with an inspired road map for rebuilding a culture of life and love. The main root for rebuilding a culture of life and love is the opposite of alienation from God: spiritual renewal. The healthier we are in our relationship with God the more profound our respect for human life will be.
Therefore, the most basic, profound, pro-life activity we can pursue is to strengthen our relationship with God, and therefore foster greater holiness in ourselves and radiate it to those around us. The beauty and allure of living a holy life opens more doors and hearts to God’s truth and love than the most compelling and eloquent words.
Rebuilding a culture of life and love also requires us to reflect on, celebrate, and serve human life as a miraculous and sacred gift: "Indeed, ‘despite its hardships, its hidden mysteries, its suffering and its inevitable frailty, this mortal life is a most beautiful thing…In every child which is born and in every person who lives or dies we see the image of God’s glory…a sign of the living God, an icon of Jesus Christ."
Therefore, "[i]n helping the hungry, the thirsty, the foreigner, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned—as well as the child in the womb and the old person who is suffering or near death—we have the opportunity to serve Jesus…’As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me’".
On the fifth anniversary of its issuance, John Paul declared that Evangelium Vitae is "a document that I consider central to the whole of the Magisterium of my pontificate." That says a lot about the importance of this document, especially coming from a Pope who was a prolific writer and who will likely be declared a saint in our lifetime. We’d all be wise to study and heed the wisdom in this document.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The State of Nebraska requires by law that those who perform abortions report certain data to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) within 15 days from the end of the month in which the abortions are performed. Every spring, DHHS compiles this data and issues a statewide report of abortions.
The 2012 Nebraska Statistical Report on Abortions reveals that 2,299 abortions were reportedly performed in Nebraska last year. When we contemplate that each abortion represents the killing of a human being and the wounding of his/her mother, father, family and society, this death toll is staggering.
If there is a bright spot, it’s that this is the lowest annual number of abortions on record in Nebraska—and a three percent decline from 2011. In 1974, the first full year after Roe v Wade legalized abortion, there were 3,094 abortions reported in Nebraska. That number steadily increased to its high point of 6,346 in 1990. Since 1990, the number has steadily declined. Here are the most relevant statistics from the report:
Age Distribution. By far, the most abortions occurred in the 20-29 age group. Nearly 59 percent of all abortions were done on women in this age group. Women aged 30 years and older comprised 28.8 percent of the abortions. The most positive trend in the age distribution is among teens. In 1974, almost 41 percent of abortions were had by teens. In 2012, the percentage of abortions by teens was down to 12.4 percent.
A particularly sad statistic is that eight girls under the age of 15 had abortions. One of those girls was 12 years old, one was 13 and six were 14 years old. Another 278 teens (aged 15 to 19) had abortions.
Reasons for the abortions. As is typically the case, only a tiny fraction of the abortions (0.6%) were done for the so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest and to prevent the death of the mother. Even if you add in those abortions done for the broader reason of a woman’s "health" (0.9%), the "hard cases" still only comprise about 1.5 percent of all abortions done in 2012.
Another revealing statistic is that 41.5 percent indicated that "no contraception was used." This means, presumably, that nearly two-thirds (58.5 %) were using contraception when they got pregnant. These percentages comport with national figures.
This statistic raises serious doubts about the claim that contraception will reduce abortions. In fact, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute (research affiliate of Planned Parenthood) acknowledges that women who use contraception are more likely to have abortions. Guttmacher explains this phenomenon this way: "because women who are using contraception are motivated to prevent an unplanned birth, they are more likely than women who were not using contraceptives to seek an abortion should they accidentally become pregnant."
Method of abortion. The most notable statistic in this category is that the number of chemical abortions (using RU-486) continues its dramatic climb. The 2012 number of 921 chemical abortions is four times the number in 2009, which was 231.
Repeat abortions. Another very sad statistic is that one third (33.2%) of the women obtaining abortions last year in Nebraska had one or more previous abortions. The breakdown of this statistic is incomprehensible: one previous abortion: 518; two previous abortions: 171; three previous abortions: 57; four previous abortions: 11; more than four previous abortions: six.
The complete report of abortions can be seen online at www.dhhs.ne.gov (click on "Statistics and Reports"). A chart compiling the key data from these annual reports since 1974 can be seen on my website at www.nebcathcon.org (under "Pro Life," "Printed Resources").
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
August 1 is a day of reckoning. It is on this day that the Obama Administration will enforce its unprecedented and outrageous contraception, sterilization and abortifacient mandate against religious employers such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals.
The mandate, which is a provision of Obamacare, forces virtually all health plans to provide free coverage for these immoral services and provides no meaningful exemption for most employers who have religious objections to them. The mandate went into effect last August for most employers.
Religious employers, like those mentioned above, were given a one year moratorium before the mandate would take effect. The Obama Administration said it would use this time to find a way to accommodate the religious freedom concerns expressed by these employers. Thus far, the Administration has failed to do so.
With this looming August 1 deadline, and our fundamental religious freedoms at stake, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is escalating its efforts to oppose implementation of the mandate. These efforts take three forms: legislation, litigation and education/prayer.
On the legislative front, the bishops have been urging Congress to pass the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940). This bill would apply to Obamacare the same conscience protections that have existed in other areas of federal law for decades.
The Bishops are urging Catholics to contact their members of Congress and to urge them to take action to protect conscience rights and religious liberty! More information on this effort is available online at www.nchla.org.
On the litigation front, 31 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate by for-profit employers. To date, of the 26 for-profit plaintiffs that have obtained rulings touching on the merits of their claims against the mandate, 19 have secured injunctive relief from its enforcement.
There have been 30 lawsuits filed against the HHS mandate by non-profit employers, including by religious organizations such as hospitals, charities, religious colleges, and Catholic dioceses. To date, no non-profit case has been decided on its legal merits.
The only rulings on these non-profit employers have been on procedural issues such as timing. That is, the Court saw no harm to the employer until the mandate went into effect. Of course, on August 1 the mandate will go into effect and these religious employers will be harmed by having to choose between violating their religious/moral beliefs and facing oppressive fines. Undoubtedly, these cases will be reasserted on or shortly after August 1.
Finally, on the education/prayer front, the U.S. Bishops are urging parishes and dioceses to participate in the second "Fortnight for Freedom" between June 21 and July 4. The Fortnight is a "two-week period of prayer and action, to address many current challenges to religious liberty, including the August 1, 2013 deadline for religious organizations to comply with the HHS mandate, Supreme Court rulings that could redefine marriage in June, and religious liberty concerns in areas such as immigration and humanitarian services."
On its website, www.fortnight4freedom.org, the bishops provide many excellent resources to assist parishes and dioceses in celebrating the Fortnight. These include fact sheets and other educational resources on religious freedom and the numerous threats to it nationally and internationally in addition to numerous prayer resources.
In light of this unprecedented call to prayer and action on behalf of religious freedom, some may wonder "is religious freedom really under attack in our nation"? The answer, which is addressed and substantiated in one of the Fortnight fact sheets, is a resounding "yes"! This fact sheet cites Pope Benedict’s recognition last year that "various attempts to limit the freedom of religion in the U. S. are particularly concerning."
"The threat to religious freedom," the fact sheet continues, "is larger than any single case or issue and has its roots in secularism in our culture. The Holy Father has asked for the laity to have courage to counter secularism that would ‘delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.’"
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Last week, a team of researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University reignited the debate over human cloning by announcing that human embryos had been cloned for the purpose of destroying them to harvest stem cells. The researchers used a cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the same technique that was used to produce Dolly the sheep about 15 years ago.
Natural conception/fertilization occurs when sperm (23 chromosomes) and egg (23 chromosomes) fuse to form a new human being (46 chromosomes). The SCNT technique does not use sperm. It harvests eggs, removes the 23 chromosome nuclei and replaces them with the 46 chromosome nuclei from a somatic (body) cell. The resulting infused egg is given an electrical charge, or bathed in chemicals to initiate embryonic development.
The Oregon researchers are the first to get cloned human embryos to survive to the blastocyst stage. At this stage of development, the embryo is comprised of an outer ring of cells which will form the amniotic sac and placenta, and the inner cell mass which forms the body of the human. This is also the stage to which embryos produced through in vitro fertilization are grown before they are implanted or frozen.
The inner cell mass contains the embryonic stem cells that will produce all the cells and tissues of the body. These are the stem cells that some researchers believe hold promise for developing cures or treatments for a variety of diseases (even though all the success so far in treating humans has been with ethically obtained "adult" stem cells!).
The ethical problem with harvesting human embryonic stem cells is that it destroys a human being in its earliest stage of development. A human embryo, regardless of how he/she comes into existence (natural human conception, in vitro fertilization or cloning) is, from its single cell stage, a human being. This isn’t my opinion, or the Church’s opinion, it is scientific fact as revealed in every human embryology textbook (see: old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml).
The primary reason researchers have long pursued the cloning of human embryos is to circumvent one of the significant obstacles for using embryonic stem cells to treat human beings: immune rejection. Stem cells harvested from a genetically distinct human embryo are considered foreign matter by an adult body’s immune system. Hence, if stem cells can be harvested from a cloned embryo that is genetically matched to the patient, his/her immune system will, theoretically, not reject those stem cells.
Sadly, there are no federal laws prohibiting the cloning of human embryos, regardless of whether they are produced to be destroyed for their stem cells or to be implanted and gestated to birth. Nebraska law, however, does prohibit state-funded institutions from cloning human embryos for any purpose.
In his statement denouncing the cloning of human embryos, Cardinal Sean O’Malley said human cloning for any purpose is inconsistent with the moral responsibility to "treat each member of the human family as a unique gift of God, as a person with his or her own inherent dignity." Cloning "treats human beings as products, manufactured to order to suit other people’s wishes… A technical advance in human cloning is not progress for humanity but its opposite."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Earlier this week, the Nebraska Legislature debated LB 543, a bill that proposes to replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Although it appears that a majority of senators support LB 543, there were not enough votes to stop a filibuster of the bill. Twenty-eight senators voted for cloture (i.e. to stop the filibuster) but 33 are needed. This means LB 543 will likely see no further action.
Unlike abortion and euthanasia, the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil (i.e. never morally permissible) and is not a primary focus of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities. Nonetheless, the Pastoral Plan does address the death penalty and encourages support for public policy efforts to end it.
The Catholic Church has never taught that the death penalty is an intrinsic evil; She recognizes that its use can be morally legitimate if necessary to protect society from an unjust aggressor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2265-#2267) acknowledges this:
"Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility." (#2265)
"Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person." (#2267)
In 1995, Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote one of his most important encyclicals entitled Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) in which he focuses primarily on the intrinsic evils of abortion and euthanasia. However, Blessed John Paul also mentioned something so important on the death penalty (EV #56) that section 2267 of the Catechism was amended (as follows) to reflect the Pope’s teaching:
"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’"
It is conceivable that there are less-developed countries that could morally impose the death penalty because of the inability to otherwise protect society from unjust aggressors through a secure penal system. This is pretty clearly not the case in our country and state. Hence, the moral legitimacy for the death penalty in Nebraska is, in Pope John Paul II’s words, "practically non-existent."
In the Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, the Bishops conclude their section on the death penalty as follows: "Executing the guilty does not honor one who was killed, nor does it ennoble the living or even lessen their pain, for only love and forgiveness can do that. State-sanctioned killing affects us all because it diminishes the value we place on all human life. Capital punishment also cuts short the guilty person’s opportunity for spiritual conversion and repentance.
"The consequences of widespread loss of respect for the dignity of human life—seen in pervasive violence, toleration of abortion, and increasingly vocal support for assisted suicide and research that destroys human embryos—make it all the more urgent to reject lethal punishment and uphold the inviolability of every human life. ‘Our witness to respect for life shines most brightly when we demand respect for each and every human life, including the lives of those who fail to show that respect for others’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 22).
"Thus we are called to extend God’s love to all human beings created in his image, including those convicted of serious crimes. In so doing, we can help to make ‘unconditional respect for life the foundation of a new society’ (The Gospel of Life, no. 77)."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The murder trial of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell prompted pro-life super woman Lila Rose to do what she does best: undercover investigation of the abortion industry. As a college student, Ms. Rose founded Live Action (www.liveaction.org) and, through undercover investigations, exposed nefarious practices of the abortion behemoth, Planned Parenthood.
Live Action’s latest project, entitled "Inhuman: Undercover in America’s Late-Term Abortion Industry," is a six-month investigation that reveals "illegal, inhuman, and gruesome practices at abortion centers across the country," demonstrating that Gosnell is not alone.
In three different late-term abortion mills (Bronx, N.Y., Washington, D.C, and Phoenix), Live Action sent undercover pregnant women to find out what the abortionist would do if the late-term baby survived the abortion. The videos, posted at www.liveaction.org/inhuman, "document the blatantly inhuman and barbaric acts of abortionists leaving crying babies to die, or even killing the newborns themselves."
Here are some excerpts from the Live Action website:
The Bronx, NY abortion counselor is caught on tape describing, in gruesomely precise terms, how late-term abortions happen. She details what is done with a baby after the abortion and advises to "flush" the baby down the toilet if he or she is delivered at home before the final stage of the two- or three-day abortion procedure.
"If it comes out, then it comes out. Flush it. … if anything, you know, put it in a bag or something or somewhere and bring it to us."
When Live Action’s undercover investigator asks what happens to the baby after the abortion – or what the clinic would do if, after the abortion, the baby is moving – the counselor says:
"If it did come out in one piece, it’s very small. So they would still have to put it in a container – like, a jar – with solution and send it to the lab."
When asked what happens if the baby after the abortion is breathing or twitching, the Bronx counselor responds:
"The solution will make it stop. It’s not going to be moving around in the jar … that’s the whole purpose of the solution. It’ll automatically stop. It won’t be able to… not with the solution."
Washington, D.C. abortion doctor Cesare Santangelo tells an undercover Live Action investigator who is 24 weeks pregnant: "Hopefully we’ll get this pregnancy out intact, but it doesn’t always happen that way. I try and sever the umbilical cord first, and we wait for that to stop pulsing, and this way the fetus is expired first."
When asked by the undercover investigator what would happen if the baby were to survive the abortion, Doctor Santangelo responds:
"Technically – you know, legally we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive. But, you know, it probably wouldn’t. It’s all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point. Let’s say you went into labor, the membranes ruptured, and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know? Then we would do things – we would – we would not help it."
A Phoenix late-term abortion doctor Laura Mercer and her "counselor" said they would leave a newborn, struggling for life after a failed abortion, to die. When asked by the undercover investigator what would happen if the baby were to survive the abortion, the counselor admits they would not help the baby:
"Sometimes they are [alive], yeah. But it doesn’t... it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will come out whole. ‘Cause they use suction, plus they use instruments so sometimes the fetuses don’t come out... you know, it’s not complete." Investigator: But if it does come out whole… I mean, are–will they resuscitate it? Like, will I have to take care of it? Counselor: "Uh-uh… No… They do not resuscitate."
Such cold, callous brutality is unconscionable and an indictment on our entire nation. It also violates the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act which requires life-saving medical care for any baby surviving an abortion.
The fact that 1.2 million abortions take place in our nation every year and at least 20,000 occur after 20 weeks gestation is staggering. We can only hope that this focus on late-term abortions will shock our nation out of its apathy toward this brutality.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Obama Administration’s offensive policy mandating health plans to pay for female sterilization and contraceptives, including those that can cause early abortions, will be fully implemented starting August 1, 2013. This is when religious institutions such as Catholic schools, hospitals and charities will be forced to provide such coverage.
The so-called "contraceptive mandate" (which is a provision of "Obamacare") went into effect on August 1, 2012 for all other employers. But the Obama Administration delayed implementation for the aforementioned institutions to allow time to try to "accommodate" the moral and religious liberty concerns expressed by these institutions.
So far, the Administration has failed to address adequately these concerns and it appears unlikely to do so. Therefore, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is escalating its advocacy for the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940).
