Honey bees are some of the most interesting insects found in nature. They continually work to produce honey by flying from one flower or plant to another. This seemingly simple work is a vital part of agriculture as bees are the primary pollinators of fruits and vegetables.
Pollination is the process by which plants are fertilized thereby becoming capable of bearing flowers and fruits. All orchards and many vegetable gardens are dependent on bees for pollination. Throughout history, bees have held people’s fascination and are frequently found in stories, poems, and even within the Bible.
This delightful book is another in the Magic School Bus series. Ms. Frizzle (The Friz) is again at work introducing her class to a new adventure. While studying insect life, she tells her class to get ready for a new adventure. This time she is taking them into a beehive, delighting some and frightening poor Arnold. After boarding the Magic School Bus, which immediately shrinks, Ms. Frizzle drives the class into a beehive.
Somewhat shocked, the class finds that they have all changed into bee-like creatures. They have wings and antennae, which allows them to fly and act just like bees. The Friz immediately tells the students to collect nectar and pollen on their front, middle and back legs.
Much to their surprise, Ms. Frizzle then tells the students to fly into the beehive. Formidable guard bees stand at the front entrance and protect the hive from all strange bees. The Friz tells the students that they need to be sprayed with a bee scent named pheromone. This smell is how the guard bees know that that the bees belong to the hive. The children and Ms. Frizzle become covered with pheromone and fly to the entrance of the hive. There the guard bees carefully smell the students and determine that their scent is the same as that in the hive. With this they all enter into the hive and begin to see the remarkable activity that takes place in the many levels of the hive.
Most of the bees are workers, flying out of the hive and collecting nectar and pollen to be used in making wax and honey. One worker bee does a strange dance in front of the class. The bees understand this "language" and fly out of the hive to gather more honey. The Friz tells the class that this is how bees communicate and tell the other bees where the honey is located. Soon the class is climbing up the side of a honey comb. They are amazed at the intricate six-sided cells that the bees make to store honey. But this happy work is soon under attack. A black bear has decided to attack the hive and steal honey. The bees immediately swarm and attack the intruder. The children follow and Ms. Frizzle develops a plan to save the hive.
What plan does she develop? Do the children change back from being bees? How many things have they learned on their adventure? Why do modern beehives come in a number of sections? Why is there only one queen bee? Have you ever seen a bee getting nectar from a flower? To find out the answers to these questions, go to the library and check out "The Magic School Bus Inside a Beehive" by Joanna Cole.
This is another delightful book in the Magic School Bus series. The story is very interesting and Ms. Frizzle is her usual funny, quirky self. This is the book for you if you have ever wondered where we get that delicious honey that you put on hot, buttered bread. I hope you enjoy the story as much as I did. Yum, Yum!
What follows is an obscure and curious tale. It’s the tale of a legislative bill that was passed by the Nebraska Unicameral during its 2013 session. Passage happened without a bit of objection from any legislator. The final vote was 45-0 (with four absences). The bill became law just a few days later when the governor gave his approval.
It’s the tale of LB 361, legislation of 14 pages in length that coasted through the full process "on the floor" –where a bill is subject matter for consideration by all for 49 legislators—over a period of just 14 days and with about five minutes of actual attention.
The bill’s sponsor, Senator Sara Howard of Omaha, used less than five minutes for her opening/explanation on General File, the first stage of floor "debate." There were no amendments. There were no questions or comments by any other senator. The sponsor waived closing. The vote to advance the bill to Select File was 32-0, with 15 not voting and two excused.
Consideration on Select File, the second stage of floor "debate," was considerably briefer, just enough seconds for a voice vote, advancing the bill to Final Reading. At that subsequent stage, a full reading of the bill was waived, but there were a couple of minutes of pause for last thoughts and for the votes to be recorded.
A curious aspect of the tale of LB 361 is that the bill had substance. The 14 pages of changes in law are not meaningless or mere clean-up or administrative formalities. The scope and authority of state government are expanded by this legislation, including the extent to which the state can obtain information from segments of the private sector.
The tale of LB 361 epitomizes how the scope and authority of government can be expanded without anyone paying much attention. It epitomizes the trust phenomenon that characterizes a portion of every year’s legislation. In this case, the state Department of Health and Human Services urged, "trust us."
Legislation enacted in 1993 mandated that the chief executive officer of NE-DHHS appoint a state child-death review team, and directed and authorized this team to review and conduct a comprehensive, integrated investigation of all deaths in Nebraska of persons from birth through 17 years of age. The public-health purposes of this law have been to identify trends and to create a cohesive method for responding to certain child deaths, e.g., accidents, suicides.
LB 361, a.k.a. the "Child and Maternal Death Review Act," expands the policy by adding all "maternal deaths" to the duty and authority of the death-review team.
The definition of "maternal death" is broad. It means every death of a woman during pregnancy or during the period of time "ending one year after the woman ceases to be pregnant." Based on the way the legislation is drafted, every woman of child-bearing age who dies in Nebraska will have to be presumed to be a "maternal death" for purposes of the law, unless and until it is determined that the definition doesn’t fit.
What’s more, LB 361 newly mandates a statewide retrospective review of records relating to each of these deaths; and not only with respect to the deceased, but his/her family members as well.
Other factors are involved in the tale of LB 361: it adds "educational records" (undefined) to the government-obtainable, reviewable records relating to both "child deaths" and "maternal deaths;" it newly imposes on public-school districts and non-government schools an obligation—for which subpoena authority is prescribed for the review team—to turn over information and records relating to individuals who become a child death or maternal death, and their family members; it newly imposes on all social-services agencies an expanded obligation—subject to subpoena authority—to provide information and records pertaining to any deceased pregnant or post-partum woman who had been provided with services and even if services had been provided, or are being provided, to one or more members of her family.
The extent to which this legislation can impose reporting obligations on schools and social-services agencies, including issues of confidentiality, was a matter of concern for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, resulting in inquiry-based testimony at the public hearing and some follow-up. NCC has bought into the "trust us" response.
There are some other aspects that add to the curiousness of this tale. LB 361 expands the death-review team from a previous number of eight to 12 members to 12 to 15 members; they have to meet at least four times a year and they aren’t compensated, but their expenses must be reimbursed. The new law requires and authorizes Nebraska-DHHS to employ or contract for a "team coordinator." It newly authorizes the death-review team to consult with experts. Experts usually charge fees.
Presumably, these aspects could have monetary costs. Yet, the fiscal analysis on LB 361 predicts, "No fiscal impact." Perhaps some federal funds are involved.
Notwithstanding all these factors, LB 361 somehow qualified for the "Consent Calendar," an expedited process that was the main cause for quick movement into law.
It is not uncommon for at least some legislators to express concern—at times it’s full-blown opposition—about government expansion. The obscure and curious tale of LB 361 is that no one paid much attention.
Chances are this summer has been a bit hotter, stickier and more uncomfortable than usual for one of Nebraska’s most economically, socially and educationally significant organizations. The twists and turns of recent events involving the Nebraska School Activities Association can be described as bizarre and shrouded in intrigue.
The NSAA is a long-existing, privately organized and administered membership organization, the members of which are the public, private and religious high schools statewide. The association’s structure, rules and processes regulate interscholastic competition, including student eligibility, in sports and co-curricular activities. The NSAA also administratively organizes and conducts district- and state-level competitions—a multi-million-dollar enterprise. Overall, it’s sort of a mini-NCAA.
Apparently, its executive director has determined that the NSAA needs a policy and processes to govern the potential circumstances, regardless of how rare, in which a student who identifies and expresses himself or herself in the gender opposite his or her biological sex requests to compete in a sex-segregated sport or activity as a transgender individual. For instance, how would it be handled if a biologically male student, who consistently identifies and presents himself as a transgender female, would seek to be on the girls’ team for interscholastic competition? The idea and objective presume a policy that would allow such participation, pursuant to prerequisite evidence of genuineness. Issues involving locker rooms, training rooms and bathrooms might also be involved.
On or about June 14, at least two media outlets, the Omaha World Herald and the on-line Nebraska Watchdog.org, reported that the NSAA’s eight-member governing board had unanimously approved a gender-identity eligibility policy and process in December 2012, after it had been presented by the executive director a month earlier. The executive director was a source for the reporting and was quoted extensively. Oddly, the approval was not recorded in the official minutes of either the November or December meeting, but the policy was in effect; the gist of the reporting was that it had not been invoked or even given much attention since being approved. Both articles also reported that the policy was available on the NSAA website.
Not for long, however. The news generated interest and concern, including inquiries by the Nebraska Catholic Conference on behalf of the diocesan superintendents.
Whoa, did the facts change at that point! Within a matter of days, new reports from the same outlets, plus the Lincoln Journal Star as well, were quite different: the policy/process hadn’t been voted on at the December meeting, merely discussed—although again, no such discussion is reflected in the official minutes.
The policy/process that had been publicly available on the website, as first reported, had been removed by the time of the second reports. Few saw it, apparently.
Another part of the revised news was that the policy/process would be an action item on the agenda of the NSAA Board of Directors meeting taking place Aug. 21; and would be voted on then. Those who inquired were told that the proposed policy/process would be publicly available in early August.
Subsequently, the release date was prescribed as Aug. 12, but nothing was posted on that date. Mid-morning the next day, there was a posting, but it wasn’t the policy/process; it was the agenda for the Aug. 21 meeting. It did not show the policy/process as an action item, but as an item of the executive director’s report.
In addition, the posting included a link to a "Q & A" document that asked and answered these three questions: "Why does the NSAA need a Transgender Policy?" "How many State Associations have a policy?" "Is there a sample policy already written?’ The answer to the third question was as follows: "Yes. This policy had not been approved by the Board of Directors and will not be made public until submitted in a membership proposed format. The recommendation from the Board of Directors is that a ‘policy’ should come through the membership legislative process. Several administrators and I (presumably the executive director) are working together to have a Bylaw proposal submitted by the District Meeting deadline on November 1."
Confusion aplenty, but the right and responsible road for this to travel has probably resulted. The subject matter is complex and sensitive, morally, socially, legally. Such a proposal warrants thorough evaluation and discussion; for instance, how much of the "need" is real and compelling; how much of it is ideological? What consequences would such a policy have on schools that operate in accord with religious beliefs?
Such concerns now at least will have a forum, even though the text itself remains a secret. It has been consistently reported that the phantom policy/process is modeled after that adopted by the Colorado association in 2010. But Colorado’s is more than a gender-identity eligibility policy. It encompasses sexual orientation as well, which is another, broader context of issues.
Interestingly, the "Q & A" document posted Aug. 13 stated that as of March 1, 2013, "37 States currently have a Transgender policy in place." The Nebraska Catholic Conference asked for the list in order to review these policies. NCC was told this information was based on a survey undertaken by the National Federation of State High School Associations. Checking that source, NCC learned that only 33 state associations responded to the survey, of which only 17 or 18 actually have policies, which overall are varied. As of Aug. 15, the NSAA’s "Q & A" came up amended, as follows: "In a recent survey conducted by the NFHS and released this spring, of the 33 states that responded, 50 percent of those states currently have a policy. A large number of states surrounding Nebraska including Iowa are working towards adopting a policy." (Emphasis added.)
Public-policy reforms affecting the juvenile-justice system were a point of emphasis and a substantial accomplishment for the Nebraska Legislature during its 2013 session. LB 561 was the main vehicle for these reforms. When Governor Heineman signed the bill into law on May 29, efforts to reduce reliance on detention and put greater focus on rehabilitation and community and family responses were launched.
Of LB 561, the Governor said, "This bill represents an important step forward as we continue to find ways for the state to deal with youth in the juvenile-justice system." He approved reforms that shift substantial parts of the supervision of juvenile offenders out of the Department of Health and Human Services and into the state’s probation system. That also creates a byproduct of keeping more of DHHS’s focus on helping youngsters in the child-welfare system who are victims of abuse and neglect.
The juvenile-justice system essentially consists of the judicial decisions and public-policy responses and programs that deal with youth under the age of 18 who commit felonies, misdemeanors or status offenses. The latter terminology is typically used to indicate actions that are deemed offenses when committed by youth based on their age; examples include truancy and possession and consumption of alcohol.
The importance and urgency of reforms in this context of public policy for Nebraska are understandable. Striving for a more efficient and effective system of juvenile justice has been deemed necessary for some time, for both social/humanitarian and cost justifications.
Consider the ramifications of having the fourth highest youth incarceration rate in the nation. That’s Nebraska, according to a data report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. While the rate in the U.S. declined by 40 percent over the past 15 years, Nebraska is among just six states with an increase. Contrary to the national trend, youth incarceration grew eight percent in Nebraska between 1997 and 2010.
An interesting and informative "Policy Study" by the Platte Institute (see www.platteinstitute.org ) calls pre-adjudication secure detention of juveniles a "distinct pressure point"—one of five—in Nebraska’s juvenile-justice system. It presents justifications for concerns about incarceration: the response is incredibly costly, usually ranging from $75 to over $200 per juvenile per day; and the response as applied to some youth, particularly status offenders, includes the risk of learning more illegal behavior from dangerous or violent youth.
Here’s what LB 561 does: Authority for community supervision, evaluations and parole is removed from the Office of Juvenile Services at DHHS and transferred to the Office of Probation Administration under the Supreme Court; the funding tied to the transfer will be used for a three-step expansion of the Juvenile Services Delivery Project from several counties to statewide; the County Juvenile Services Aid Program is being replaced by a Community-Based Juvenile Services Aid Program and funding thereof is being increased by $1.52 million in FY14 and by $3.52 million in FY15; the positions of Director of the Community-Based Juvenile Services Aid Program and Director of Juvenile Diversion Programs are being established; limitations are being set on sending juveniles to secure detention, e.g., juveniles cannot be sent to the Youth Rehabilitation and Treatment Centers in Kearney (boys) or Geneva (girls) unless it is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for protection of the juvenile or the person or property of another or the juvenile is likely to flee the court’s jurisdiction.