The Health Care Conscience Rights Act proposes to correct several inadequacies in federal law with regard to conscience protection. First, it would add meaningful conscience protection language to Obamacare by stating that it cannot be used to mandate coverage of "an abortion or other item or service" to which an individual, sponsor or insurer has a moral or religious objection.
Second, H.R. 940 would make current federal conscience protection provisions clearer and more permanent. And third, H.R. 940 would establish a private right of action so victims of discrimination can take their case to federal court. This ability to sue violators of conscience laws is essential given that these laws are frequently violated and victims currently have no remedy.
H.R. 940 enjoys strong bi-partisan support in the House of Representatives. It currently has 137 co-sponsors, including Nebraska’s three House members: Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith. The Senate is a tougher hill to climb; there the conscience bill is unlikely to have sufficient votes to be adopted.
In light of this scenario, the USCCB, and its collaborative organization the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA), is urging Catholics to contact our members of the U.S. House of Representatives and urge them to not only support H.R. 930 but to attach the bill to "must-pass" legislation (e.g. debt limit bill or spending bills).
If the House were to include H.R. 940 in a "must-pass" bill, this would increase the bill’s prospects of being enacted into law. If the Senate did not include H.R. 940 in its version of the "must-pass" bill, then a conference committee (comprised of House and Senate members) would reconcile the differences in the two versions of the bill before a final vote is taken. The conscience protection language may—or may not—survive that reconciliation process.
Even though our three Nebraska House members are co-sponsors of H.R. 940, it is still critical that they hear from Nebraskans. We need to thank them for co-sponsoring the bill and urge them to do everything possible to get this bill attached to a "must-pass" bill.
The USCCB and NCHLA have made it quick and easy to send an e-mail message to our Representative in the House and to the House Speaker, John Boehner. On the NCHLA website—www.nchla.org—there is a link with a pre-written message and an option to add additional comments.
Please take a couple of minutes right now and send your message. Then send an e-mail to all your friends and family with a link to www.nchla.org and urge them to send a message as well.
If your parish has not yet implemented NCHLA’s Project Life and Liberty postcard campaign, please do so now. Every parish should have received a supply of postcards (a couple months ago) along with instructions and informational fliers. If needed, additional materials are available from my office.
Finally, I strongly recommend checking out the USCCB’s excellent educational resources on the contraception/sterilization mandate and related Church teaching. They are available online at www.usccb.org/conscience and www.usccb.org/love-and-sexuality.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
One of the components of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities is "public policy efforts directed to restoring legal protection to the lives of unborn children and those vulnerable to pressures to end their lives by assisted suicide, and to providing morally acceptable alternatives to abortion and assisted suicide."
Hence, one of my responsibilities as director of pro-life activities for the Bishops of Nebraska is to monitor and lobby our state Legislature on these issues at the core of the Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities. Two months ago I featured in this column several bills I was either supporting or opposing. The following is an update on the status of those bills.
Healthcare Freedom of Conscience Act (LB 564) Introduced by Sen. John Nelson (Omaha), the purpose of this bill is to protect as a basic civil right, the right of health care providers to decline to participate in any health care function that violates his/her conscience (i.e. "religious beliefs, moral convictions, or ethical principles").
This bill remains in the Judiciary Committee’s hands after experiencing a very contentious public hearing March 1. Proponents of the bill (myself included) continue to lobby certain members of the Committee with the goal of getting enough support to get the bill advanced to the full Legislature.
Updates on Informed Consent Information Prior to Abortion (LB 300) This bill, introduced by Sen. Bob Krist of Omaha, would improve the fetal development information available to women prior to obtaining an abortion. LB 300 directs the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services to develop a dedicated web page on its internet site containing all the information required under Nebraska’s informed consent before abortion law.
It directs HHS to provide a link on this web page to the website of the Endowment for Human Development, which contains video of 4D ultrasound images of an unborn child at two-week gestational increments. And it requires abortion mills with web sites to provide a link to the HHS web page on their home page.
This bill also remains in the hands of the Judiciary Committee. Although this bill enjoyed a more favorable public hearing than the conscience protection bill (LB 564), no senator chose to prioritize LB 300 for this session. In most Legislative sessions, contentious bills (which, sadly, include every pro-life bill) are unlikely to advance unless they are prioritized.
Bills can be prioritized by a senator, a Committee or the Speaker of the Legislature. Efforts will be made to get both LB 300 and LB 564 advanced from the Judiciary Committee and prioritized in the 2014 Legislative session which begins next January. All bills introduced in the Legislature’s first session (odd-numbered years), carry over to the second session unless they are enacted or indefinitely postponed (i.e. "killed").
Although it is disappointing that LB 564 and LB 300 are not advancing this session, I’m pleased to report that the following bills, which my office opposes, are also not advancing so far.
Mandatory Sex Education (LB 619) This bill mandates so-called comprehensive sex education in public schools. There was strong opposition expressed at the public hearing on LB 619. This opposition and the lack of a priority designation has kept this bill in the Education Committee.
School-based Clinics and Contraception (LB 395) This bill proposes to eliminate the current law that prohibits school-based clinics from dispensing, prescribing or counseling for contraceptive drugs or devices. The bill has not advanced from the Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee and was not prioritized.
Medicaid Expansion for Contaceptive Coverage (LB 452) This bill would require Nebraska to expand its Medicaid income guidelines for eligibility to receive taxpayer subsidized contraceptives. This bill also remains in the HHS Committee and was not prioritized this session.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Just when one might think our culture can’t degrade much further, a federal district judge in New York has given the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 30 days to lift all age and sale restrictions on over-the-counter (OTC) access to Plan B, the so-called "emergency contraceptive" drug and its generic versions.
The ruling reverses a December 2011 decision by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to disallow OTC access to Plan B by teens under the age of 18, in contradiction of the recommendation by an FDA panel. The lawsuit was filed by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights.
Plan B is a large dose (40 times the normal daily dose) of the oral contraceptive drug levonorgestrel. So, while this same drug is available only by prescription when used in smaller doses for contraception, it can be obtained without a prescription in a mega dose? How does this make sense? Now add to this madness that it will be on drugstore shelves along with aspirin where teens can purchase it.
Representing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Deirdre McQuade said, "The court has acted irresponsibly by making this powerful drug available without a prescription to minor children. Plan B does not prevent or treat any disease, but makes young adolescent girls more available to sexual predators. The court’s action undermines parents’ ability to protect their daughters from such exploitation and from the adverse effects of the drug itself.
"Many studies have shown that wider access to "emergency contraception" among young people does not reduce pregnancy or abortion rates," McQuade continued, "but can contribute to higher rates of sexually transmitted disease. No public health consideration justifies the unregulated distribution of such drugs to children. This ruling should be appealed and overturned."
Presumably, the sole purpose of making it easier to use emergency contraception is the claim that this will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. Yet, as Ms. McQuade pointed out, there are dozens of studies conducted or sponsored by proponents of emergency contraception that failed to prove the claim. A list of some of these studies is available on the Nebraska Catholic Conference website at www.nebcathcon.org/printedresources.htm. Here is a sampling of the studies:
--The January 2011 isssue of the journal Contraception (Volume 83, Issue 1, Pages 82-87) featured a 10 year (1997 to 2007) study that examined the use of contraceptive methods in order to reduce the number of elective abortions. During the study period the overall use of contraceptive methods increased (from 49.1% to 79.9%) but the elective abortion rate doubled (from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women).
-- James Trussell who originated the claim that easier access to emergency contraception could "result in a greater than 50% reduction in abortion rates" has conceded that 23 published studies from 10 countries disprove his claim. According to every one of the 23 studies, published between 1998 and 2006, easier access to EC fails to achieve any statistically significant reduction in rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Does the name Kermit Gosnell ring any bells? How about Alisa Lapolt Snow? Thanks to the pathetically biased major network television stations, chances are your answers are "no" to both questions.
Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial for the murder of seven infants and one abortion patient. According to reports by Operation Rescue, "Gosnell’s grisly abortion mill was nicknamed the "Charnel House" by the investigators…What the police found inside Gosnell’s building literally made them vomit!
"In the midst of the unspeakable filth... [investigators found] ancient rusty, blood-stained medical equipment… dirty disposable surgical instruments that had been reused over and over… a leaking roof… the stench of death and cat urine… and stacks of dead bodies."
In an April 3 article in LifeSiteNews.com, Sheryl Sullenger from Operation Rescue reported that jury members were shown photos of several aborted babies with gaping wounds in the back of their necks. According to authorities, Gosnell delivered babies live and then killed them by severing their spinal cords with a scissors.
"Jury members were also shown photos of babies’ feet in jars," Sullenger said, "one of which had been severed just below the hip and included the entire leg. A photo of a 2-inch foot severed above the ankle was shown next to a ruler.… Other photos taken by a Crime Scene Investigator… showed the cramped and cluttered maze of rooms at Gosnell’s… ‘House of Horrors’ abortion clinic."
Operation Rescue reports that a paramedic with the Philadelphia Fire Department also gave testimony last week about his experience at Gosnell’s abortion clinic when he responded to a "Code Blue" call for help in November 2009. The paramedic "was taken through the maze of rooms and hallways to an abortion room where he found Karnamaya Mongar laying on an abortion table, naked from the waist down with her legs still in the stirrups in full cardiac arrest… Gosnell was in the area but did not offer any help."
The other aforementioned name, Alisa Lapolt Snow, is a lobbyist for the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates. Ms. Snow testified before the Florida House a couple weeks ago to oppose a bill requiring abortionists to provide care for babies born alive during botched abortions.
Rep. Jim Boyd, a member of the subcommittee holding the public hearing, responded thus to her testimony: "It’s just really hard for me to even ask you this question, because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"
Ms. Snow replied by saying "We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician." Other committee members asked Snow similar questions to which she reiterated her first response: "That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider."
To this answer, Rep. Jose Oliva replied "I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on a table. Wouldn’t you agree?" Snow said "That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that."
Last fall when two pro-life candidates for the U.S. Senate (Indiana and Missouri) did a poor job of explaining why they opposed abortion in the case of rape, the media covered it endlessly and it proved the end of their political careers. But when faced with the grisly excesses of the abortion industry—exemplified by Gosnell and Planned Parenthood—the major news outlets respond with a collective yawn.
A group of 20 pro-life leaders issued a statement calling on the major networks to stop censoring these outrageous stories. "The media have a solemn duty to the American people to report the news, not just news that helps the positions they support," the group said. "It’s unprofessional, it’s disgusting, and it’s inhuman."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
"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. For those who suffer from a past abortion, however, God’s mercy can seem incomprehensible.
Personal and intensely emotional stories of women struggling with a past abortion give testament to this sad reality. I’ve received such letters in my office and many others can be seen on post-abortion websites like www.hopeafterabortion.com (Project Rachel). Here is an excerpt from one of those letters:
"My personal journey of healing began after six long years of the most deafeningly silent pain… I remember during those dark years, I would wake up each morning, and for a few brief seconds, all was well. Then I would remember what I had done. The grief was all-consuming. But, like so many other women, I kept it locked inside. I had accepted my fate. I was unforgiveable.
"The enormity of what I had done actually made my steps heavier… I cried alone almost daily. For brief periods I could take my mind off of it. Sometimes I would even forget long enough to try and enjoy a comedy at the movies, but then mid-laughter I’d remember and my laughing would stop because, well, I didn’t deserve to laugh.
"Growing up in a Catholic family that attended Mass every Sunday, I never expected that I, of all people, would be in this situation. I convinced myself that I had committed an unforgiveable act. I felt utterly alone. I desperately needed to connect with other women who were suffering as I was, and I longed to be the woman I used to be.
"And then one fateful Sunday morning during Mass, my husband handed me a church bulletin, pointing out the words on the back: "Project Rachel — a program for post-abortion healing through the archdiocese." I couldn’t believe my eyes.
"It took me several months to muster up the nerve to call. I had done a fine job of beating myself up for years and I certainly didn’t need the person on the other end of the phone to make me feel any worse. But, when I finally called, it was not like that at all. The voice on the other end was warm and full of hope for me. My journey of healing began on that day that I made that phone call.
"Thanks to Project Rachel, I am me again…The power of forgiveness is life altering. I am happy again, and the people whom I love sense that. I will always regret my decision, and I will continue to carry my quiet secret with me. It has become a part of who I am, but it no longer defines who I am."
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 1-888-456-HOPE (4673). Information on Project Rachel and abortion’s emotional and spiritual aftermath is also available online at www.hopeafterabortion.com.
In his 2009 homily on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, Pope Benedict XVI 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. 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."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Here we are in the midst of another Easter Triduum (our Lord’s passion, death, and resurrection), the holiest time of the year for Christians. It provides a profound opportunity for us to contemplate, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, "the boundless love of God, who ‘so loved the world that he gave his only Son’ (Jn. 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person." (Evangelium Vitae, #2)
Did you ever ponder why God chose to "humble Himself to share in our humanity?" Why He sent His Son as the tiniest, meekest, most defenseless creature: the single-cell embryo in Mary’s womb? Why Jesus experienced every stage and aspect of human life (except sin)?
Blessed John Paul explains this in Evangelium Vitae (#29, #30, #38): "Through the words, the actions and the very person of Jesus, man is given the possibility of ‘knowing’ the complete truth concerning the value of human life. From this ‘source’ he receives in particular the capacity to ‘accomplish’ this truth perfectly, that is, to accept and fulfill completely the responsibility of loving and serving, of defending and promoting human life. In Christ, the Gospel of life is definitively proclaimed and fully given.
"In Jesus, the ‘Word of life,’ God’s eternal life is thus proclaimed and given," John Paul continues. "Thanks to this proclamation and gift, our physical and spiritual life, also in its earthly phase, acquires its full value and meaning, for God’s eternal life is in fact the end to which our living in this world is directed and called."
"Here the Christian truth about life becomes most sublime," John Paul explains. "The dignity of this life is linked not only to its beginning, to the fact that it comes from God, but also to its final end, to its destiny of fellowship with God in knowledge and love of him."
The Easter Triduum is also a profound opportunity to reflect on human suffering and death. The fact that our Lord redeemed us from our sins, and defeated death through His passion, death and resurrection gives unique meaning to suffering and death. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services states it this way:
"For the Christian, our encounter with suffering and death can take on a positive and distinctive meaning through the redemptive power of Jesus’ suffering and death. As St. Paul says, we are "always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our body (2 Cor 4:10). This truth does not lessen the pain and fear, but gives confidence and grace for bearing suffering rather than being overwhelmed by it."
Finally, our Lord’s victory over death should give us great confidence and joy in our work to build a culture of life. Thanks be to God, we operate from victory not just for victory in battling evil, the "culture of death", as John Paul II called it. Therefore, our calling as Christians is be faithful and to persevere in proclaiming the Gospel of Life, regardless of whether we succeed or fail.
Here is how Fr. Richard John Neuhaus explained this calling: "…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."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
March is Women’s History Month and Feminists for Life (FFL) is using the opportunity to challenge the common perception that feminism and abortion go hand in hand. In several recent Facebook posts FFL makes a compelling case that it’s the pro-life position that represents authentic feminism.
"Can you really be a feminist and pro-life?" one post asks. "Yes. Feminists for Life of America continues the tradition of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other early American feminists who opposed abortion. Our efforts are shaped by the core feminist values of nondiscrimination, nonviolence and justice for all.
"Established in 1972, Feminists for Life is a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, grassroots organization that seeks real solutions to the challenges women face. Abortion is a reflection that we have failed women—and women have settled for less."
Another FFL Facebook post gets to the heart of the matter: "One side says that abortion is the enfranchisement and elevation of women, out of enslavement to their fertility. The other side says the opposite, that abortion degrades women. How can women be so divided on this issue? Where does this division stem from?"
Answer: "Abortion advocates and pro-lifer activists both need to know this—especially those who aren’t old enough to know how women and children were betrayed. As FFL President Serrin Foster explains when she presents ‘The Feminist Case Against Abortion,’ the two men who founded NARAL—originally known as the National Association to Repeal the Abortion Laws—advocated the repeal of anti-abortion laws.