Support for Parenting
While overhauling the juvenile-justice system warranted an exclamation point, adult corrections were not ignored. There were, of course, overall budget decisions affecting the Department of Correctional Services. Meanwhile, a substantive bill with hopeful consequences flew somewhat under the radar. It was LB 483.
Introduced and well-handled by Sen. Kate Bolz from Lincoln, LB 483 passed on a 41-1 Final Reading vote and was approved by the Governor. Here’s how it is described in the Unicameral Update’s Session Review: "appropriates $250,000 to the department to implement a two-year pilot program that provides incarcerated parents of children up to five years old with evidence-based parent education, early literacy, relationship skills development and re-entry planning prior to their release."
What a member of the Judiciary Committee, had to say about LB 483 makes abundant sense: "I cannot think of another program that holds as much promise as this one. It gives inmates motivation, provides them with family connections when they are released and allows them to be parents to their children in a meaningful way."
And finally…. Onto another matter: The administration of the Nebraska Schools Activities Association, which controls high-school competition in extracurricular activities—sort of a mini-NCAA—is pushing a controversial policy. It coercively wants schools to accept and adhere to a common policy and procedures for ensuring participation choices for any student who consistently expresses a gender identity opposite that of his or her birth. Stay tuned.
Some power-packed words have been used to describe the overwhelming approval of bipartisan immigration-reform legislation by the U.S. Senate. The roll call June 27, with each of the 100 seated senators rising to call out his or her vote was 68-32 on S.744 (even though Vice President Biden, as presiding officer, bungled the call for a vote by announcing it as S.747).
The Senate’s action has been described as "historic," "dramatic," "landmark," and "monumental." Those seem appropriate given the great need for modernizing and improving the current immigration system. It’s a big issue public-policy-wise, with legal, economic, sociological, psychological, moral and religious dimensions.
Perhaps "productive" and "progress" are other descriptions that can apply, but not "perfect." That case cannot be made from any perspective. Still, given the status quo, S.744 pursues a balance, constituting significant strides toward both fixing a dysfunctional immigration mechanism and strengthening border security.
Neither of Nebraska’s senators saw fit to join in the majority. Mike Johanns and Deb Fischer both decided to stick with the broken status quo over progress as represented by the balanced, bi-partisan, albeit imperfect, proposals supported by more than two-thirds of their colleagues. Their decisions not only put them on the losing side of 68-32, but made their positions irrelevant, at least for the time being, on a major issue.
If nothing else, by voting "No" Nebraska’s duo rejected an opportunity to reduce the federal deficit. At the time the vote took place, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had projected a deficit reduction of $197 billion over the next ten years and $700 billion in the decade after that. Later, to reflect amendments added during floor debate, most notably costs associated with the Corker-Hoeven border-security "surge" amendment, the CBO lowered the numbers to $158 billion and $685 billion respectively.
Senator Johanns has promised to provide the Nebraska Catholic Conference (and others) with a memorandum that will identify and analyze specific provisions of S.744 that prevented him from supporting it. We look forward to receiving his memorandum with gratitude and to reviewing it thoroughly. Presumably, it will give substance and depth to his rejection of the bill, which occurred notwithstanding his own prior acknowledgment that the current immigration system is flawed and cannot be ignored.
While not really an apt comparison given different contexts, it is interesting nonetheless, and perhaps somewhat instructive, to contrast the "No" votes of Senators Johanns and Fischer on the immigration-reform bill with their recent "Yes" votes on the farm bill, also legislation of considerable substance and significance even though lacking perfection. On it, both Nebraskans were part of a 66-27 majority.
Consider comments such as these attributed to Senator Johanns: With so much on the line for our farmers, ranchers and our state’s economy, we cannot afford to let the great be the enemy of the good (emphasis added); While this isn’t the farm bill I would have drafted, it’s better than no bill at all.
Positive reactions and thoughts of progress regarding the Senate’s action are appropriate, but in reality that action is only part of the story and, hopefully, not meaningless. There is more to be written. S. 744 is not law; it’s only legislation, which garnered nearly 70 percent approval in one of the two houses of Congress. There still has to be action in the House of Representatives, and every scribe, pundit and indicator suggests that action will be a lot different and much narrower in scope.
Will there be enough to cause a conference committee? If so, how much of S. 744 will survive reconciliation and negotiation? There won’t be amnesty; that’s not being considered, but if authentic, effective, humane reform prevails there will be earned legalization and a subsequent path to citizenship over time.
For excellent information about the concepts and details of immigration-reform legislation, as well as the positions and perspectives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, here are three excellent websites: www.usccb.org/mrs; www.justiceforimmigrants.org; www.cliniclegal.org.
And finally....
A note left over from the 2013 session of the Nebraska Legislature:
Was Coach Tom Osborne a hypocrite when it came to support for football players? The label fit, according to Senator Ernie Chambers, who brought it up during a floor speech on one of this year’s budget bills.
Quite a few years ago, Sen. Chambers steered to passage a legislative bill that symbolically established a mechanism for paying stipends to Husker football players. It was symbolic in that it could take effect only if all other states enacted a similar law. Nevertheless, according to Sen. Chambers, while claiming to support players, Coach Osborne acted rather surreptitiously to persuade then-Governor Kay Orr to veto the bill.
Not sure there is any other Nebraskan who would dare to call Tom Osborne a hypocrite in a public forum. Another Senator Chambers’ moment.
The Nebraska Legislature, which includes the 49 legislators and a strong support staff, finished another part of its history June 5, concluding a 90-day regular session for 2013. Officially, adjournment sine die occurred at 3:02 p.m.
In closing remarks just before making the final motion, the Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Greg Adams of York, presented a couple of tallies: of 662 legislative bills introduced, 214 were passed into law; 104 of the introduced bills received priority designation, 71 of which were passed. Speaker Adams described these results as "pretty good," about average compared to previous years.
Pursuant to protocol, Governor Dave Heineman presented closing remarks, thanking the legislators for their work, calling it a "good legislative session," citing accomplishments and outcomes from his perspective and identifying several senators involved with such matters. He made a point of thanking "the many senators (how many he didn’t say) who questioned the affordability and sustainability of expanding Medicaid." He saluted Senator Mike Gloor, chairman of the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee, and a leading opponent of Medicaid expansion, for "leadership on numerous issues that will maximize our state’s rights under the constraints of the federal health care law." He didn’t describe those issues. And he didn’t mention the leadership of Senator Kathy Campbell, chairperson of the equally implicated Health and Human Services Committee, but a leading proponent of Medicaid expansion.
It is too early to assess the quality of the work or its real impacts. That takes considerable time following implementation. Seventy-five of the passed bills had an "emergency clause," which means they took effect as soon as they were approved by the Governor (or overridden by the Legislature); some of those bills have specified operative dates. The balance of legislation will take effect Sept. 5, three calendar months after adjournment of the legislative session, as prescribed by the Nebraska Constitution.