"Larry Lader wanted to repeal abortion laws because of population concerns. NARAL’s cofounder was a doctor named Bernard Nathanson, who later became pro-life. Having seen a botched abortion in Chicago, he reasoned—like some who promote legalizing prostitution—that ‘legal’ would mean ‘safer.’
"These two had traveled the country advocating the repeal of what they believed to be antiquated abortion laws. After failing to convince legislators that anti-abortion laws were ‘archaic,’ Nathanson reported that Lader… approached leaders of the women’s movement. He reasoned that if a woman wanted to be educated like a man, hired like a man, and promoted like a man, women shouldn’t expect their employers to accommodate pregnancy."
In a January 25, 2013 editorial published in the Washington Examiner, Serrin Foster exposed a similar argument for abortion put forward by Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued for legalizing abortion before the Supreme Court in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
"As her arguments for abortion before the Supreme Court made clear, Weddington saw the discrimination and other injustices faced by pregnant women. But she did not demand that these injustices be remedied. Instead, she demanded for women the ‘right’ to submit to these injustices by destroying their pregnancies.
"Weddington rightly pointed out the unmet needs of students and workers: ‘[T]here are many schools where a woman is forced to quit if she becomes pregnant. ... In the matter of employment, she often is forced to quit at an early point in her pregnancy. She has no provision for maternity leave.... She cannot get unemployment compensation under our laws, because the laws hold that she is not eligible for employment, being pregnant, and therefore is eligible for no unemployment compensation.’ But Weddington didn’t argue against pregnancy discrimination or for alternate solutions for pregnant students.
"For women with serious medical needs, Weddington further noted: ‘There is no duty for employers to rehire women if they must drop out to carry a pregnancy to term. And, of course, this is especially hard on the many women in Texas who are heads of their own households and must provide for their already existing children.’
"Weddington repeatedly said that women need ‘relief’ from pregnancy, instead of arguing that women need relief from these injustices. What if Weddington had used her legal acumen to challenge the system to address women’s needs?"
Feminists for Life points out in compelling fashion that portraying abortion as "reproductive choice or freedom" is the cruelest of hoaxes ever perpetrated upon women. Representing the words and actions of the early American feminists, FFL says that abortion is, in fact, "a reflection that we have not met the needs of women and that women deserve better."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
How is your Lent going? If you want to step up your prayer and sacrifice for the remaining two weeks of Lent I encourage you to participate in 40 Days for Life. The 40 Days for Life campaign involves prayer and fasting to end abortion. It began on Ash Wednesday and ends Easter weekend.
According to its website (40daysforlife.com), "The mission of the campaign is to bring together the body of Christ in a spirit of unity during a focused 40 day campaign of prayer, fasting, and peaceful activism, with the purpose of repentance, to seek God’s favor to turn hearts and minds from a culture of death to a culture of life, thus bringing an end to abortion."
Since 2004 when 40 Days for Life started its prayer vigils in one location, it has seen rapid growth. This year prayer vigils are being held in 262 cities in 45 states and 10 countries. In Nebraska, prayer vigils are being held outside the abortion mills in Lincoln, Omaha and Bellevue.
This focused effort of prayer and fasting has bore much life-saving fruit:
In Nebraska, there have been numerous "saves" reported from all three abortion mills in the last year alone. These are just the known cases where the mother stops as she’s leaving the abortion mill to let the prayer warriors know that it was their prayers that caused them to reject the abortion.
This is concrete proof that our prayerful presence outside abortion mills does save lives. There aren’t many pro-life activities that receive such immediate and definitive affirmation of their effectiveness in saving lives.
So what do you say? If you live within a reasonable drive from the abortion mills in Lincoln (48th and Old Cheney), Omaha (93rd and Maple) and Bellevue (1002 W. Mission Ave.) would you be willing to spare one hour a week to pray outside one of these abortion mills, especially knowing that your presence could save a life?
The 40 Days for Life campaign during Lent is a good time to make this commitment. But this prayerful presence is needed throughout the year on the abortion days: Tuesday in Lincoln; Wednesday in Omaha; Friday and Saturday in Bellevue.
If you do not live within a reasonable drive to one of the abortion mills you can still join your prayers and sacrifices to those who are able to be physically present. Here are some suggestions:
In Matthew’s Gospel (17:19-21), the disciples asked our Lord why he was able to expel the demon from the possessed boy when they were unable to do so. Our Lord told them it was because they had so little trust. "I assure you, if you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you would be able to say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it would move. Nothing would be impossible for you. This kind [of demon] does not leave but by prayer and fasting."
Prayer and sacrifice can save lives. Do you believe this? Will you commit yourself to this life-saving work?
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Last Friday, March 1, the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on LB 564, the Health Care Freedom of Conscience Act. Introduced by Sen. John Nelson (Omaha), this bill would protect health care providers and facilities from being forced to engage in any health care function that violates their religious, moral or ethical principles.
Protection of this basic right has become more urgent in recent years as individuals and institutions, particularly in the healing profession, are increasingly subjected to pressure, or risk being pressured, to participate in conduct which violates their religious, moral or ethical principles.
Although Nebraska law provides some conscience protections in the abortion context there is need for broader protections within and outside that context. This need is demonstrated in part by a growing hostility on the part of some professional organizations, advocacy groups, and state and federal government to the right of conscience in health care. For example:
Concerns about conscience violations are not limited to the practice of abortion. At least a couple of states tried to force pharmacists/pharmacies to stock and dispense abortifacient contraceptives and several chain pharmacies fired pharmacists for refusing to dispense, sell or stock, emergency contraceptives.
Furthermore, Catholic counselors/psychologists are increasingly under pressure to provide or refer for morally objectionable counseling or risk losing their licenses to practice their profession.
Admittedly, providing conscience protection for health care providers and facilities does involve some balancing of other important interests such as patient care and employment accommodations and legalities. Significant efforts were made by proponents of LB 564 to balance these interests which ultimately resulted in the Nebraska Medical Association supporting an amended version of the bill.
Unfortunately, these accommodations were insufficient for some other health care groups (e.g. psychologists, hospital association, hospice/palliative care association, etc.) which testified against the bill. And several members of the Judiciary Committee (Senators Steve Lathrop, Brad Ashford, Amanda McGill and Ernie Chambers) also expressed strong reservations about the bill.
Proponents of LB 564 (myself included) will work tirelessly to address legitimate concerns with the current version of the bill and to enact legislation that provides meaningful conscience protection to health care providers and facilities. As our nation’s founders acknowledged, there is no more fundamental principle of our society than freedom of conscience.
"The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness," George Washington said. "And it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them." Thomas Jefferson wrote, "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority."
Our own Nebraska Constitution states in Article I, Sec. 4 that no "interference with the rights of conscience [shall] be permitted." It remains to be seen how committed our state legislators are to upholding this Constitutional right for health care providers and facilities. Please pray for our efforts to enact conscience protection legislation and urge your senator to support it.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Former President Bill Clinton made famous the clever, but deceptive, mantra that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." To the casual observer, this mantra may sound compelling. In reality, it is a euphemistic smoke screen since the legalization of abortion has done little or nothing to make it safer for the mother.
The proposition that making abortion legal would make it safe was put forward in the 1960s by the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson and his cohort Lawrence Lader. These two men co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) which originally was called the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.
Dr. Nathanson, who performed thousands of abortions during his lifetime, ultimately had a change of heart and became a pro-life activist (and Catholic!). In his post-conversion writings, Dr. Nathanson admitted that one of the tactics he and Lader used to sell Americans on legalizing abortion was to lie about the number of illegal abortions and abortion-related deaths.
"The actual figure [of illegal abortions prior to Roe] was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public.
"The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law," Nathanson admitted.
The evidence that legalizing abortion did little to make it safer for women is abundant. One of the latest examples comes at the hands of Nebraska’s infamous late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart. Carhart performs earlier-term abortions in Bellevue, Nebr. and late-term abortions in Germantown, Md.
As reported by LifeNews.com Feb. 20, "the chief medical examiner’s office in Baltimore confirmed that a botched late-term abortion claimed the life of a young New York woman who died recently at a Maryland abortion clinic. Jennifer McKenna Morbelli a 29-year-old woman from New Rochelle, New York died from a botched 33-week abortion on February 7."
According to the medical examiner, there were two causes to Morbelli’s death. The first was "amniotic fluid embolism following termination of pregnancy" (i.e. amniotic fluid seeped into her bloodstream). The second cause is "disseminated intravascular coagulation," a condition during which small blood clots form in blood vessels.
Another recent case, featured in LifeSiteNews.com, was of a forced and botched abortion at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado Springs, Colo. A Feb. 21 LifeSiteNews article said that Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on behalf of 40-year-old Ayanna Byer. Ms. Byer "changed her mind about the abortion after Planned Parenthood could not provide her with the agreed-upon intravenous anesthesia for pain, but the abortionist proceeded with the abortion anyway.
"Once the abortion was complete, Byer was sent home but ended up in an emergency room two days later because the abortionist had botched the procedure." Dr. Stephen Foley, the emergency room doctor who treated Ms. Byer encouraged her to file a lawsuit.
"No practicing physician can maintain privileges to practice and perform surgery if they do not provide specific coverage for their patients in case of a complication. It is considered ‘abandonment’ of your patient. It is not acceptable to refer your patients to the Emergency Department and assume the on-call doctor will take care of any complications and assume all the risk associated with the complications."
Sadly, few if any abortionists have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Consequently, this scenario of women with botched abortions being "abandoned" to emergency rooms by abortion mills is tragically common. It has happened in Nebraska at least three times in recent memory.
These recent cases from around the country are merely the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of botched abortions that resulted in injury or death to the mother. Many more examples are documented on the websites of Operation Rescue (operationrescue.org) and Life Dynamics (lifedynamics.com).
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I have written numerous times about modern feminism’s linkage of abortion to women’s rights. To exemplify this linkage I often provide this old quote from Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League): "Abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s ability to participate fully in the social and economic life of society."
This quote has been around long enough that I no longer have a citation for it. This may cause some to be skeptical of its veracity. Well, Ms. Michelman has come to my rescue by renewing this outrageous and offensive sentiment in an editorial in USA Today on January 22, 2013, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
In the editorial (co-written by Carol Tracy, executive director of the Women’s Law Project), Michelman says the following:
"Today marks the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, a milestone for women in America because this right to control our capacity to reproduce enhances our ability to participate fully in society. It helps ensure our privacy, our dignity and our health."
Elsewhere in the editorial she says, [t]he goal of Roe v. Wade was to ensure a woman’s right to control the most intimate aspect of her life. Without this right, women are unable to participate equally with men in the nation’s social, political and economic life."
Not to be outdone by her predecessor, the new president of NARAL, Ilyse Hogue, said the following in a video message to supporters: "The past century has seen steady momentum behind women achieving more equality and more freedom, from winning the right to vote in 1920, to affirming our right to safe and legal abortion in 1973…That freedom to decide is foundational to everything we want to achieve for ourselves, our family, and our country."
Wow! So these supposed feminist icons say that a woman’s privacy, dignity, health, equality and freedom are inextricably linked to her ability to have her unborn child destroyed. And without this ability to destroy innocent human life, women would be unable to be equal participants with men in society.
It is beyond my comprehension how any thoughtful, rational person (male or female) would not find these sentiments to be degrading and offensive to women. After all, they’re asserting that the unique and extraordinary female capacity to bear and nurture children—which is essential to the continuance of the human race—is a flaw and a handicap that prevents women from fully participating in society.
And according to these supposed champions of women’s equality and dignity, the solution to this "problem" is to insist that women should be more like men—unburdened with childbearing—if they wish to equally participate with men in society.
Now granted I’m just a guy, but it seems to me that authentic feminism would celebrate and defend every aspect of femininity. Rather than insist that women be more like men to fit into a "man’s world" authentic feminism would insist that society and its institutions (e.g. schools and businesses) accommodate the unique and essential capacity of women to bear children.
I’m glad to know that there are some feminists—old and new—who agree with me! Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a pioneer of the early feminist movement said in a letter to Julia Ward Howe (October 16, 1873): "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Feminists for Life is a modern group inspired by Ms. Stanton and other pioneers of the feminist movement such as Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Brinkerhoff and Sarah Norton who opposed abortion. Feminists for Life (FFL) "recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women" and it believes that "no woman should be forced to choose between sacrificing her education and career plans and sacrificing her child."
I’ve long been impressed with FFL’s dedication to "systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic, woman-centered solutions." Check them out at www.feministsforlife.org.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Nebraska Legislature has been in session for more than four weeks and well over 600 bills have been introduced.
Here are some of the bills my office supports:
Healthcare Freedom of Conscience Act (LB 564): Introduced by Sen. John Nelson (Omaha), the purpose of this bill is to protect as a basic civil right the right of health care providers to decline to participate in any health care function that violates his/her conscience. It defines conscience as "the religious beliefs, moral convictions, or ethical principles held by any health care provider."
As the bill states, "[w]ithout comprehensive protection, health care rights of conscience may be violated in various ways, such as harassment, demotion, salary reduction, transfer, termination, loss of staffing privileges, denial of aid or benefits, administrative penalty, punishment, or sanction, and refusal to license or refusal to certify." The growing evidence of such conscience violations can be seen online at www.freedom2care.org.
Updates on Informed Consent Information Prior to Abortion (LB 300): This bill, introduced by Sen. Bob Krist of Omaha, would improve the fetal development information available to women prior to obtaining an abortion. In 1993, the Nebraska Legislature enacted a law requiring certain informed consent provisions before an abortion can be performed.
For example, women must be told about the medical risks associated with the abortion procedure and with carrying a child to term, the probable gestational age of the unborn child, and that she has the right to review printed materials containing fetal development information and pictures.
The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is required by law to provide a printed booklet containing the fetal development information and pictures and the current booklet is reasonably well done. The problem is that these booklets appear to be largely unused, perhaps because younger women (those most likely to seek abortions) get most of their information online.
LB 300 directs HHS to develop a dedicated web page on its internet site containing all the information required under the informed consent law. It directs HHS to provide a link on this web page to the website of the Endowment for Human Development, which contains video of 4D ultrasound images of an unborn child at two-week gestational increments. And it requires abortion mills with web sites to provide a link to the HHS web page on their home page.
Here are the bills my office opposes:
Mandatory Sex Education (LB 619): Sen Ken Haar (Lincoln) introduced this bill which mandates so-called comprehensive sex education in public schools. The bill prescribes the components which must be addressed in an approved curriculum which includes information on the "consistent and correct use of all contraceptive methods approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration…"
School-based Clinic’s and Contraception (LB 395): This bill was introduced by Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln. It proposes to remove the provision in current law that prohibits school-based clinics from dispensing, prescribing or counseling for contraceptive drugs or devices.
This prohibition was added to the bill authorizing school-based clinics a few years ago at the request of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, and was fully supported by the sponsor of that bill, Sen. Jeremy Nordquist.
Medicaid Expansion for Contraceptive Coverage (LB 452): This bill, also introduced by Sen. Conrad, would require Nebraska to expand its Medicaid income guidelines for eligibility to receive taxpayer subsidized contraceptives and treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases.
Throughout this legislative session my office will provide updates (and perhaps action alerts) on these and other issues. Those who are interested in tracking these and other bills or in contacting their state senator can do so on the Unicameral website at www.nebraskalegislature.gov.
Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln introduced a legislative bill that demonstrates the moral quagmire that results when humans attempt to traverse into God’s domain as the Author of Life. The bill, LB 134, would allow a child conceived after his/her biological father’s death to be the father’s heir, and consequently qualify for survivor benefits.
Currently, Nebraska law allows a child conceived prior to the father’s death, but born after it to be counted as an heir. But the law is silent on how to treat, for inheritance purposes, a child conceived posthumously.