Good, bad or inconsequential, one result Nebraskans can count on is that the legislators expanded the scope and authority of state and local governments. Anyone with enough curiosity, motivation and time, could study this phenomenon by reviewing the statements of intent and fiscal notes that exist on every bill.
Although their regular session is over, 22 of the legislators won’t have much of a break in their legislative obligations. They constitute the membership of two key groups assigned to study highly significant public-policy issues prior to the 2014 session.
Legislative Resolution 155 creates "a special legislative committee," designated as the Tax Modernization Committee. This new, special committee has 14 members. The chairman is Senator Galen Hadley, who is the regular chairman of the Revenue Committee. All other members of that committee are on the special committee: Senators Paul Schumacher, Tom Hansen, Burke Harr, Beau McCoy, Pete Pirsch and Charlie Janssen. Five other chairpersons are on the special committee: Heath Mello (Appropriations); Kathy Campbell (Health and Human Services); Kate Sullivan (Education); Ken Schilz (Agriculture) and John Harms (Planning). The other two members were appointed by the Legislature’s Executive Board; both are from the Appropriations Committee: Jeremy Nordquist and Kate Bolz, who is the only first-year legislator among the 14.
The purpose of the study is to review and evaluate the sales-and-use tax, the income tax, property taxes and miscellaneous taxes and also tax credits and incentives. At a minimum, the following factors have to be considered: fairness, competitiveness, simplicity and compliance, stability, adequacy, and interrelationships among tax systems. The TMC’s first report is due by Dec. 15.
LR 22 requires the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee, in cooperation with the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee, to convene a "Partnership Towards Nebraska’s Health Care System Transformation." The idea is to bring together a broad array of policymakers and stakeholders to pursue controlling health care costs and improving health care quality.
The goals of the partnership are set forth in LR 22: provide a comprehensive review of health-care delivery, cost and coverage demands in Nebraska; engage partners in dialogue and public-policy discourse; develop a framework for health-care system transformation, to meet public health, workforce, delivery and budgetary challenges; and develop cooperative strategies and initiatives for the design, implementation, and accountability of services while advancing the overall health of Nebraskans.
Presumably, the thrust of LR 22 would have surfaced in some form anyway, but some impetus surely came from the Legislature’s controversial rejection of LB 577, proposing to expand eligibility for Medicaid coverage. The resolution also is part of Nebraska’s response to the anxiety and uncertainty of federal health-care-reform.
Senators Campbell, Schumacher and Pirsch will be especially busy. They are members of both the Tax Modernization Committee and Health Care System Transformation Partnership.
With only 11 working days left in its 2013 regular session, the Nebraska Unicameral cleared a hurdle last week when it moved the state’s budget for the next fiscal biennium past the first round of floor debate.
The process on the seven-bill package that earlier had been advanced to the full legislature by the Appropriations Committee, lasted three-and-half days. Although deliberated some for policy questions and pronouncements, the outcome underscored the work and authority entrusted to the nine-member committee.
Five proposed amendments to the committee’s recommendations fell well short of the 25 votes needed for adoption. Four other amendments were withdrawn prior to having a vote. Two amendments that were adopted were introduced as updates by the committee’s chairman, Senator Heath Mello. The only other amendment to be adopted, one that temporarily puts the brakes on the purchase of an airplane from the University of Nebraska Foundation, failed initially, but then was reconsidered and approved.
Two other amendments were held for second-round consideration, which started May 14.
This year’s first-round of deliberation probably took longer than in other, more recent budget-setting years. That can be attributed in part to the fact that the state’s significantly improved fiscal situation provides more flexibility in spending decisions. The Appropriations Committee had to defend its decisions pretty thoroughly. Chairman Mello, although new in that position, methodically and patiently steered the process and adeptly used the committee’s influence.
After the first round of consideration, the budget package showed General Fund appropriations of more than $3.83 billion for FY 2013-14 and more than $4.02 billion for FY 2014-15. That’s an increase of 5.5 percent for FY 2014 and 4.9 percent for FY 2015. Nonetheless, it leaves about $51 million for additional spending on bills awaiting final passage; and that’s even after approval of a committee recommendation to transfer an additional $53 million to the Cash Reserve Fund.
The budget includes separate bills, as follows:
LB 194 makes adjustments for deficits in funding for state operations, state aid and construction projects in the current fiscal year.
LB 195 is the mainline bill, which includes line-items for all state- government operations and aid programs. Spending via this bill stood at $3.797 billion for FY 14 and $3.979 billion for FY 15. Increases and reductions are documented in a report—"State of Nebraska FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 Biennial Budget"—that is available on the Legislature’s Website: www.nebraskalegislature.gov.
LB 196 appropriates $632,982 in each fiscal year to pay for the $12,000 annual salary (and the employer share of payroll taxes) of each of the 49 legislators.
LB 197 appropriates $23.3 million in each fiscal year for the salaries and benefits of all judges, elected constitutional officers, the Parole Board and the Tax Commissioner.
LB 198 contains funding for capital construction projects.
LB 199 authorizes transfers from and to the General Fund, including transfers to the Capitol Construction Fund and the Property Tax Credit cash fund.
LB 200 authorizes funding via transfer from the Cash Reserve Fund. For instance, a transfer not to exceed $43.02 million to the Capital Construction Fund represents the state’s commitment to add to federal funds for the construction of a new Central Nebraska Veterans’ Home.
In addition to the seven bills from the Appropriations Committee, a bill from the Business and Labor Committee, LB 536, is also considered part of the budget. It is used to pay for settled claims against the state and "write offs," which are required by statute to be reviewed and approved by the legislature. This spending is a little over $825,000. That’s a budget summary. On to another subject….
Even though Nebraska is not establishing its own health-insurance exchange pursuant to the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, because the Governor decided to let the Federal Government fulfill that responsibility, there will be some state-based oversight. LB 384, which passed May 10 on a 47-0 vote by the Legislature, creates the Nebraska Exchange Stakeholder Commission.
The 12-member commission will identify problems and make recommendations. In doing so, it satisfies PPACA’s stakeholder-consultation requirements.
The Commission’s membership will include four health-care consumers, including one who represents a rural area; a small-business representative; two health-care providers; one health-insurance agent; one representative of a health-insurance carrier; and three, non-voting representatives of the state’s insurance and health and human services agencies. All members will be appointed by the Governor, subject to approval by the Legislature.
The Exchange Stakeholder Commission is to have its first report for the Legislature by Dec. 1 of this year, a month before PPACA’s health-insurance exchange requirement takes effect.
An early March installment of this column described Legislative Bill 577 in these either-or terms: a cost-effective, human-needs policy opportunity not to be squandered; or a cost-prohibitive financial obligation not be undertaken.
The legislation is more complex than those alternatives, but nonetheless it is safe to say that as of April 17 the latter "not" has prevailed over the former. On that date, after more than 10 hours of floor debate over two days, legislators moved on to other matters, leaving LB 577 without a meaningful vote and with an uncertain future, at best.
Medicaid is a federal-state partnership that provides insurance-type coverage of health care expenses for certain groups of citizens who meet means-tested eligibility requirements. Expanded eligibility is related to the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA). Expansion was originally mandated by the ACA, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it had to be optional for the states, not mandatory, notwithstanding the fact that expansion was a key component of a multi-faceted health-care-access plan under ACA.
LB 577 would have Nebraska exercise the option. Per the ACA, it would direct and authorize the state Department of Health and Human Services to expand eligibility for Medicaid to all adults, ages 19 to 64, with annual incomes less than 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, approximately $15,850. It would make available to the newly eligible a benchmark plan of health care benefits, including behavioral health services.
A key element of the option is that the federal government is statutorily committed to pay 100 percent of the costs of expanded coverage in each of calendar years 2014, 2015 and 2016. Then the federal share drops incrementally over the next three years until it reaches 90 percent for 2020 and thereafter.
The debate on LB 577 was interesting at times, but hardly inspiring. For opponents of the measure, such as Senators Beau McCoy from Omaha, Bill Kintner and Jim Smith from Papillion, Ken Schilz from Ogallala, Lydia Brasch from Bancroft and Charlie Janssen from Fremont, assertions of too much cost risk were a big part of attacking the bill, including whether the federal government can be trusted to fulfill its commitment to pay as federally legislated. Another part was challenging the nature and extent of government’s responsibility to provide health care for the poor.
Senator Mike Gloor from Grand Island, perhaps the key legislator on the outcome of these issues given his veteran membership on the Health and Human Services Committee, his role as chairman of the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee, and his past professional experience as a hospital administrator, described himself as skeptical, and aggressively expressed doubt about the capacity and willingness of health-care providers to meet the needs of a significantly increased number of Medicaid insured. From his perspective, which seems cynical as well as skeptical, apparently it’s still better that impoverished adults seek health care through hospital emergency rooms, or not at all.
From the perspective of meeting needs and increasing access to adequate health care for impoverished citizens, it must have been frustrating for proponents of the bill, such as Senators Kathy Campbell, Danielle Conrad and Kate Bolz from Lincoln, Annette Dubas from Fullerton and Jeremy Nordquist, Steve Lathrop, Tanya Cook and Bob Krist from Omaha, to listen to views proclaiming much compassion and concern for the poor, but strident opposition to using Medicaid to expand access to adequate health care, and offering nary an alternative for accomplishing what’s right, just and necessary. From the perspective of most opponents, the ongoing default alternative is apparently just fine: having hospitals pass on uninsured emergency-room costs to premium payers or otherwise provide "charity care" by incurring bad debt.
There was some allusion to a non-Medicaid idea that has surfaced in Arkansas, but the feasibility and legitimacy of the idea are far from certain at this point.
Opposition to LB 577 was aggressively presented, but opposition might not have been the Legislature’s majority position. That was never determined, even after the lengthy debate. The bill never had a meaningful vote. Opponents were willing to keep up the talking; proponents realized that 33 votes, the number needed to invoke cloture to stop the filibuster, were unattainable. So rather than try and fail, they yielded to the Speaker, who decided it was time to move on to other matters.
While not entirely out of the question, it appears unlikely that LB 577 will return to the agenda this year. As it stands, the bill would carry over to 2014. Perhaps by then, more will be known about Medicaid expansion in states that have viewed it as an opportunity not to be squandered and a renewed effort in Nebraska will be deemed worthwhile, the loss of a year of federal funding notwithstanding.
And finally…. It appears likely that LB 44 will be passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature. As amended by compromise, it will establish a 40-year minimum sentencing option (parole petition eligibility after 20) for anyone convicted of a Class IA felony committed while under the age of 19. Under current Nebraska law, the only sentencing option in such circumstances is life imprisonment without parole and that singular option is unconstitutional.
After some poorly conceived and developed legislation created a "safe haven" debacle a few years ago, the Nebraska Legislature has bounced back conscientiously in responding to child welfare issues. The "safe haven" experience exposed serious problems and deficiencies in the state’s response to children in difficult and negative, if not dangerous, circumstances involving parenting and family-life.
Among the efforts to improve the child-welfare system, including establishment of a Nebraska Children’s Commission for oversight, has been attention to upgrading the use and governance of foster care. This year, for example, four legislative bills are on a path to enactment.
LB 530, now pending on Final Reading, proposes to upgrade the rates paid to those who provide foster care for children entrusted to the state. The goal is to better reflect the actual cost of caring for these children. It stems from recommendations made by a temporary study committee set up by legislation in 2012.
As of July 1, 2014, rates for the care of infants from birth through age five would increase from $436 to $608 per month. Rates paid for the care of children from ages six through 11 would increase from $592 to $699 per month and the rates for older children would increase from $685 to $760 per month. These rates would apply statewide.
With LB 265, Senator Colby Coash from Lincoln seeks to make it easier for foster children to be placed in kinship homes and relative homes. The bill has advanced to Final Reading.
Kinship home is defined as one wherein at least one of the primary caretakers has previously lived with, or is a trusted adult that has a preexisting, significant relationship with the child or a sibling of the child. Relative home is one wherein at least on of the primary caretakers is related to the child or a sibling by blood, marriage or adoption.
LB 265 would make state licensure optional for kinship homes and relative homes. Approval by the state Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS), involving a home visit and criminal background checks, would still be required. For such homes that do pursue licensure, non-safety requirements could be waived.
LB 216 seeks to work against poor outcomes for young people who "age out" of foster care. Given the title Young Adult Voluntary Services and Support Act, this legislation would make it possible for 19 and 20 year-olds—former state wards—who meet prescribed eligibility criteria, to voluntarily enter into an agreement with NDHHS for extended services, including medical assistance, post-secondary-education, residential placement, continued foster-care maintenance and case management.
LB 216 was advanced to the full Legislature by the Health and Human Services Committee and as of the 60th legislative day, April 16, had advanced to the second round of floor debate. The bill has a fiscal note, i.e., a price tag, which could be a barrier to its enactment, depending on where it fits as a spending priority. The projected annual cost is approximately $7 million, a little over half of which could be federal funds.
Relative to federal funding, LB 269, which also is now pending at the second stage of consideration by the full Legislature, would direct NDHHS to capture all allowable foster-care maintenance costs from Title IV-E of the pertinent federal law. A previously legislated Medicaid crossover analysis pointed out such opportunities.
The aforementioned four legislative bills address particular aspects of the foster-care system and seek to continue with positive, constructive reforms that make the system better for vulnerable children. Another bill pertaining to foster care, LB 385, does not fit that characterization in the view of the Nebraska Catholic Conference. In fact, the Conference, under the direction of the three Diocesan Bishops, is opposed to the bill and submitted testimony reflecting that position.
LB 385 proposes to dictate that NDHHS "not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, marital status, or national origin" when determining "the suitability of any out-of-home placement of a juvenile."