The bill was prompted by the experience of an Omaha couple. Prior to being treated for an aggressive form of cancer, the husband chose to bank his sperm to preserve it for later attempts to conceive. After being told that he was cancer-free, the couple began artificial insemination with the husband’s saved sperm.
Sadly, the husband’s cancer returned and he died several months later. His widow continued the fertility treatments and, a short time after his death, found out she was pregnant. After giving birth, the mother applied for Social Security survivor benefits for her daughter and was eventually denied by a decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court. The Court ruled that a child conceived after a biological father’s death does not "survive" the parent, and therefore is excluded from inheriting from the father’s estate under Nebraska law.
Obviously, any child conceived outside the natural, God-designed process is not at fault and should always be loved, cherished and afforded by civil law every right of human dignity given to children conceived as God intended. However, this bill is troubling as a matter of public policy because of the way it gives some legitimacy to the immoral acts of artificial insemination and the conception of children after the father has died.
This concern was further heightened by an amendment submitted by Sen. Avery during a public hearing on the bill. The amendment removes any reference to the biological father as a "husband," presumably to ensure that the bill’s impact is not limited to those who are married.
Although the policy considerations of LB 134 are complex, this bill presents a teaching moment regarding the Church’s moral objections to artificial insemination (AI) and in vitro fertilization (IVF).
Certainly, any feeling person sympathizes with this couple (and others like them) and appreciates their natural and good desire to bring forth children from their marriage. But to be truly natural and good, this desire must accept that human sexuality and the human souls that are its fruit are gifts from our Creator; they are not rights that we possess and may use as we wish.
The Catholic Church teaches that AI and IVF are intrinsically evil acts because they violate God’s sacred design for human sexuality. For many Catholics this teaching may seem harsh and puzzling, especially since the Church urges married couples to be always open to bringing new life into the world. Obviously, I can’t do justice in a short column to the extraordinary treasure of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality, so my goal is to get your attention, pique your interest, and direct you to resources that can help you get a fuller understanding.
It is our Creator, the Author of Life, who determines the true nature and purpose of human sexuality and human life. We know from divine Revelation that in all God’s material creation He created human beings uniquely in His image and likeness (cf. Gen. 1:26). And through the mystery of the Incarnation, the Son of God, by becoming one of us, makes it possible for us to become "sons of God" (Jn 1:12), "sharers in the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).
In Dignitatas Personae, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith explains that "[t]hese two dimensions of life, the natural and the supernatural, allow us to understand better the sense in which the acts that permit a new human being to come into existence, in which a man and a woman give themselves to each other, are a reflection of trinitarian love. ‘God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father.’" (DP #9)
So we’re made in the image and likeness of a trinitarian God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and are called to imitate His trinitarian love. This love is often described as the Father and Son’s mutual giving of themselves so completely and unconditionally, both now and forever, that from this love flows another person—the Holy Spirit.
This model of love is the basis of the Church’s teaching about spousal love; that God intends His sacred gift of sexuality to be reserved for the two-fold purpose of uniting husbands and wives in one flesh in the life-long commitment of marriage (unitive) and the begetting and raising of children (procreation). The uniting of each other in the marital act is to be a total, unconditional gift of self (like the love of Father and Son) so that from this act of love flows another person.
Reproductive technologies like AI and IVF replace the marital act with a lab technique and thereby violate its unitive purpose. There are, however, other technologies that "assist" rather than "replace" the marital act and are deemed moral by the Church.
These natural procreative technologies (NaproTechnology) have been expertly developed and taught by Dr. Tom Hilgers and others at the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha (popepaulvi.com). Through NaproTechnology, the Institute has had trememdous success in helping couples overcome infertility. To further study the Church’s teaching check out the online resources at nebcathcon.org or call my office.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
On January 22, 2013, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Wall Street Journal ran a story entitled "Support Grows for Roe v. Wade" featuring the results of an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. NBC News online shouted this headline about the poll: "Majority, for first time, want abortion to be legal."
Such headlines create consternation among pro-lifers. However, scratching beneath the surface of this and a recent Pew Poll with similar results reveals a warped, dishonest representation of Roe that always skews the results in favor of Roe.
In both polls, Roe v. Wade was presented as establishing "a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy." The polls then asked the question: "Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"
James Agresti, President of Just Facts, said "[t]hat language is misleading because Roe v. Wade, along with its accompanying ruling, Doe v. Bolton, mandate that abortion be legal up until the point of birth if any one physician willing to perform an abortion says it is needed for ‘the preservation of the … health of the mother.’ Furthermore, Roe cites specific examples of what may be considered harmful to a mother’s health, such as the ‘stigma of unwed motherhood,’ the work of ‘child care,’ and ‘the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.’
"Likewise, Doe v. Bolton, which was issued by the Supreme Court on the same day as Roe v. Wade with an order that they ‘are to be read together,’ states that ‘the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.’
"Thus, ‘health,’ as defined by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, provides broad leeway to perform abortions throughout pregnancy. In Roe v. Wade, the majority wrote that their ruling does not permit abortions ‘at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason’ a woman chooses, but they provided no example of a circumstance where abortion could be prohibited."
Mr. Agresti goes on to point out that the flaw underlying these polls "is revealed by a 2002 Gallup analysis of 146 survey questions about abortion posed by 18 different polling organizations. Gallup found that…’with respect to Roe v. Wade, the responses vary widely, depending on the information provided in the question.’
"Lydia Saad, the senior Gallup poll editor who authored the analysis, explained: ‘If Roe v. Wade is presented only as legalizing abortion in the first three months, support for the decision is much higher than if it is characterized as making abortion legal throughout pregnancy or for any reason.’"
In other words, polls that show a majority support for Roe v. Wade, typically misrepresent the radical abortion license that Roe allows. When Roe is accurately presented, or when the public is questioned more specifically about under what circumstances they support or oppose abortion, it becomes clear that a majority opposes Roe’s radical abortion license.
One such poll was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus and conducted by Marist Polls. A LifeNews.com article reports that the poll "provides more details about Americans’ attitude on abortion, with 83 percent favoring significant restrictions. The poll reveals that support for significant abortion restrictions has increased by four points since last year — rising from 79 percent to 83 percent."
More specifically, the Marist Poll showed that "10 percent believe abortion should never be permitted; 12 percent believe abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother; 34 percent would restrict abortion only to cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother; and 27 percent would limit abortion to — at most — the first three months of pregnancy."
The bottom line: public opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans oppose 90 percent of the abortions that are allowed under Roe v. Wade and its companion Doe v. Bolton.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This Friday, Jan. 25, I will be among the hundreds of thousands of pro-life pilgrims (including 12 bus loads of young people from Nebraska!) attending the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. In addition to its enormous size, what is unmistakable about the March participants—year after year—is its youthfulness.
The youthfulness of the pro-life activists was even acknowledged (with chagrin) by Nancy Keenan, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in a 2010 Newsweek article. Three years ago, upon arriving at Washington’s Union Station Jan. 22, Keenan noticed the throng of pro-lifers in town for that year’s March for Life.
"I just thought, my gosh, they are so young," Keenan said. "There are so many of them, and they are so young." Research that NARAL had just conducted earlier that year compounded her fears.
A survey of 700 young Americans (under 30) revealed a significant "intensity gap" on abortion. More than half (51 percent) who opposed abortion considered it a "very important" voting issue, compared with only 26 percent of those supporting abortion.
The youthfulness of the pro-life movement is not the only bright spot and sign of hope. On its website, National March for Life, the March for Life organization has a list of 40 "bright spots in the pro-life effort" that provide "reasons for hope." It categorizes the reasons as such: "Polling and Data on Abortion," "Pregnancy Resource Centers," "Conversions and Outreach Ministries," "Laws—Federal and State," "Cultural/Miscellaneous." I encourage you to check it out.
Something else worth checking out is a compelling short video produced by Black Stone Films to promote this year’s March for Life. The video uses excerpts from President Obama’s speech after the Newtown massacre juxtaposed against scenes from past Marches. You can see the video by going to www.youtube.com and searching for "A Nation Rises—March for Life."
Here are the excerpts from President Obama’s speech that are featured in the video:
"They had there entire lives ahead of them… birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own. This is our first task… caring for our children. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how as a society we will be judged. And by that measure can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children—all of them—safe from harm.
"We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex… and that is true. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. If there is even one step that we can take to save another child surely we have an obligation to try.
"Are we really prepared to say we are powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"
It’s hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with these powerful sentiments by President Obama as they pertain to the massacres in Newtown and elsewhere. Sadly, however, as many pro-lifers have noted, the president’s comments ring rather hollow given his complete disregard for the lives of the more than 3,000 unborn children who were killed by abortion that day—and every day.
So we march and we pray and we fast that one day this President and so many other pro-abortion elected officials will acknowledge the enormous blind spot in their concern for children and for human rights. With the confidence of our faith that all things are possible with God, let us pray that next Jan. 22, President Obama gives a Newtown-like speech on the stage of the March for Life.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Next Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2013, is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court that legalized abortion during all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason.
In Blessed Mother Teresa’s words, these decisions "deformed a great nation," "pitted mothers against their children and women against men," spread "violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships," and "portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience."
In Roe v Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court elevated the act of killing innocent human life through abortion to a fundamental constitutional right. So impoverished was the legal reasoning in Roe that even legal experts who favor legalized abortion have criticized it. Most notably, Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the Roe opinion, says that "Roe, as constitutional interpretation, is virtually impossible to defend."
Forty years of Roe has left a trail of death and sorrow that staggers the mind. Most estimates indicate that more than 55 million unborn children have lost their lives through abortion since 1973. And countless millions of women and men have been spiritually and emotionally scarred by an abortion experience.
Here is one glimpse into the mind and heart of a post-abortive woman (from hopeafterabortion.org ): "The grief was all-consuming. But, like so many other women, I kept it locked inside. I had accepted my fate. I was unforgiveable. The enormity of what I had done actually made my steps heavier. Even my shoulders hung lower. I cried alone almost daily. For brief periods I could take my mind off of it. Sometimes I would even forget long enough to try and enjoy a comedy at the movies, but then mid-laughter I’d remember and my laughing would stop because, well, I didn’t deserve to laugh.
"My personal journey of healing began after six long years of the most deafeningly silent pain… of the heaviest regret. Just as profound as my deep need to turn back the clock was my triumphant return to who I once was, thanks solely to [the post-abortion ministry] Project Rachel."
Despite Roe’s legacy of death and sorrow, and the challenges that lay ahead for the pro-life movement, there are strong signs of hope for success. Austin and Cathy Ruse wrote in the latest issue of Human Life Review that the "pro-life movement is broad and deep and vast and is coming at Big Abortion from every angle.There is no escaping the inevitable."
They point out that "the Holy Spirit… moves across America, indeed across the world, inspiring men and women, even boys and girls, to start pro-life initiatives." They mention Lila Rose at Live Action taking on the merchant of death, Planned Parenthood. They cite David Bereit and 40 Days for Life, "which has rejuvenated prayer in the pro-life movement." And Georgette Forney and other women who "began bravely laying bare the truth about their own abortions, which were prompted by abandonment, not empowerment, and to speak aloud the unspoken reality that women do regret their abortions."
The Ruses also mention the thousands of ordinary men and women who "opened several thousand pregnancy care centers that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives." And they point out that "tens of thousands of Americans march in protest on the anniversary of Roe" saying that "they will march again this year, and the crowd will be as young and strong and hopeful as ever."
Of course, the most hopeful news for Christians is our faith that the Lord has already defeated death with His death and resurrection. But evil still exists and must be opposed with prayer, fasting and action. Starting Jan. 19, the U.S. Bishops are inviting us to participate in "Nine Days of Prayer, Penance and Pilgrimage" (see Nine Days of Prayer, Penance and Pilgrimage). You’re also invited to the Pro-Life Mass at 9 a.m. Jan. 19 at St. Mary Church in Lincoln, followed by the Nebraska Walk for Life which begins at 10 a.m. across the street at the State Capitol (see Nebraska Catholic Conference).
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abortion advocates have been very successful in selling the lie that abortion rights and women’s rights are inextricably linked. This linkage, however, between abortion rights and women’s rights is a relatively modern construct that does not have roots in the original feminist movement of the late 19th century.
There is strong evidence in the writings of the pioneers of the feminist movement that they viewed abortion as degrading to women; as evidence of something wrong with society. Here is what Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in a letter to Julia Ward Howe (October 16, 1873): "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
In the September 2, 1869 edition of the feminist publication The Revolution, Mattie Brinkerhoff said "When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."
Sarah Norton wrote the following in November 19, 1870 edition of Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly: "Child murderers practice their profession without let or hinderance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned… Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?… Perhaps there will come a time when… an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood… and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with."
Perhaps the most recognizable of the early feminists, Susan B. Anthony, wrote the following about Marriage and Maternity in her publication The Revolution: "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"
Clearly, these feminist pioneers had strong sentiments against abortion. And even the reconstituted feminist movement of the 1960s didn’t initially seem to connect abortion and women’s rights. For example, in the first edition of her 1963 book "The Feminine Mystique" which was credited with sparking a new wave of feminism, Betty Friedan didn’t even mention abortion.
So how did abortion become linked to women’s rights? The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a one-time abortionist (turned pro-lifer) who helped lead efforts to legalize abortion, said the idea came from his collaborator Larry Lader.
In his 1979 book "Aborting America," Nathanson recalled Lader saying "If we’re going to move abortion out of the books and into the streets, we’re going to have to recruit the feminists. Friedan has got to put her troops into this thing—while she still has control of them."
Rosemary Oelrich Bottcher, past president of Feminists for Life, wrote the following after Nathanson’s death in 2011: "When I met Nathanson at the National Right to Life convention in June of 1986, he told me that they convinced the leaders of NOW [National Organization of Women] that easy access to legal abortion was essential to ameliorating the problems that were thwarting the well-being of women, the problems that Friedan had identified in her book.
"We got them to see legal abortion as a civil rights issue, a basic women’s rights issue," Nathanson explained.
Kate Michelman, a recent past president of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) took the link between abortion and women’s rights a step further when she said "Abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s ability to participate fully in the social and economic life of society."
It’s hard to imagine anything more diabolical (and degrading to women) than the notion that women’s rights can be advanced only if women have the legal right to destroy their own offspring.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
As we move closer to the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on January 22, 2013, this column continues to dispel the many myths that surround this Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion. The following material comes from "Roe Reality Check" produced by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat. It is available online at www.secondlookproject.org.
MYTH: Roe v. Wade is only about a woman’s right to abortion, not about a right to take life in general.
FACT: Roe has often been cited by state and federal judges to endanger human beings already born. In 1986, relying on Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated a law intended to ensure care for children born alive during attempted abortions.
In 1983, a U.S. district court invalidated a federal regulation to prevent medical neglect of handicapped newborns in hospitals receiving federal funds. The court said the regulation may "infringe upon the interests outlined in cases such as … Roe v. Wade." In 1980, a New York court cited Roe in a "right to die" case, arguing that the "claim to personhood" of a terminally ill comatose patient "is certainly no greater than that of the fetus."
In 1993, a Michigan judge cited Roe in dismissing criminal charges against Jack Kevorkian and declaring that the state law against assisted suicide was unconstitutional. And in 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied heavily on Roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in finding a constitutional "right" to assisted suicide.
While some of these rulings were later modified or reversed, they all underscore how Roe v. Wade has been used to argue that ideas of privacy and liberty can trump life itself -- after as well as before birth.
MYTH: Abortion is standard medical practice; only religious hospitals and some physicians refuse to provide it.
FACT: Even abortion advocates acknowledge that abortion is outside mainstream medicine.
The vast majority (86%) of all U.S. hospitals whether religious or secular, public or private, do not participate in abortions. 71% of abortions in the United States are performed in free-standing abortion-dedicated clinics. Only 5% are performed in hospitals, 2% in physicians’ offices and 22% in other kinds of clinics.