Obviously, the intent of that provision is to statutorily authorize foster care placements in households with one or more unmarried adults, including same-sex partners. But the wording is deceptively ambiguous, especially so given the fact that the sentence that follows says that placement decisions "shall be made based upon the health, safety, and well-being of the child." Fulfilling that mandate would seem to be impossible if the department is precluded from considering any and all of the factors listed in the ban on discrimination. What’s more, the idea smacks of experimentation, because, the social-science research on the impact of placement of children in households other than those of married husbands and wives—fathers and mothers—is, at the very least, not beyond reasonable dispute.
LB 385 was not designated as a priority bill and after a rather chaotic hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee, is held by the committee. As a matter of policy, the idea at the core of LB 385 ought to end there.
Last month, Maryland became the sixth state in the last six years and the 18th overall to abolish the death penalty. Will Nebraska follow as number 19?
The opportunity exists, with a bill on General File. Moreover, the possibility appears to be more realistic than perhaps at any time during the last three decades. The policy flaws involving cost, ineffectiveness, risk of error, and disparate application have never been more apparent. Morally, revenge is still an inappropriate policy justification.
The scenario could be played out at the State Capitol during the next few weeks.
Might the ending be a showdown between longtime senator Ernie Chambers and Governor Heineman on a veto override? That’s one of the scripts. Another is that the bill moves a step or two in the process and then carriers over to 2014. There are more.
Legislative Bill 543 proposes to repeal the death-penalty and replace it as punishment for aggravated first-degree murder with imprisonment for life without parole, subject only to the authority in the Nebraska Constitution for the State Board of Pardons—Attorney General, Secretary of State and Governor—to commute any life sentence to a term of years, from which parole might only then become a possibility.
LB 543 is a priority bill for the 35 working days left in the current session of the Unicameral, having been designated as such by Sen. Chambers. It awaits a first round of floor debate, having been advanced to the full Legislature by the Judiciary Committee on a 7-0 vote, with one abstention: Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial. Those who voted to advance were Senators Brad Ashford and Steve Lathrop from Omaha, Colby Coash and Amanda McGill from Lincoln, Les Seiler from Hastings and Al Davis from Hyannis.
In 1979, Sen. Chambers steered a death-penalty repeal bill through three rounds of floor debate and on to final passage by a one-vote margin. Then-Governor Charles Thone vetoed the bill and there was no override.
In 2013, LB 543 represents probably the most legitimate possibility for abolishing the death penalty since that vetoed effort of 33 years ago. Controversy and concern over authority for the state to kill as punishment have continued to build. The authority has hung on despite the weight of flaws and inadequacies, as well as moral challenges.
Even though the death penalty has been rendered as the sentence more than 30 times in Nebraska since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976 as a permissible, restricted-use punishment, only three executions have been carried out, the last in 1997. Since that last execution, the Nebraska Supreme Court has struck down electrocution as the sole method, the Legislature has replaced electrocution with lethal injection and the state has been embroiled in an embarrassing, national and international mess stemming from questionable efforts to acquire a drug required by the execution protocols.
Meanwhile, during all this time, costs of having the death penalty have continued to mount; that is, taxpayer-funded expenditures that, without a death penalty, could have been used for solving cold cases or improving reparations for victims of violent crimes or making other improvements in the criminal justice system.
There also has been growing evidence of the painful human and emotional costs for families of victims caused by delays and public attention rekindled over and over.
On a different plane, there are costs of compensation for those eventually determined to be innocent of the murders for which they were convicted. Their stories (e.g., the "Beatrice six," Darrel Parker) underscore the sobering possibility that an innocent person could be executed.
Some of the flaws and concerns might be thought to be offset by the notion that just having the death penalty serves as a deterrent, but that notion continues to unravel under the weight of evidence to the contrary.
The Nebraska Catholic Conference, representing the mutual interests and concerns of the three Diocesan Bishops, supports LB 543 and hopes it becomes law, not only for reasons of the death penalty’s policy problems, but also for reasons of morality, stemming from Catholic Social teaching. Testimony on behalf of the NCC was presented to the Judiciary Committee at the public hearing on LB 543. That testimony is available on the NCC website: www.nebcathcon.org.
On to another result in the Legislature: A salute please, for the six members of the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee—there was one abstention—who voted to indefinitely postpone LB 518. The bill proposed to repeal last year’s LB 599, a veto survivor, which reinstated medical-assistance coverage for prenatal care for the unborn children of impoverished, but otherwise ineligible, pregnant women, using the unborn child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program. Voting for the IPP motion were Senators Kathy Campbell, Bob Krist, Mike Gloor, Tanya Cook, Sue Crawford and Sara Howard.
And finally…. Kudos to Nebraska’s First District U.S. Representative, Jeff Fortenberry on being selected by the House Speaker to be a member of Congress’s delegation for the installation of Pope Francis. A well-deserved honor.
The Nebraska Legislature has eclipsed the halfway point in its 2013 session, but it won’t be a downward glide to the finish line for the remaining 40-some days of the session. There are weighty issues on the overall agenda, pretty much dictating some lengthy days of action on the floor of the George W. Norris Legislative Chamber.
The Legislature also has passed two of its procedural markers. For one, all of the 650 or so originally introduced bills and constitutional-amendment resolutions have had their public hearings. Completion of the hearings also signals the beginning of full-day sessions for the collective body of 49 legislators.
The other procedural significance is that priority bills have been identified. These will receive the bulk of attention for the remainder of the session. Each legislator has chosen a priority bill and each standing committee has picked a pair. The Speaker has used his authority to identify 25 more, typically in response to requests by his colleagues.
No priority bill is guaranteed floor debate and an ultimate decision, but if advanced by the committee of jurisdiction, the likelihood is high.
Following is a rundown on a few of the priority bills
LB 543 proposes to repeal the death penalty and replace it with imprisonment for life as the punishment for aggravated first-degree murder. The only way this sentence could be changed would be if the Board of Pardons—Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State—commuted the sentence to a term of years—a rare happening—and then subsequently the Board of Parole would approve a petition for parole.
LB 543 is the priority bill for Senator Ernie Chambers. As of the date for priority designations, March 15, it was still held by the Judiciary Committee. There appears to be a fairly strong possibility that it will have the necessary five votes to advance. Floor debate on the death penalty is likely to be captivating.
The chairperson of the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee, Senator Kathy Campbell, chose LB 577 as her priority bill. A proposal we addressed in a previous column, it would have Nebraska exercise its option under the federal Affordable Care Act to expand eligibility for Medicaid. In effect, any Nebraska adult with household income less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level would become eligible for this means of health care coverage. It is estimated that through 2020 at least 54,000 uninsured Nebraskans would gain access to health care coverage. LB 577 was reported advanced to the full Legislature on a 5-1 vote by the HHS committee March 19
Neither LB 405 nor LB 406 is a priority bill. In fact, both have been indefinitely postponed. But they live on in terms of general subject matter, due to LB 613, which is Senator Beau McCoy’s priority bill.
Recall that LB 405 and LB 406 created quite a stir early in this session by seeking to shake up the sales and income taxes. LB 405 proposed to repeal a broad range of current sales-tax exemptions and to apply the resulting revenue as a means for repealing the state’s individual and corporate income taxes altogether. LB 406 was a scaled-back version: repealing fewer exemptions and reducing the income-tax rates.