A New York Times Magazine article reports, "The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed by a small group of doctors. (Some 2 percent of OB-GYNs carry the burden, performing more than 25 per month)." In Nebraska 99.9% of abortions are committed by three abortionists in free-standing abortion mills.
MYTH: Roe said the Constitution includes a right to abortion.
FACT: Yet even legal commentators who support legal abortion have said Roe is not good constitutional law. John Hart Ely, a Yale Law School professor said Roe v. Wade is "a very bad decision... because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Blackmun (who authored Roe) said "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible… [It is] one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era."
Benjamin Wittes, Washington Post legal affairs editorial writer, said "Since its inception Roe has had a deep legitimacy problem, stemming from its weakness as a legal opinion." Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor, said "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."
Even several Supreme Court justices have criticized Roe v. Wade. Justice Byron White said "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment" in Roe v. Wade. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said "This Court’s abortion decisions have already worked a major distortion in the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence… no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court … in a case involving state regulation of abortion."
Justice Antonin Scalia said Roe v. Wade "destroyed the compromises of the past, [and] rendered compromise impossible for the future… To portray Roe as the statesmanlike ‘settlement’ of a divisive issue… is nothing less than Orwellian." And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "Roe v. Wade…ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The following material comes from "Roe Reality Check" produced by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat. It is available online at www.secondlookproject.org.
MYTH: If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will automatically be illegal in the U.S.
FACT: If Roe is overturned, abortion policy will be decided through the democratic process in each state. Before Roe v. Wade, all states permitted abortion if necessary to save the mother’s life, and some permitted abortion in additional circumstances. But Roe deemed "every [abortion] law - even the most liberal - as unconstitutional." As a result, no state can prohibit any abortion at any time during pregnancy.
If Roe is overturned, policy decisions about abortion will be made by the citizens of each state through the democratic process, rather than by courts. Some states will place limits on abortion, in others there will likely be few limits. Not until Roe v. Wade is reversed will the people be able to govern themselves again on the important public policy issue of abortion.
MYTH: Most abortions are done before fetal organs are functioning.
FACT: Actually, the vast majority are done after the fetal heart has begun beating. A fetal heart begins to beat at about 21 or 22 days after fertilization. That’s at about 3 weeks of development. 77% of abortions in the United States are done well after this point.
MYTH: Most abortions are done because of maternal or fetal health problems, or in cases of rape or incest.
FACT: Abortions are rarely done for these reasons. According to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey, women cite these as the main reason for an abortion in a very small percentage of cases each year: 1% "rape or incest"; 3% "woman has health problem" (physical or mental); 3% "fetus has possible health problem";
For all other abortions, the main reason cited is: 21% "unready for responsibility"; 21% "can’t afford baby now"; 16% "concerned about how having a baby could change her life"; 12% "has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood"; 11% "is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child"; 8% "has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children"; 1% "husband or partner wants woman to have abortion"; 1% "doesn’t want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant"; <0.5% "woman’s parents want her to have abortion"; 3% "other." Under Roe v. Wade, abortions for these reasons or any other reason must be legally permitted.
MYTH: U.S. abortion law has not encouraged the use of abortion as a method of birth control.
FACT: Nearly half (48%) of women having an abortion in the United States have had at least one previous abortion. In some states the rate of repeat abortions is much higher. In Maryland, for example, 71.4% of those having an abortion have already had at least one. And 16.4% have had at least three prior abortions.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in 1992 in part by saying that "Roe… could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." (Planned Parenthood v. Casey)
MYTH: Roe v. Wade empowers women to choose freely whether abortion is their best option.
FACT: Legalized abortion has made it easy for others to pressure women into having abortions. Not freedom, but "lack of control over one’s life" is associated with high abortion rates, as is "lack of financial and social resources."
An on-line survey of women who had abortions showed that many women feel pressured by the baby’s father: 85% of fathers offered no encouragement to continue the pregnancy. When women said they wanted to continue the pregnancy, the fathers’ dominant reactions were; "Slightly Upset 60%, Mad 38%, Very Angry 43%," compared to "Happy .7%." 73% of fathers suggested an abortion. 80% of the women surveyed experienced guilt, 83% regret, 79% loss, 62% anger, and 70% depression.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Between now and the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (January 22) I will be exposing the radical reality of this U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide during all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason. I will also expose the tragic outcome of this ruling and make the case against abortion based on science and reason.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Roe v. Wade January 22, 1973. The Court case was prompted by a challenge to Texas law which prohibited abortion except in cases where a mother’s life was endangered. Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") falsely claimed that she was pregnant from rape and was being denied an abortion because of Texas’ law.
On the same day, the Court announced its decision on another abortion case know as Doe v. Bolton. Sandra Cano ("Jane Doe"), a Georgia woman, was denied an abortion by a hospital review committee and subsequently challenged Georgia’s abortion law. The Court struck down both state laws and along with them the abortion laws in every other state as well.
Although Roe got all the attention, Doe contributed at least one critical aspect to the radical nature of the Court’s abortion ruling. First, here is what the Court said in Roe: The right of privacy (not mentioned in the text of the Constitution) "is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
Dividing the nine months of pregnancy into three "trimesters" the Court said that a state may not restrict abortion at all in the first trimester. In the second trimester the Court said that States may establish guidelines on abortion but only to protect the mother’s health. In the last trimester, the Court said states may prohibit abortion unless it is sought to preserve a mother’s "life or health."
Strangely, the Court did not define the nebulous term "health" in Roe, it defined the term in Doe v. Bolton, a case that is unknown to most people. "Health" was defined for third trimester abortions as encompassing "all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient."
This definition of "health," obviously, provides an exception so big that it swallows the rule. As a result, abortions must be allowed even in the ninth month if an abortionist says it is necessary, for example, for a woman’s emotional well-being. In other words, there are no meaningful limits on abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
In 1992, the Supreme Court issued another consequential abortion ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In this case, the Court was asked to rule on the Constitutionality of several abortion restrictions enacted by the State of Pennsylvania (whose Governor at the time was Bob Casey).
In addition to ruling on the Pennsylvania law, the Court took the opportunity to reconsider the original Roe and Doe rulings. In the end, the Court reaffirmed the central holding in Roe that no abortion could be banned before viability and post-viability abortions must be allowed if a woman’s life or "health" is endangered.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Court’s reaffirmation of Roe was that it didn’t really defend Roe as being constitutionally sound. Instead, one of the key reasons the Court cited in Casey for reaffirming Roe was this:
"Roe… could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
What an indictment on our society that the highest Court in our land decided to perpetuate the mass slaughter of unborn children through abortion largely because our society has come to rely upon abortion as a back-up to birth control failure.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
January 22, 2013 marks the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion during all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason. As it turns out, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe Dec. 12 is exactly 40 days (not counting Christmas Day and New Years Day) from Jan. 22.
Our Lady of Guadalupe is the patroness of the unborn. Hence, her feast day and the 40 days between it and the 40th anniversary of Roe provide an excellent opportunity to educate the public on the tragic reality and results of Roe and to urge prayer for an end to abortion and for a culture that fully respects human life and love.
To this end, my office is providing educational and prayer resources for use in parishes, schools, religious education programs, etc. during this 40 days. The educational materials debunk the common myths about Roe v. Wade, give voice to the testimonies of post-abortive women, as well as prominent women speaking about the harm of abortion, and present scientific and scriptural quotes about life in the womb.
The educational material is presented in a couple different formats. The first is a document with 40 daily facts/reflections along with a daily prayer intention. The second format presents the facts/reflections in four bulletin inserts intended to be used during the 40 day period. All of these materials are available (under "40 Years of Roe v. Wade") on the Nebraska Catholic Conference website at www.nebcathcon.org.
As for prayer opportunities and resources, in addition to the 40 daily prayer intentions mentioned previously, parishes are encouraged to have a special pro-life Mass or Holy Hour at the beginning (Dec. 12) and end (Jan. 22) of this 40 days of prayer and reflection. Resources for a pro-life holy hour and a "Mass for Giving Thanks for the Gift of Human Life" are available online at www.usccb.org/prolife (click on "prayers").
In addition to these educational efforts in the parishes, my office will be sending an e-mail each day between Dec.12 and Jan. 22 (minus Christmas Day and New Years Day) featuring the daily reflections and prayers. Those not already receiving my e-mail updates can contact my office to sign up.
Polls often show that most people support Roe v. Wade, but only because they do not realize the radical nature of Roe. For example, most people wrongly think Roe only legalized abortion during the first three months of pregnancy when, in actuality, it legalized abortion during all nine months for virtually any reason.
Likewise, most people think that the majority of abortions are done because of maternal or fetal health problems, or in cases of rape or incest. In reality, abortions are rarely done for those reasons; more than 90 percent are done for social or economic reasons.
Polls also show that most Americans oppose the majority of abortions performed and allowable under Roe (i.e. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions and those done for social or economic reasons). The 40th anniversary of Roe provides an excellent opportunity to correct society’s misperceptions of Roe v. Wade and to expose its radical nature.
Probably one of the most powerful indictments of Roe came from Blessed Mother Teresa who said that "America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe vs. 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."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The re-election of President Obama likely ensures that serious threats to religious liberty will remain and perhaps increase in coming years. An extensive list of threats to religious liberty is available on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at www.usccb.org/conscience.
The most egregious and notorious threat is the Obama Administration’s so-called "HHS mandate." The mandate requires health insurance plans (including those of many religious organizations) to provide coverage for female sterilization and contraception—which includes methods that can cause early abortions.
The mandate took effect Aug. 1 for non-religious employers. For non-profit religious organizations that are not exempt from the mandate—charities, schools, and hospitals—the mandate goes into effect Aug. 1, 2013.
Over the last year or more since the HHS mandate became a reality, the U.S. Bishops have taken extraordinary steps to fight this unprecedented threat to religious liberty. After the election, I and others have been anxious to know if the bishops’ resolve to fight the mandate would not only remain but would escalate.
During the bishops’ fall assembly two weeks ago, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, seemed to answer the question with a resounding "yes"! According to a LifeSiteNews article, Cardinal Dolan responded thus to a question about if the Church is prepared to close its hospitals and other agencies, or instead pay the exorbitant fines levied for non-compliance:
"The only thing we’re certainly prepared to do is not give in, not violate our consciences, and not obey what we consider to be something immoral. How we do that and what doors would remain open to us to see if there’s some way consonant with our high moral principles to be able to do it, that’s something we’ve got to start to tackle… and we’re prepared to tackle. No door is closed except the door to capitulation."
To this response by Cardinal Dolan, I and many Catholics and other people of faith say a hearty "AMEN"! As the bishops have said repeatedly throughout this battle, the freedom of religion is our first and most cherished of American freedoms. "It is the first freedom because if we are not free in our conscience and our practice of religion, all other freedoms are fragile," the bishops state in their statement on religious liberty entitled, "Our First, Most Cherished Liberty."
"If citizens are not free in their own consciences, how can they be free in relation to others, or to the state? If our obligations and duties to God are impeded, or even worse, contradicted by the government, then we can no longer claim to be a land of the free, and a beacon of hope for the world."
Amplifying the resolve of the bishops, Archbishop William Lori, chairman of the Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, said in his report to the bishops’ assembly that "whatever setbacks or challenges in the efforts to defend religious liberty we may be experiencing, we’re going to stay the course."
The archbishop announced a number of initiatives to educate and form Catholics saying that "[d]efense of religious freedom requires not just dealing with short-term and mid-term goals, but indeed is a project that requires long-term foundational and formational work."
"Our work is to provide education and formation as part of the new evangelization," Archbishop Lori said. "I think that our initial efforts have demonstrated the need for greater formation, especially to reach young people, to open their hearts to their heritage as Americans and to what faith teaches about religious liberty."
Among the new initiatives mentioned by Archbishop Lori is a new website, www.firstamericanfreedom.com, which explains long-standing Church teaching on religious practice and traditional marriage; a religious freedom curriculum for schools; and additional materials to assist parishes, organizations and interested groups to discuss and learn about church teaching on religious freedom.
"What is at stake [in this battle]," the bishops warn in their religious liberty statement, "is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tuesday’s presidential election was a tough day for the pro-life cause. Although neither candidate was ideal from the pro-life perspective (or the totality of Catholic teaching), President Obama’s record and positions on the right to life of unborn human beings and some other "non-negotiable" truths (e.g. the right to religious freedom and the nature of marriage) are objectively contrary to our Catholic faith.
Sadly, it is likely that the President’s impoverished views and policies on these non-negotiable truths will be continued and even amplified in his second term. Among other serious concerns, the prospect of President Obama appointing one or two more U.S. Supreme Court Justices (whom he said in the past must support Roe v. Wade) could enshrine Roe for several more decades.
Furthermore, the outcome of the presidential and U.S. Senate elections means that the last remaining avenue for overturning President Obama’s offensive, intolerant contraceptive and sterilization insurance mandate is the court system. On this front, there is some hopeful news in that the initial rulings on the merits of two cases agreed with the opponents of the mandate.
Needless to say, we all need to be steadfast in praying for our president’s conversion on these positions, and in our actions to oppose his policies which run contrary to our faith and objective truth. Equally important, we must never give in to discouragement or cynicism in our call to proclaim God’s Truth about human life and love. To help inspire all of us to this call, I share with you these powerful words from the late Father Richard John Neuhaus:
"...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."
Finally, I’m pleased to announce the latest educational/liturgical resources on religious freedom from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Earlier this year, the USCCB prepared practical and catechetical resources for Mother’s Day and Father’s Day to address conscience rights, religious freedom, and the HHS coercive mandate in particular.
Now, the USCCB has prepared new educational/liturgical materials (homily notes and prayers of the faithful) that may be useful for Thanksgiving Day Masses (November 22) as well as the Solemnity of Christ the King (November 25). Also available is a one-page resource (available in English and Spanish) that provides background on the Solemnity of Christ the King and its connection to religious liberty.
Finally, the USCCB has created a new religious liberty website, www.firstamericanfreedom.com, with the hope that it will be useful to people of any religion who would like to learn more about religious liberty and who would like to support us in prayer in our effort to educate the public about this important issue. Additional resources will continue to be posted at www.usccb.org/conscience and www.usccb.org/freedom.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, the official pro-life program of the Catholic Church in the U.S., calls for pro-life organization and activity at the national, state, diocesan and parish levels. In Nebraska, we are blessed to have about 375 parish pro-life coordinators who implement the Pastoral Plan in their respective parishes.
The pro-life efforts by these parish coordinators are critically important to the Church’s mission of building a culture of life and love. In order to recognize exemplary efforts to promote the Gospel of Life, my office initiated the Gospel of Life Award in 2007. One individual is chosen annually from each of the three dioceses in Nebraska and honored at the Bishops’ Pro Life Conference banquet in October.
At this year’s pro-life conference banquet Oct. 12, the following individuals were presented with the 2012 Gospel of Life award:
Father Dave Rykwalder
Father Dave Rykwalder received the award for the Diocese of Grand Island, where he served for 11 years as the Diocesan Pro-Life Director. In this capacity he worked tirelessly to make sure that every parish in the Grand Island Diocese has an active pro-life coordinator. He was also very active in promoting Life Chain and the diocesan pro-life essay contest. He put a special effort into promoting the essay contest in the small parish communities along with the parochial schools in the diocese. His dedication to the project is reflected by the increasing numbers of entries over the years.
Father’s generosity to the Church’s pro-life efforts becomes significantly more impressive when you consider that he also serves as pastor of All Souls Parish in Bridgeport, which has two mission parishes in Bayard and Dalton. And his active participation in statewide pro-life activities was almost Herculean, given that his parish is just shy of 400 miles from Lincoln, where many of the meetings and events take place.
Mr. William Sullivan
Mr. William Sullivan from St. Patrick Parish in Imperial received the award for the Diocese of Lincoln. In addition to being the pro-life coordinator for more than 10 years, Mr. Sullivan is actively involved in his parish in many capacities.
As a pro-life coordinator he has initiated a variety of educational, pastoral and prayer activities. He has organized the Life Chain in Imperial NE for many years, conducts an adult Bible study at the nursing home, stocks an evangelization library in the church vestibule with pro-life, NFP and Catholic CDs.
Each year during the county fair, when hundreds of people walk near his church building, Bill sets up a pro-life banner in front of the church, along with a card table containing pro-life literature. And as a member of the Knights of Columbus, Bill motivates his Council to put up and maintain the road side pro-life billboards around Imperial.
Miss Rita Evans
The recipient of the award for the Archdiocese of Omaha is Miss Rita Evans. For at least three decades, Rita has served as the parish pro-life coordinator for St. Joseph Parish in Omaha.
In this capacity she helps coordinate the annual Life Chain and makes sure that her parish stays informed on pro-life issues with regular bulletin notices. Rita also helps coordinate the annual pro-life "Living Rosary" and is a long-time volunteer with Essential Pregnancy Services and Nebraskans United for Life in Omaha.
Like most of her fellow pro-life coordinators, Rita gives generously of her time and talent to her parish in other ways. She transports parishioners to Mass every Sunday demonstrating her dedication to those with special needs. And she has volunteered for many years as a reader and extraordinary minister of the Eucharist.
On behalf of the Bishops of Nebraska and the entire Church, I extend our gratitude and admiration to these three individuals for their exemplary commitment to the Gospel of Life and to the Church’s mission of building a culture of life and love.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Next Tuesday, Nov. 6, is general Election Day. In our great nation, we have the privilege and right to vote, thereby freely electing our leaders. Our Catholic faith goes beyond recognizing a right to vote and teaches that we have a "grave moral obligation" to vote.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2240) says "Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country…" More than 60 years ago, on March 16, 1946, Pope Pius XII said in his "Discourse to Parish Priests" that the "exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave moral responsibility…"
The teachings of our Church make clear our obligation to vote, but what do the teachings tell us about how we are to vote? The Catechism says, "In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law…"
So our faith teaches that our conscience must guide our voting decisions. However, our conscience is not some whimsical voice of our own design. The Catechism says [c]onscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful…The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings." (#2240)
The Catechism also identifies several legitimate sources for the formation of our conscience: The Word of God (Scripture); Examination of our conscience before the Lord’s Cross; The gifts of the Holy Spirit; The witness and advice of others (Saints and holy men and women); and the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church (#1785).
In addition to helping us form our consciences, the Church also provides us with some overarching principles of social teaching that should provide the lens through which we analyze public policy and our public officials (i.e. for whom to vote). The first principle is human dignity.
"God has imprinted his own image and likeness on man (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an incomparable dignity," Blessed Pope John Paul II says in Centisimus Annus. "In effect, beyond the rights which man acquires by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he performs, but which flow from his essential dignity as a person."
The second principle is solidarity. In Caritas in Veritate Pope Benedict tells us that "[t]he development of peoples depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side."
Solidarity also encompasses our Lord’s call to love our neighbor, which Pope Benedict says "consists in the very fact that, in God and with God, I love even the person whom I do not like or even know. This can only take place on the basis of an intimate encounter with God" (Deus Caritas Est). And solidarity recognizes that "the more that individuals are defenseless…the more they require the care and concern of others, and in particular the intervention of government authority" (John Paul II, Centisimus Annus).
The third principle is subsidiarity. In Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Pope Pius XI said, "It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. So, too, it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and a disturbance of right order to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity functions which can be performed and provided for by the lesser and subordinate bodies."
In analyzing specific issues related to human dignity and rights, Blessed John Paul II made it clear in Christifideles Laici (1988) that not all issues carry the same moral weight: "Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination."
So be sure to vote. And be sure to vote with a "well-formed" conscience that is "upright and truthful" and that recognizes our moral obligation to defend the right to life with "maximum determination."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
In my last column I presented Blessed John Paul’s formula for rebuilding a culture of life and love found in the last chapter of his encyclical, The Gospel of Life. At the very end of that final chapter, John Paul mentions a couple more critical elements to rebuilding a culture of life—healthy families and a proper respect for human sexuality.
"Within the ‘people of life and the people for life,’ the family has a decisive responsibility," John Paul states. "This responsibility flows from its very nature as a community of life and love, founded upon marriage, and from its mission to ‘guard, reveal and communicate love’. Here it is a matter of God’s own love, of which parents are co-workers and as it were interpreters when they transmit life and raise it according to his fatherly plan. This is the love that becomes selflessness, receptiveness and gift.
"Within the family each member is accepted, respected and honored precisely because he or she is a person; and if any family member is in greater need, the care which he or she receives is all the more intense and attentive.
"The family has a special role to play throughout the life of its members, from birth to death. It is truly "the sanctuary of life: the place in which life--the gift of God--can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth".[119] Consequently the role of the family in building a culture of life is decisive and irreplaceable."
"As the domestic church," John Paul continues, "the family is summoned to proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life…It is above all in raising children that the family fulfils its mission to proclaim the Gospel of life. By word and example, in the daily round of relations and choices, and through concrete actions and signs, parents lead their children to authentic freedom, actualized in the sincere gift of self, and they cultivate in them respect for others, a sense of justice, cordial openness, dialogue, generous service, solidarity and all the other values which help people to live life as a gift."
Regarding the connection between respect for human sexuality and respect for human life, Blessed John Paul says the following:
"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. Sexuality, which enriches the whole person, "manifests its inmost meaning in leading the person to the gift of self in love".[128]
"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. There can be no avoiding the duty to offer, especially to adolescents and young adults, an authentic education in sexuality and in love, an education which involves training in chastity as a virtue which fosters personal maturity and makes one capable of respecting the "spousal" meaning of the body."
Finally, John Paul communicates a very tender message to women who have had abortions:
"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly.
"If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.
"With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The final chapter of Blessed John Paul’s encyclical "The Gospel of Life" is entitled, "For a New Culture of Human Life." In this chapter he lays out a blueprint for building a new culture of life and love saying that as Christians we have a "duty to preach the Gospel of life, to celebrate it in the liturgy and in our whole existence, and to serve it with the various programs and structures which support and promote life."
Recalling a previous chapter, John Paul cites man’s alienation from God, manifested by secularism, as the deepest root of the "culture of death." "When the sense of God is lost," he says, "there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving presence."
Since the deepest root of the culture of death is alienation from God, it makes sense that the spiritual renewal through evangelization is essential to building a new culture of life and love.
"This involves above all proclaiming the core of this Gospel," John Paul II says. "It is the proclamation of a living God who is close to us, who calls us to profound communion with himself and awakens in us the certain hope of eternal life. It is the affirmation of the inseparable connection between the person, his life and his bodiliness.
"It is the presentation of human life as a life of relationship, a gift of God, the fruit and sign of his love. It is the proclamation that Jesus has a unique relationship with every person, which enables us to see in every human face the face of Christ. It is the call for a ‘sincere gift of self’ as the fullest way to realize our personal freedom."
We’ve all heard the phrase, "you can’t give what you don’t have." Therefore, transforming our "culture of death" into a "culture of life" starts by transforming our own hearts and souls. If we deepen our own relationship with Christ, we will be better able to radiate the light and truth and joy of Christ to others, and thereby transform our culture.
The culture of death’s degradation of human life has taken a toll on how man views human life. Vulnerable human lives, judged by some to have no "utility" are often seen as a problem or burden to be eliminated rather than as an opportunity for us to demonstrate love.
As a result, blessed John Paul says that "as a ‘people for life,’ our proclamation must also become a genuine celebration of the Gospel of life." "For this to happen", he continues, "we need first of all to foster in ourselves and in others a contemplative outlook" which "arises from faith in the God of life, who has created every individual as a ‘wonder.’
"It is the outlook of those who see life in its deeper meaning, who grasp its utter gratuitousness, its beauty and its invitation to freedom and responsibility. It is the outlook of those who do not presume to take possession of reality but instead accept it as a gift, discovering in all things the reflection of the Creator and seeing in every person his living image.
"This outlook does not give in to discouragement when confronted by those who are sick, suffering, outcast or at death’s door. Instead, in all these situations it feels challenged to find meaning, and precisely in these circumstances it is open to perceiving in the face of every person a call to encounter, dialogue and solidarity."
Finally, Blessed John Paul says we must "serve the Gospel of life. "By virtue of our sharing in Christ’s royal mission, our support and promotion of human life must be accomplished through the service of charity, which finds expression in personal witness, various forms of volunteer work, social activity and political commitment."
"As disciples of Jesus," John Paul continues, "we are called to become neighbors to everyone, and to show special favor to those who are poorest, most alone and most in need. In helping the hungry, the thirsty, the foreigner, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned--as well as the child in the womb and the old person who is suffering or near death--we have the opportunity to serve Jesus. He himself said: ‘As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’"
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Chapter three of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) is entitled "Thou Shall Not Kill." In this chapter, Blessed John Paul II explains and reaffirms the Church’s consistent teaching that abortion and euthanasia are grave violations of the law of God.
Pope John Paul begins with another reminder of man’s sacred dignity: "Man, as the living image of God, is willed by his Creator to be ruler and lord." He punctuates this with the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa: "God made man capable of carrying out his role as king of the earth… Created to exercise dominion over the world, he was given a likeness to the king of the universe."
"Man’s lordship however is not absolute, but ministerial," John Paul emphasizes. "Hence man must exercise it with wisdom and love, sharing in the boundless wisdom and love of God. And this comes about through obedience to God’s holy law: a free and joyful obedience (cf. Ps 119), born of and fostered by an awareness that the precepts of the Lord are a gift of grace entrusted to man always and solely for his good, for the preservation of his personal dignity and the pursuit of his happiness."
Pope John Paul focuses on the divine commandment or precept "thou shall not kill." "God proclaims that he is absolute Lord of the life of man, who is formed in his image and likeness. Human life is thus given a sacred and inviolable character, which reflects the inviolability of the Creator himself. Precisely for this reason God will severely judge every violation of the commandment ‘you shall not kill.’"
Regarding Church teaching against abortion, John Paul II points out that "Christian tradition…is clear and unanimous from the beginning up to our own day in describing abortion as a particularly grave moral disorder." He cites this quote from the Didache, the most ancient nonbiblical Christian writing:
"From the beginning, the living Tradition of the Church… categorically repeated the commandment "You shall not kill"… In accordance with the precept of the teaching... you shall not put a child to death by abortion nor kill it once it is born…"
John Paul II also cites Greek (Athenagoras) and Latin (Tertullian) authors condemning abortion as well as more recent papal documents (Pius XI and Pius XII) which have vigorously reaffirmed the Church’s consistent teaching against abortion.
Regarding Scripture, the Pope acknowledges that the "texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it. But they show such great respect for the human being in the mother’s womb that they require as a logical consequence that God’s commandment ‘you shall not kill’ be extended to the unborn child as well."
"Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the church," John Paul states, "Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable." Citing the "authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors, in communion with the bishops" John Paul reaffirmed the teaching: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being."
Pope John Paul also reaffirms the Church’s consistent teaching against euthanasia saying "I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person." "True compassion," he says, "leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear."
On the practice of capital punishment, Pope John Paul says that "the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense… Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about…"
Pope John Paul balances the Church’s teaching that the death penalty can be legitimately used in rare cases with this admonition: "Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
In Chapter 2 of "The Gospel of Life," Blessed John Paul gives us a profound reflection on the sublime dignity and sacredness of human life as made manifest by Jesus Christ, "the Word of life." He begins by reminding us that "[t]he Gospel of life is not simply a reflection, however new and profound, on human life. Nor is it merely a commandment aimed at raising awareness and bringing about significant changes in society. Still less is it an illusory promise of a better future. The Gospel of life is something concrete and personal, for it consists in the proclamation of the very person of Jesus."
As Christians, we worship and serve a God who "lowered Himself to share in our humanity," who became flesh and dwelt among us, experiencing every stage and aspect of human life except sin. This reality gives meaning and sacred dignity to human life at every stage of existence.
Pope John Paul punctuates this point with this teaching from the Second Vatican Council: "Christ perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making himself present and manifesting himself; through his words and deeds, his signs and wonders, but especially through his death and glorious Resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. Moreover, he confirmed with divine testimony what revelation proclaimed: that God is with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to life eternal."
"Why is life a good?" John Paul asks. "This question is found everywhere in the Bible, and from the very first pages it receives a powerful and amazing answer. The life which God gives man is quite different from the life of all other living creatures, inasmuch as man, although formed from the dust of the earth, is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory."
"Man has been given a sublime dignity," John Paul continues, "based on the intimate bond which unites him to his Creator: In man there shines forth a reflection of God himself. The Book of Genesis affirms this when… it places man at the summit of God’s creative activity, as its crown, at the culmination of a process which leads from indistinct chaos to the most perfect of creatures.
"Everything in creation is ordered to man and everything is made subject to him: "Fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over . . . every living thing" (1:28); this is God’s command to the man and the woman."
"The life which the Son of God came to give to human beings cannot be reduced to mere existence in time," Blessed John Paul points out. "The life which Jesus promises and gives is ‘eternal’ because it is a full participation in the life of the ‘Eternal One.’"
"Here the Christian truth about life becomes most sublime," John Paul emphasizes. "The dignity of this life is linked not only to its beginning, to the fact that it comes from God, but also to its final end, to its destiny of fellowship with God in knowledge and love of him."
In his closing on this chapter, John Paul "contemplates the One who was pierced and who draws all people to himself." In the early afternoon of Good Friday, John Paul continues "there was darkness over the whole land ... while the sun’s light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two.
"This is the symbol of a great cosmic disturbance and a massive conflict between the forces of good and the forces of evil, between life and death. Today we too find ourselves in the midst of a dramatic conflict between the ‘culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life.’ But the glory of the Cross is not overcome by this darkness; rather, it shines forth ever more radiantly and brightly, and is revealed as the center, meaning and goal of all history and of every human life."
Finally, John Paul points out that through His death and resurrection, "Jesus proclaims that life finds its center, its meaning and its fulfillment when it is given up." "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn. 15:13).
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
In chapter one of his encyclical "The Gospel of Life," Pope John Paul II compares the origin of violence in the world (Cain killing Abel) to "present-day threats to human life." In particular he focuses on abortion and euthanasia "which present new characteristics with respect to the past and which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness."
Pope John Paul then addresses the question of "how did such a situation come about?" First, the Pope cites a "profound crisis of culture" marked by "widespread moral uncertainty" which "makes it increasingly difficult to grasp clearly the meaning of what man is, the meaning of his rights and his duties."
Second, Pope John Paul cites "existential and interpersonal difficulties, made worse by the complexity of a society in which individuals, couples and families are often left alone with their problems." But John Paul digs even deeper to unearth the deepest roots of what he calls a "veritable structure of sin."
This structure of sin is "characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable ‘culture of death.’ This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency.
"Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: A life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected… A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or lifestyle of those who are more favored tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated."
John Paul II explains in more detail the roots of the culture of death. One root is a distorted notion of freedom characterized by individualism, materialism and relativism. Individualism causes people to be self-centered and to disregard our responsibility to care about, and for, our neighbor. Individualism causes us to view other people and their needs as burdens or obstacles to our freedom rather than as opportunities for us to demonstrate (and receive) authentic love.
Relativism is the denial of objective truth. "Freedom negates and destroys itself and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth," John Paul says. "In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost… At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining; even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life."
Materialism values possessions over people. If we are driven by the pursuit of material possessions, then anything or anyone who gets in the way of this pursuit is viewed as an obstacle or burden.
It is easy to see how these roots of the culture of death can have a significant impact on how we view other people. Each of them tends to cause us to view other people as problems to be solved or eliminated rather than as opportunities for solidarity and love.
"In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the ‘culture of life’ and the ‘culture of death,’ " John Paul says, "we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse idea of freedom mentioned above. We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism…."
"Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad vicious circle: when the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving presence."