Due to the significant negative impacts on production agriculture, business and industry, health care, education and religious entities, LB 405 and LB 406 had a plethora of broad-based opposition. But they sparked momentum for LB 613. It proposes to create a special committee of the Legislature: the "Tax Modernization Committee," the purpose of which will be to study Nebraska’s tax laws.
The study will have to consider six elements: fairness, competitiveness (e.g., attract jobs, keep jobs), simplicity and compliance, stability (no more unpredictable fluctuations), adequacy (enough revenue to fund critical state services); and interrelationships of the tax system.
The first round of floor debate on LB 613 commenced last week. As currently constructed, the bill would expect the TMC to report findings and recommendations to the Legislature’s Executive Board by Dec. 15 of this year.
The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee prioritized LB 44. It was introduced to bring Nebraska into compliance with a 2012 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which prohibits states from any mandatory sentencing of juveniles to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. Nebraska has to fix its policy.
As advanced by the committee to the full Legislature and proposed to be amended, LB 44 would establish a minimum sentence of 30 years imprisonment for conviction of first-degree murder and the current life without parole would be the maximum sentence. The amended version also sets forth several mitigating factors that the sentencing court would have to consider, including the convicted individual’s age at the time of the crime, his or her impetuosity, family and community environment, and ability to appreciate the risks and consequences of the conduct.
The Judiciary Committee appears to have struck a reasonable balance on this important policy issue. The number of years of the minimum sentence is likely to be debated, so it will be interesting to observe how the outcome of this legislation unfolds.
A cost-effective, human-needs policy opportunity not to be squandered or a cost-prohibitive financial obligation not to be undertaken?
In the interest of the common good, which view should Nebraska have of the option the federal Affordable Care Act offers for expanding health care coverage for thousands of low-income Nebraskans by means of Medicaid?
Assuming that LB 577 is advanced by the Health and Human Services Committee, the Nebraska Legislature is likely to make this decision before its session ends in June. The issue is complex. The debate won’t lack disagreement or intensity.
Medicaid is a federal-state partnership that provides health-care coverage for certain groups of people who meet means-tested eligibility requirements. Currently in Nebraska, Medicaid coverage is available for children; aged, blind and disabled adults; pregnant women, and a category of extremely impoverished parents. Childless adults are not eligible. Eligibility is primarily based on the federal poverty level (FPL) and family size. For example, parents of Medicaid-eligible children must make less than 47 percent of FPL in order to be eligible themselves; for a household of three, that’s about $11,000.
The ACA Medicaid option, as proposed by LB 577, would make a benchmark plan of health benefits, including behavioral health care, available to all Nebraskans earning less than 138 percent of FPL; approximately $15,500 for an individual and $27,000 for a family of three.
One significant aspect of this option is that it would address a gap in access to health insurance. As of 2014, in order to be eligible for subsidies and tax credits to purchase insurance on the yet-to-be established exchange, individuals will have to have household income of at least the poverty level. If Nebraska rejects the Medicaid-expansion option, thousands of adults—those without categorical eligibility plus those with incomes too high for status-quo Medicaid eligibility—will still be uninsured: no exchange; no Medicaid. Access to health care will continue to be severely limited, often delayed and often reliant upon expensive visits to hospital emergency rooms.
As a key element of the option for Medicaid expansion, the federal government is statutorily committed to pay 100 percent of the costs of services provided for the newly eligible in each of calendar years 2014, 2015 and 2016. The rate drops to 95 percent in 2017, to 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019 and 90 percent in 2020 and thereafter. Opponents of the expansion option say the Federal government cannot be trusted to keep that commitment and states will be left with unmanageable costs.
Cost is a complex, ongoing, legitimate issue, not only regarding Medicaid, but the health care system as a whole. But seemingly overlooked in the Medicaid-expansion debate is that the ACA also imposes billions of dollars of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements otherwise paid to hospitals and other health-care providers, including those here in Nebraska to the tune of $856 million. The federal government is able to use these nationwide savings, as well as some other ACA revenue measures, to fund Medicaid expansion. Failure to enact LB 577 not only would reject a means of health-care coverage for thousands of currently uninsured Nebraskans, but it would squander participation in federal savings generated from Nebraska hospitals.
Bad debt incurred by health care providers, as well as their charity care, coupled with reduced compensation from Medicare and Medicaid, all affect the cost of private health insurance. Premiums paid for this insurance subsidize all other forms of health care, including emergency-room visits by the uninsured.
At the public hearing on LB 577 Feb. 28, nearly two dozen representatives of health care organizations and advocates for access to health care testified in support of the legislation. The Nebraska Catholic Conference, representing the mutual interests and concerns of the three Diocesan Bishops, was among the proponents. Excerpts from the testimony submitted on behalf of NCC follow. The testimony in full is accessible on the Conference’s website: www.nebcathcon.org.
"The tradition and approach of Catholic social teaching regarding health care are shaped by a fundamental principle: that every person has a right to adequate health care, a right that flows from the sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of human beings, each one being made in the image of God….
"The Bishops’ Conference has concluded that the Medicaid-expansion option advances this important principle and promotes the common good. Expanding Medicaid eligibility will improve access and equity for many of those otherwise excluded, especially very-low-income adults. There is clearly a life improving, and in cases, life saving benefit to Medicaid coverage. Moreover, this expansion will mitigate other financial pressures throughout the health care system.
"We understand and appreciate that there are concerns about cost…. The robust public-policy discussion about cost control and improving outcomes throughout the health-care delivery system has been ongoing and must continue. Nevertheless, cost concerns alone cannot justify continuing to exclude so many vulnerable Nebraskans from access to health care, particularly in light of the available Medicaid coverage option."
The new Nebraska Legislature, with 11 members who were not part of the elite body last year, has completed a third of its 2013 session. Already, 15 bills have been passed and more than a dozen others indefinitely postponed at the committee stage. The start has been smooth and this lawmaking journey is well underway.
More than half of the 670 or so introduced bills and substantive legislative resolutions, which include proposed constitutional amendments, have had their public hearings. The remainder will be done with that process over the next three weeks. Priority-bill designations will soon start to be announced and by March 15 all 49 legislators and the 14 standing committees will have made those selections, one for each legislator, two for each committee. These bills, along with a couple dozen more to be prioritized by the Speaker, will pretty much set the course for the remainder of the session, except for the highly important package of budget bills.
More than 115 bills were referred to the Judiciary Committee for public hearings and early-stage filtering. Looming ahead and soon to be considered are two bills that are provocative, intensely challenging and emotionally charged, having to do with the nature of family and the best interest of children and teens.