In other words, if our relationship with, or knowledge of, our Creator is weak, then our understanding and appreciation of the value and meaning of human life created in His image is also weak. And if we don’t understand and appreciate the value and meaning of human life we are more likely to violate its dignity (i.e. sin), which, like all sin, separates us from God. This is what John Paul means by a "sad vicious circle."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The first chapter of Evangelium Vitae is entitled "The voice of your brother’s blood cries to me from the ground: Present-Day Threats to Human Life." As the title indicates, Pope John Paul II references the Genesis account of Cain and Abel to explain the "roots of violence against life."
"Death came into the world as a result of the devil’s envy and the sin of our first parents," John Paul says. "And death entered it in a violent way, through the killing of Abel by his brother Cain…"
Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, John Paul says, "In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain, Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history." "Like the first fratricide," he continues, "every murder is a violation of the ‘spiritual’ kinship uniting mankind in one great family, in which all share the same fundamental good: equal personal dignity."
"Cain’s killing of his brother at the very dawn of history," says JPII, "is thus a sad witness of how evil spreads with amazing speed: Man’s revolt against God in the earthly paradise is followed by the deadly combat of man against man."
The Pope then connects Cain and Abel to modern times. First he points to Cain’s dishonest response to God’s inquiry about Abel’s whereabouts: "I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?" "This was and still is the case," JPII says, "when all kinds of ideologies try to justify and disguise the most atrocious crimes against human beings."
"We cannot but think of today’s tendency for people to refuse to accept responsibility for their brothers and sisters. Symptoms…include the lack of solidarity toward society’s weakest members—such as the elderly, the infirm, immigrants and children…"
Next, John Paul addresses God’s question of Cain, "What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground." This question, "which Cain cannot escape, is addressed also to the people of today, to make them realize the extent and gravity of the attacks against life which continue to mark human history…"
The Pope enumerates the numerous modern forms of violence against life, from poverty and hunger to wars, drug trafficking and immoral and unhealthy sexual practices. In this encyclical, however, he chooses to "concentrate particular attention on another category of attacks affecting life in its earliest and in its final stages [abortion and euthanasia], attacks which present new characteristics… and which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness."
John Paul then describes the new and serious characteristics presented by abortion and euthanasia. First, "[i]t is not only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer to be considered as ‘crimes’; paradoxically they assume the nature of ‘rights’…" Consider the fact that not only did Roe v. Wade decriminalize abortion in the United States, it elevated the killing of unborn children to a fundamental Constitutional right.
Second, "[s]uch attacks strike human life at the time of its greatest frailty, when it lacks any means of self-defense." Third, "[e]ven more serious is the 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.’"
Here is how Mother Teresa expressed the impact of the so-called right to abortion: "[It] 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 dominion over the dependent 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."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
In 1995, Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical entitled "Evangelium Vitae" or "The Gospel of Life." The encyclical was prompted by a 1991 consistory of cardinals held in Rome that focused on contemporary threats to human life.
John Paul II notes in the encyclical that the cardinals unanimously asked him to "reaffirm with the authority of the successor of Peter the value of human life and its inviolability, in the light of present circumstances and attacks threatening it today." Prior to writing the encyclical, John Paul wrote a personal letter to every bishop asking for their input on the document.
In that letter to his brother bishops, John Paul referenced the encyclical "Rerum Novarum," which had been written 100 years prior, saying the following:
"Just as a century ago it was the working classes which were oppressed in their fundamental rights, and the Church very courageously came to their defense by proclaiming the sacrosanct rights of the worker as a person, so now, when another category of persons is being oppressed in the fundamental right to life, the Church feels in duty bound to speak out with the same courage on behalf of those who have no voice.
"Today there exists a great multitude of weak and defenseless human beings, unborn children in particular, whose fundamental right to life is being trampled upon. If, at the end of the last century, the Church could not be silent about the injustices of those times, still less can she be silent today, when the social injustices of the past, unfortunately not yet overcome, are being compounded in many regions of the world by still more grievous forms of injustice and oppression, even if these are being presented as elements of progress in view of a new world order."
In the introduction of the encyclical, John Paul provides two foundational considerations upon which the document is based: The incomparable worth of the human person and the new threats to human life.
Regarding the "incomparable worth" of human life, JPII says "Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase."
This Gospel of life, John Paul says, "has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person--believer and non-believer alike--because it marvelously fulfils all the heart’s expectations while infinitely surpassing them... [E]very person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree."
Christians, in particular, "must defend and promote this right, aware as they are of the wonderful truth recalled by the Second Vatican Council: ‘By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being.’ This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who "so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person."
Regarding the "new threats to human life," John Paul points out that "[i]n addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats [i.e. abortion and euthanasia] are emerging on an alarmingly vast scale." Compounding this problem is "a new cultural climate" in which "broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom."
"The end result of this is tragic," JPII says. "Not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
It has been some time since I’ve written about human stem cell research. I’m pleased to report that research and treatments with ethical "adult" stem cells continue to advance at an impressive rate. Conversely, there is comparatively little research success and no human treatments with unethical human embryonic stem cells.
The Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research is a statewide advocate for ethical biomedical research. As part of its public advocacy for ethical research, the Coalition distributes a regular e-mail update on the advances of ethical stem cell research. In its latest update are the following advances:
FDA Approves Spinal-Cord Injury Therapy
Using Patient’s Own Cells
National Right to Life News Today, August 12, 2012 ABC News’s Susan Donaldson James reported yesterday that the FDA has approved a phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate the safety of transplanting human Schwann cells to treat patients with paralysis-the first such trial in the world.
According to Dr. David Prentice, an expert on stem cells, "Schwann cells are ‘nurse’ cells in the body, acting as a sheath around large nerves to protect and nurture them," he said. In the trial, patients will have some of their Schwann cells removed by a biopsy procedure from a nerve in their leg.
"Those cells will be grown in number and purified in the lab over a period of weeks before being transplanted into the site of spinal cord injury to stimulate repair of spinal cord damage," Dr. Prentice explained. While this is primarily a safety trial, "there is the hope that the Schwann cells will also stimulate repair of the spinal cord," Dr. Prentice said.
Neurosurgeon Dr. Barth Green, co-founder and chairman of The Miami Project, which does yeoman work in publicizing spinal cord injuries and seeking a cure said, "We believe today’s announcement is just as important to our field as man’s first step on the moon was to the space program." ABC News reported that "eight patients with acute spinal-cord injuries, or those within one month of paralysis, will be injected with their own Schwann cells as scientists at the University of Miami Medical Center monitor them for side effects."
Adult Stem Cell From Liposuction Create Blood Vessels
CBS42.com July 26, 2012 BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WIAT) Millions of patients affected by cardiovascular disease need small-diameter blood vessel grafts to help route their blood around blocked arteries. Now, researchers have created a new way to grow healthy, new small-diameter blood vessels from adult stem cells extracted during liposuction.
These blood vessels are grown in a lab and could solve large problems associated with grafting blood vessels elsewhere in the body, or from using artificial blood vessels that aren’t living tissue.
More Success With Adult Stem Cells
Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com) Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:04 PM Adult stem cells, the type that do not require killing a human being, are showing promise in treating hearing loss in children. Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council explains that the technique, which uses the adult stem cells saved from the blood of a baby’s umbilical cord, is successful so far, based on Food and Drug Administration-approved research.
"The idea is to repair hearing loss -- not amplify noise, as most treatments do, not try and just do some reparative thing, but actually repair the hearing system in these young kids," Prentice notes. The first trial of the study is using children up to 18 months whose hearing loss was acquired through an accident or illness. Dr. Prentice notes that the umbilical cord is a very rich source for adult stem cells.
More information on these and other ethical research stories can be found on the Coalition website at www.ethicalresearch.net. Other great websites on ethical search are www.stemcellresearch.org from the Do No Harm Coalition, and www.usccb.org/prolife from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Catholic Bishops in the United States have been unified and resolute in fighting the Obama Administration’s mandate that forces all private health plans, including those of most religious institutions, to provide coverage of sterilization and contraceptives – including abortion-inducing drugs.
To this end, the bishops have engaged in vigorous efforts of education on religious freedom, dialogue with the executive branch, legislative initiatives and efforts in the courts to oppose the mandate and defend religious freedom.
So where do these efforts stand? On the educational front, the bishops sponsored a very successful Fortnight for Freedom from June 21 to July 4. During the Fortnight, "dioceses and parishes around the country scheduled special events that support a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty" the U.S. Bishops’ website proclaimed.
"Through prayer, study, catechesis, and peaceful public action during the Fortnight for Freedom, we [Catholics] hoped to remind ourselves and others all throughout the United States about the importance of preserving the fundamental right of religious freedom", the Bishops stated.
In addition to sponsoring the Fortnight for Freedom, the Bishops have produced numerous educational materials and prayer resources. All of these can still be downloaded from the U.S. Bishops’ website at www.usccb.org/conscience.
On the legislative front, the Bishops continue to urge Congress to take action to counter the coercive mandate. On August 3, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, sent a letter to members of Congress urging immediate action saying that the "fundamental importance of the religious freedom issue at stake demands a timely congressional response."
On the legal front, there have been mixed results by courts around the country with many more lawsuits yet to be determined. Two judges, including one in Nebraska, dismissed two different lawsuits against the mandate. However, in both cases, the suits were dismissed on procedural technicalities and not on the merits of the arguments made against the mandate.
On July 27, a third judge ruled in favor of a for-profit secular company (Hercules Industries) owned by a Catholic family. In this case, the judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government from enforcing the mandate against this company.
Although the injunction only applies to Hercules Industries, it is a significant victory because the judge based his ruling on the merits of the case. Specifically, the judge found the mandate to be in violation of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In granting the preliminary injunction against imposition of the mandate on Hercules Industries, Senior Judge John Kane found that any "public interest" the Administration claims for the uniform imposition of its mandate is "countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion," adding that this mandate already exempts many other organizations for reasons far less important than religious freedom.
In the conclusion of his letter to Congress, Cardinal DiNardo says, "the validity of the religious freedom claim against the contraceptive mandate is clearer than ever—even for those supposedly ‘secular’ companies whose rights are completely ignored under that mandate. Yet timely and uniform protection of these rights cannot be expected from the current lengthy judicial process. Therefore the Catholic bishops of the United States and many other fervently hope Congress will address this urgent and fundamental issue before it completes its business this year."
For those who have text messaging on their cell phones, the bishops are providing text updates on the status of legislative and legal efforts against the mandate. To sign up, simply text the word "Freedom" to 377377. If you don’t have this capability, updates are available on the bishops’ website mentioned previously.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
January 22, 2013 marks the 40th anniversary of the infamous Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion during all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason. During this 40 years, more than 45 million innocent unborn children have been aborted leaving tens of millions of women and men grieving this terrible decision—usually in silence with little societal recognition or support. And the casualties continue to mount day after day, year after year.
A booklet on post-abortion healing produced by the Archdiocese of Boston’s Project Rachel program, points out that an estimated 30 percent of American women will have an abortion. "Many of these women will at some point suffer from grief and regret from their abortion decision," the booklet says.
"Their pain is often a silent one. Personal abortion experiences are rarely discussed among family or friends. For some women, there is also an internal shame associated with abortion that makes them feel ‘unforgivable’.
"Since 1985, the Project Rachel ministry of the Catholic Church has been offering hope and healing from the pain of having participated in abortion. Five women who have participated in the Project Rachel ministry of the Archdiocese of Boston have written about their personal post-abortion healing experiences for this booklet… in hope that other women (and men) who are living with the secret pain of abortion will also come to experience the peace and healing of God’s divine and tender mercy."
Here are some excerpts from their testimonies:
Testimony One: "I remember during those dark years, I would wake up each morning and for a few brief seconds, all was well. Then I would remember what I had done. The grief was all-consuming. But, like so many other women, I kept it locked inside. I had accepted my fate. I was unforgiveable.
"It took me several months to muster up the nerve to call [Project Rachel]. I had done a fine job of beating myself up for years and I certainly didn’t need the person on the other end of the phone to make me feel any worse. But, [the call] was not like that at all. The voice on the other end was warm and full of hope for me…. Thanks to Project Rachel, I am me again….Little did I know that God was there, all along, offering me love beyond measure. Project Rachel literally lit the path for me."
Testimony Two: "Many years ago, I was young and naïve and I became pregnant at 17. I was so afraid… of my parents’ reaction, of life ahead, of how to be a mom… My parents told me that I would have an abortion. I was ashamed of myself and I had shamed my family. I had an abortion as arranged.
"Although my mom loves God and had instructed me in his ways, I think that she betrayed her own beliefs to try to salvage my future. I was told to never talk about this with anyone and to go on with my life… I spent the next 26 years in emotional bondage. I was heartbroken. I felt ashamed, guilty, lonely, empty, unlovable, unforgivable, and I hated myself. I felt undeserving of love from people or God. I had an emotional breakdown.
(After contacting Project Rachel), "my life changed drastically! I attended the weekend retreat and learned that God’s love and forgiveness is awesome and vast. This allowed me to begin to forgive myself… I came to understand that God does hate sin but loves me, the sinner. Special blessings came when I took the risk and shared all of what was happening with my mom. She cried and confessed that she too had been tormented by shame and guilt for all those years… [and] had the opportunity to reconcile with God and me before her death."
I share the hope of this booklet’s authors that these stories will be a catalyst for women and men suffering from an abortion experience to seek the hope and healing of God’s divine mercy through the assistance of Project Rachel. Project Rachel can be accessed online at www.hopeafterabortion.com or by calling 888-456-HOPE (4673).
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Every year in October, my office sponsors a pro-life conference on behalf of the Bishops of Nebraska. This year’s conference will be held Friday, Oct. 12 and Saturday, Oct. 13 at the Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln.
I’m thrilled to announce that this year’s keynote speaker is Mr. George Weigel. Mr. Weigel is a distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a Catholic theologian and is a widely-read author. One of his most notable writings is a biography on Blessed John Paul II.
Mr. Weigel is also a Vatican analyst for NBC News, is a contributor to Newsweek, and writes a weekly column, "The Catholic Difference," that is syndicated to 60 newspapers around the United States, including this newspaper (hint: look at the page opposite this one!).
Mr. Weigel will be the keynote speaker at the Friday night banquet with his talk entitled "Why We’re Winning—The Pro-Life Cause Forty Years After Roe vs. Wade." He will also headline the Saturday conference with a talk entitled "John Paul II and the Challenge of 21st Century Culture."
The Saturday conference will include three other exceptional speakers. The first is Father Daniel Mindling. Father Mindling is the Academic Dean and Professor of Moral Theology at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Md.
Father Mindling will address the very hot topic of "Moral Cooperation with Outside Organizations." Many Catholics are being confronted with the moral dilemma of wanting to contribute to an organization that does good medical research, for example, but also funds or supports immoral research (e.g. human embryonic stem cell research). Father Mindling’s presentation will explain the moral principles that can assist Catholics in making such decisions.
Another great speaker is Mr. Omar Gutierrez, who is manager of the Office of Missions and Justice for the Archdiocese of Omaha. Mr. Gutierrez will address another very intriguing debate within our Church: "The ‘Pro-Life’ Issues: Where Can Catholics Disagree?"
In this talk, Mr. Gutierrez will explain the moral similarities and differences among the various issues related to the dignity of human life such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, the death penalty, healthcare, war, and poverty programs. This will include an explanation on how the Church’s teaching on intrinsic evil and prudential judgment factor into public policy responses to these issues.
Finally, a missionary team from Generation Life will give a presentation on "Young People Building a Culture of Life." Generation Life is a "movement of young people who live the beautiful teachings of the Catholic Church on human sexuality and who are committed to building a culture of life by spreading the messages of life and love to other young people."
Generation Life missionaries have made a "commitment to sexual purity and desire to influence the rest of our generation to do the same. They believe that we can change our sexuality saturated culture by saying ‘yes!’ to saving sexual intercourse and all intimate acts for marriage."
A team of five Generation Life missionaries will be in Nebraska from Oct. 1 through Dec. 14 to provide a full-time chastity speakers bureau for Catholic schools, religious education and youth programs.
Tickets may be purchased for the Friday banquet only for a cost of $35 per person, or a table of 10 for $350. Tickets for the Saturday conference only may also be purchased for $35. Tickets for the entire conference (the Friday banquet and the Saturday talks) may be purchased for $55. Online registration is available at www.nebcathcon.org.
So mark your calendar and plan to attend this year’s pro-life conference. It is an excellent opportunity to be informed, inspired and energized to engage in the battle to rebuild a civilization of life and love.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has established the week of July 22 through July 28 as Natural Family Planning Awareness Week with this theme: "Faithfully Yours."
According to a USCCB press release, the purpose of this national education campaign is "to celebrate God’s design for married love and the gift of life and to raise awareness of Natural Family Planning (NFP) methods. ‘NFP,’ as the U.S. Bishops have written, is supportive of Catholic beliefs about married love because it ‘respects the God-given power to love a new human life into being.’ "
The dates of this annual celebration coincide with the anniversary of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (July 25) "which," the press release says, "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."
To help celebrate and promote the sacred gift of human sexuality and the Church’s teaching to uphold its dignity, the USCCB has produced many excellent resources: NFP Week poster, prayers, homily notes, bulletin inserts, etc. These can be found on the USCCB NFP Program website: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/awareness-week/index.cfm.
One of the educational resources provided by the USCCB is a bulletin insert with excerpts from "Married Love and the Gift of Life," a 2006 statement from the U.S. Bishops. The insert provides concise and compelling answers to some critical questions about the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. For example:
"What does the Church teach about married love?"
"Marriage is more than a civil contract; 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?"
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."
It is a profound tragedy that so many Catholics (and non-Catholics) have such an impoverished understanding of the sacred gift of human sexuality. As the bulletin insert concludes, "The Church’s teaching on marital sexuality is an invitation for men and women—an invitation to let God be God, to receive the gift of God’s love and care, and to let this gift inform and transform us, so we may share that love with each other and with the world."
It is my hope and prayer that NFP Awareness Week will prompt Catholics to take a closer and prayerful look at the truth and meaning of human sexuality. And that in doing so, Catholics will be inspired to live and proclaim this beautiful truth.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I can’t recall a more anticipated ruling by the Supreme Court in recent memory than it’s ruling last week on the constitutionality of key provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or "Obamacare"). Certainly from a pro-life perspective, the Court’s ruling was deeply disappointing.
As mentioned in their public response to the Court’s ruling, one of the reasons why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) ultimately opposed passage of "Obamacare" was that it "allows use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions and for plans that cover such abortions, contradicting longstanding federal policy."
Other reasons why the Bishops opposed passage of "Obamacare" are that it "fails to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protection, both within and beyond the abortion context" and it "fails to treat immigrant workers and their families fairly."
The common practice of the USCCB with regard to legislative activity is to advocate on behalf of the dignity of the human person, particularly those most vulnerable. The USCCB advocates more for the inclusion of important principles in legislation than for the legislation itself. However, if those principles are not included, as is the case with "Obamacare," the Bishops will oppose legislation.
In its response to the ruling, the USCCB reiterated these concerns—and its resolve to advocate corrective legislation. "The decision of the Supreme Court," the USCCB said, "neither diminishes the moral imperative to ensure decent health care for all, nor eliminates the need to correct the fundamental flaws" of "Obamacare" mentioned above.
This brings us to an important point of distinction between the case decided by the Supreme Court last week and the numerous lawsuits filed by various plaintiffs against the so-called "HHS contraceptive mandate." The case decided by the Court last week upheld the broader constitutionality of "Obamacare" itself, particularly its mandate that every person purchase health insurance or face a fine (or as the Court declared, a "tax").
The lawsuits against the "HHS contraceptive mandate" are still working their way through the court system. These lawsuits are challenging the constitutionality of one portion of "Obamacare"—its requirement that virtually every health insurance plan provide (without charge to the insured) coverage for sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and contraception.
The USCCB did not join in on the lawsuits to repeal "Obamacare" in its entirety, but the bishops remain resolute and vociferous in the battle to invalidate or rescind the "contraceptive mandate." The Fortnight for Freedom, which ended July 4, was one expression of the Bishops’ resolution in this battle.
Now that the Fortnight has ended and the Supreme Court has left "Obamacare" largely intact, some people may be tempted to disengage from the battle against the contraceptive mandate. This cannot happen.
The battle against the contraceptive mandate and other unjust provisions of "Obamacare" will continue and we must stay engaged in it. We must continue the prayers, fasting and education that were fostered during the Fortnight. The Bishops’ website (www.usccb.org) will continue to assist us in this effort.
As St. Paul admonished us, "we must never grow weary of doing what is right" (2 Thessalonians 3:13).
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The State of Nebraska requires by law that those who perform abortions report certain data to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) within 15 days from the end of the month in which the abortions are performed. Every spring, DHHS compiles this data and issues a statewide report of abortions.
The 2011 Nebraska Statistical Report on Abortions reveals that 2,372 abortions were reportedly performed in Nebraska last year. When we contemplate that each abortion represents the killing of a human being and the wounding of his/her mother, father, family and society, this death toll is staggering.
If there is a bright spot in this number of abortions, it is that it is the lowest annual number of abortions on record in Nebraska. In 1974, the first full year after Roe v Wade legalized abortion, there were 3,094 abortions reported in Nebraska. That number steadily increased to its high point of 6,346 in 1990. Since 1990, the number has steadily declined.
Here are the most relevant statistics from the report:
Age Distribution. By far, the most abortions occurred in the 20-29 age group. Fifty-eight percent of all abortions were done on women in this age group. Women aged 19 and younger comprised 15.5 percent of the abortions; women 30 years and older comprised 26.5 percent of the abortions.
A particularly sad statistic is that 10 girls under the age of 15 had abortions. One of the girls was 13 years old and nine of the girls were 14 years old. Another 358 teens (aged 15 to 19) had abortions.
Reasons for the abortions. As is typically the case, only a tiny fraction of the abortions (0.4%) were done for the so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest and to prevent the death of the mother. Even if you add in those abortions done for the broader reason of a woman’s "health" (0.9%), the "hard cases" still only comprise about 1.5 percent of all abortions done in 2011.
Another revealing statistic is that about half (51.9 %) indicated that "no contraception was used." This means, presumably, that the other half was using contraception when they got pregnant. These percentages comport with national figures.
This statistic raises serious doubts about the claim that contraception will reduce abortions. In fact, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research affiliate of Planned Parenthood) acknowledges that women who use contraception are more likely to have abortions. Guttmacher explains this phenomenon this way: "because women who are using contraception are motivated to prevent an unplanned birth, they are more likely than women who were not using contraceptives to seek an abortion should they accidentally become pregnant."
Method of abortion. The most notable statistic in this category is that the number of chemical abortions (using RU-486) continues its dramatic climb. The 2011 number of 893 chemical abortions is nearly four times the number in 2009, which was 231.
Repeat abortions. Another very sad statistic is that nearly one third (31.5%) of the women obtaining abortions last year in Nebraska had one or more previous abortions. The breakdown of this statistic is incomprehensible: one previous abortion: 503; two previous abortions: 185; three previous abortions: 41; four previous abortions: 9; more than four previous abortions: 10.
The complete report of abortions can be seen online at www.dhhs.ne.gov (click on "Statistics and Reports"). A chart compiling the key data from these annual reports since 1974 can be seen on my website at www.nebcathcon.org (under "Pro Life," "Printed Resources").
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
A new Gallup poll was released recently showing a record-low number of Americans—41 percent—describing themselves as "pro-choice" while 50 percent embraced the "pro-life" label. For perspective, when Gallup first started asking Americans this question in 1995, 56 percent said they considered themselves to be pro-choice and only 33 percent said pro-life.
The public opinion gap between pro-choice and pro-life identifiers fluctuated some over the subsequent 15 years but pro-choice always outpolled pro-life. Then, rather abruptly, public opinion flip-flopped… big time. In 2009, Gallup’s poll showed 51 percent of Americans saying they were pro-life and 42 percent saying pro-choice. The 2012 Gallup poll seems to confirm that "pro-life" may be the new normal.
In past public opinion surveys, a large majority of Americans has consistently opposed most abortions. Only in the rare cases where abortion is sought because of rape, incest or to preserve the mother’s life, do a majority of Americans support it.
Asking Americans if they identify themselves as pro-life or pro-choice is a different sort of question. Rather than measuring how Americans feel about the abortion procedure, this question measures American’s perceptions about the pro-life and pro-choice movements. It is very good news that a majority of Americans now feel more comfortable identifying with the pro-life side.
I read with interest the reactions to this poll by national pro-life leaders. Dorinda Bordlee from the Bioethics Defense Fund said this: "A victory lap is well deserved, even as pro-life advocates pant from exhaustion in trying to hold the line against attempted advances of the Planned Parenthood abortion agenda to infiltrate our private insurance premiums, our health-care system, and even our religious organizations. It seems that this overreach has awakened a sleeping giant."
Pro-life pollster Kellyanne Conway said, "Americans know what they see. The out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality that fueled the abortion-rights movement for decades has been upended by ‘warm the heart’ sonograms and pictures of fetal development and by ‘shock the conscience’ images of dismembered fetuses and the partial-birth abortion procedures."
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List says "As men and women of all ages and political ideologies come to terms with what ‘choice’ actually means, it’s no surprise that they shed the hollow branding. The big ‘Abortion liberates’ lie and those who promulgate it are being unmasked. The other side knows this and admits it has been steadily losing ground with youth."
University of Notre Dame law professor O. Carter Snead explained the public opinion shift this way: "First, advances in biomedical science and biotechnology (including especially in utero imaging technology) have made it impossible to resist the conclusion that the unborn child in the womb is, as a biological matter, a living member of the species Homo sapiens. She is one of us. Given Americans’ widespread intuitive commitment to human equality, it is a very short step to the realization that the failure to extend basic moral regard and legal protections to these immature and vulnerable members of the human family is gravely unjust.
"Additionally, the pro-life movement is overwhelmingly populated by energetic, joyful, and humane people (including a large and growing contingent of young women), who demonstrate compassionate concern not only for the unborn child, but also for the mother facing an unplanned pregnancy, and the woman mourning her abortion. Moreover, alongside their loving witness, defenders of the unborn offer reasoned, sober arguments framed in terms that anyone can grasp, regardless of their ideological or religious commitments."
Professor Snead concludes with these lessons for the future: "Pro-lifers should continue their current course of changing hearts and minds by speaking truth in charity and offering concrete aid to unborn children, their mothers, and women suffering from past abortions. At the same time, the law (which both reflects and teaches) must be brought into alignment with the growing realization that all persons, born or unborn, have immeasurable worth in virtue of who they are as members of the human family."
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This headline in LifeSiteNews.com caught my attention: "The sky is falling on abortion ‘rights.’" The article quotes a Planned Parenthood director expressing concern about the increasing number of pro-life laws that have been enacted in recent years (92 in 2011), saying: "the sky is falling on Roe v. Wade."
One concern among pro-abortion leaders is the growing awareness among Americans of the "nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures" as Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman put it. Additionally, the now ubiquitous ultrasound images of children in the womb have exposed the euphemisms used to dehumanize the unborn ("blob of tissue," "clump of cells," "fetus").
More than 20 years ago, Harrison Hickman, former pollster for NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) identified the "damaging" effect of ultrasound on the pro-abortion movement. He said this to a crowd gathered for the 20th anniversary of NARAL’s founding:
"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 that I have an easy answer on how to cure."
The LifeSiteNews article also points to statements made by Nancy Keenan, the outgoing president of NARAL explaining why she is retiring. According to the Washington Post interview, Keenan said she is "leaving out of concern for the future of the pro-choice movement—and thinks she could be holding it back."
Ms. Keenan’s concern stems largely from what she calls an "intensity gap" on abortion among the "Millennial Generation" (also known as Gen Y or Echo Boomers), which is generally viewed as Americans born between 1980 and 1995. NARAL’s own survey of 700 "Millennials," conducted in 2010, revealed the "intensity gap."
According to the survey, 51 percent of pro-life voters under the age of 30 considered abortion to be a "very important" voting issue. By contrast, only 26 percent of pro-abortion voters under 30 felt the same way.
This survey reinforces research conducted nearly 10 years ago by Rosetta Foundation which also revealed strong pro-life sentiment among the Millennial generation. That research found this generation to be "fundamentally very pro-life." "When they imagine aborting their own unborn child, they feel as if they are killing themselves." One outcome of this research is the excellent website TeenBreaks.com.
Although the pro-life tendencies of Millennials is encouraging, the pro-life movement cannot sit back and assume that these tendencies will automatically bear fruit. There are virulent pro-abortion influences in the media and academia that often militate against the pro-life tendencies of young people.
Indeed, NARAL is in the midst of a three-year effort (surveys, focus groups) to study and better understand young voters in order to engage them in support of "abortion rights." The Washington Post article said "NARAL hopes to roll out a more extensive campaign" to reach young people "[w]hen the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade reaches its 40th anniversary next year."
The pro-life movement can do no less. We must take advantage of the pro-life tendencies of young people by forming them well in our faith and in virtue. And we must engage and equip them to be faithful and effective apologists for the dignity of human life and human sexuality.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The chairman of the Committee on Divine Worship of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Gregory Aymond, recently announced the availability of a new "Rite for the Blessing of a Child in the Womb." Having received approval from the Vatican, the Rite can now be used by dioceses in the United States.
The Rite is introduced with these words: "The Church welcomes with joy and compassion the mothers who, recognizing that all life is a gift from God, come to the Church seeking a blessing for their unborn child. Such a blessing sustains the parents by imparting grace and comfort in time of concern and need, unites the parish in prayer for the unborn child, and fosters respect for human life within society."
The intro also explains that the "blessing may be given by the Priest Celebrant within Mass…or as a blessing outside Mass, celebrated by a Priest or, in his absence, by a Deacon…This Rite may be used for the blessing of an individual mother or of both the mother and the father, or on the occasion of a gathering of expectant parents."
The Rite, when conducted during Mass, includes special readings for the Liturgy of the Word, a homily explaining "the grace and mystery of human life," and special prayers of the faithful. Following the prayers of the faithful, the mother(s) can be invited to come forward, along with the father and other family members for this beautiful Prayer of Blessing:
God, author of all life, bless, we pray, this unborn child; give constant protection and grant a healthy birth that is the sign of our rebirth one day into the eternal rejoicing of heaven. Lord, who have brought to this woman the wondrous joy of motherhood, grant her comfort in all anxiety and make her determined to lead her child along the ways of salvation.
[For the father: Lord of the ages, who have singled out this man to know the grace and pride of fatherhood, grant him courage in this new responsibility, and make him an example of justice and truth for this child.]
[For the family: Lord, endow this family with sincere and enduring love as they prepare to welcome this child into their midst.]
Lord, you have put into the hearts of all men and women of good will a great awe and wonder at the gift of new life; fill this (parish) community with faithfulness to the teachings of the Gospel and new resolve to share in the spiritual formation of this child in Christ our Savior, who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.
When the Rite is conducted outside Mass, it begins with introductory rites, followed by reading of the Word of God, with passages from Luke, Genesis, Samuel and Ruth recommended. This is followed by a responsorial psalm, a brief homily, prayers of the faithful, the Our Father, the Prayer of Blessing and a concluding rite.
Archbishop Aymond said in a news release announcing the new Rite that "[w]e hope the use of this blessing will provide not only support and God’s blessing for expectant parents and their child in the womb, but also another effective witness to the sanctity of human life from the first moment of conception."
This Rite can be downloaded from the USCCB’s website at www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/prayers/pro-life-blessings.cfm. It can also be ordered through USCCB Publishing at www.usccbpublishing.org or by calling 800-235-8722.
You can contact Greg at The Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