LB 380, introduced by Omaha Senator Sara Howard, proposes to change the traditional Nebraska law governing adoption in a way that would allow any two adult persons, whether married or not, to jointly adopt a child. Furthermore, any parent of a child could consent to adoption of the child by the parent’s spouse "or by another adult who will share parental responsibility for the child with such parent, without the parent having to relinquish his or her legal rights to the child." This latter aspect is largely in response to a 2002 decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court, which ruled that an unmarried partner could not use adoption to become, in essence, a co-parent of her same-sex partner’s biological child, because Nebraska law allows for adoption without relinquishment of a biological parent’s rights only when the adopting party is the husband or wife of the biological parent.
LB 385, introduced by Omaha Senator Jeremy Nordquist, addresses the context of out-of-home placement of juveniles in foster care. It would add a policy provision to the Nebraska Juvenile Code that would explicitly prohibit the state Department of Health and Human Services, when determining the suitability of an out-of-home placement, from discriminating "on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, marital status, or national origin." Presumably this would mean that the agency could not take any of these factors into consideration in making placement decisions, except perhaps to the extent that some federal laws might apply.
Presumably, LB 385 is motivated at least in part by a desire to address the shortage of foster-care homes. The shortage is a problem that needs solutions, but not every intuitive solution is morally legitimate.
Setting aside the uncertain influence of political correctness, the debates over both LB 380 and LB 385 are likely to involve disagreement over social science and theories of human development. On one hand, both the common experience of humanity and a solid body of evidence demonstrate that the dual-gender unit of husband and wife results in the best developmental outcomes and serves the best interest of children; that is, their well-being is best served by being raised in a home with a husband and wife fulfilling the roles of father and mother. On the other hand, proponents of the bills no doubt will cite social science literature that claims no difference; that other, non-marital relationships, including sexual or romantic relationships, are just as effective, just as good for children. Lawmakers, starting with the members of the Judiciary Committee, will have to decide: maintain the status quo or open public policy to experiments involving the lives of vulnerable children?
The Nebraska Catholic Conference, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops, is opposed to both LB 380 and LB 385. From the Conference’s perspective, if it is not possible for a child to be raised by his or her biological parents, then the best placement is a home of a marriage: husband and wife/father and mother.
Nebraskans who are concerned about the issues stemming from these bills should contact their own, respective legislator, as well as the members of the Judiciary Committee. Information is available from the Legislature’s website: www.nebraskalegislature.gov.
And finally, on another front….
LB 518, which proposes to repeal the 2012 law that authorizes medical assistance for prenatal care for the unborn children of impoverished pregnant women who are not eligible in their own right because of unauthorized immigration status, has been scheduled for its public hearing on March 21. That’s the last day of hearings for the session for the Health and Human Services Committee. Hopefully, that will be the end for LB 518.
On the fifth day of the Nebraska Legislature’s new session—it was Jan. 15—Governor Dave Heineman delivered the annual State-of-the-State address. Here’s the summary preface as documented by the Legislative Journal:
"Today, we are operating in a technology-driven, global, free-market economy. Our current tax system needs to be modernized and transformed. It’s been nearly five decades since Nebraska has had a serious debate about our overall tax system. Life has changed drastically since the 1960’s, when we were operating in a completely different economic environment."
The Governor’s proposals for transforming and modernizing the tax system were described conceptually in his speech and released in greater detail three days later. They are being described by the Governor himself, according to media reports, as "bold and courageous." They are not uninteresting or routine, that’s for sure.
Actually, the Governor has alternative proposals. The bolder of the two would completely eliminate the state income tax, for both individuals and corporations. That would cost $2.4 billion in annual revenue. In order to be cost neutral, the proposal also would repeal enough sales-tax exemptions to generate $2.4 billion.
The math is simpler than the policy repercussions. A progressive tax—i.e., based on ability to pay—would be eliminated and a regressive tax would be expanded. (Although one highly regressive impact, taxing grocery purchases, is not part of the plan).
The alternative proposal would be a scaled-back version, eliminating the corporate income tax and exempting a capped amount of retirement income. The lesser cost would be offset by eliminating about $395 million in sales tax exemptions.
The Nebraska Catholic Conference already has noted the fact that the bolder, more extensive proposal—but not the narrower version—would repeal the longstanding sales-tax exemptions for purchases by organizations created exclusively for religious purposes and purchases by non-governmental elementary and secondary schools. (Public schools are political subdivisions, the purchases of which would continue to be exempt. How’s that for fairness?)
Recent public comments attributed to the new Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Greg Adams, mentioned a fundamental premise: the power to tax, ultimately, is the power to control. The context of his remark was quite general, but it offers, in general, a traditional justification for exempting religious organizations from taxation.
The more applied justification for these exemptions is recognition that the ministries and programs of religious organizations, including local church communities throughout the state, contribute remarkably and irreplaceably to the social, spiritual, psychological, educational and material well-being of countless individuals and families. Making these functions more financially difficult for churches and schools would increase the pressures on government to meet human needs. Let the discussion begin.
The tax legislation will be controversial, but by no means the only controversial legislation in this session. Even though only about half of the session’s bills had been introduced as of Jan. 18, bills promising controversy were already apparent.
LB 380, introduced by Senator Sara Howard of Omaha and co-sponsored by Omaha Senators Brad Ashford, Burke Harr and Jeremy Nordquist and Lincoln Senators Bill Avery, Danielle Conrad and Amanda McGill, would legalize co-adoption of children by any two unmarried adults, including same-sex partners. Whether or not it would also coerce licensed adoption agencies into making such placements is open to question.
Similarly, Senator Nordquist’s LB 385 would authorize state placements of foster children with unmarried adults, including same-sex partners. It would do this by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual-orientation, gender identity or marital status, in addition to race, color, religion, gender, disability or national origin.
Under Nebraska law, public school districts have authority to establish and operate school-based health centers in conjunction with sponsoring partners and to collect Medicaid reimbursements for health-care delivered to eligible children. By statutory definition, these centers are prohibited from dispensing, prescribing and counseling for contraceptives. (They also are prohibited from being involved with abortion.) Senator Conrad’s LB 395 would strike the ban insofar as it applies to contraceptives and thereby, apparently, allow public schools to be sources for these drugs and devices.
As anticipated, the Governor’s proposed budget for the FY2013-2015 biennium, in the form of LB 195, includes no funding for providing the state’s share of Children’s Health Insurance coverage for prenatal care for the unborn children of impoverished, pregnant women who are themselves ineligible due to unauthorized immigration status; in other words, no funding for last year’s intensely debated and enacted LB 599. Legislation that would repeal the LB-599 statute that specifically provides eligibility for these unborn children had not yet been introduced as of the eighth legislative day.
Last June 25, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any state law that mandates a sentence of imprisonment for life—meaning without possibility of parole—for an individual not yet 18 years of age at the time of his or her crime, is unconstitutional, a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A life-without-parole sentence is not prohibited, but it cannot be the judge’s only choice in such circumstances. The convicted criminal’s age must be considered.
The impactful ruling stemmed from cases adjudicated in adult courts in Alabama, involving two individuals convicted of murder. Both were 14 at the time of their crimes. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court’s 5-4 majority included this explanation:
"Such mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude a sentencer from taking account of an offender’s age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to it. Under these schemes, every juvenile will receive the same sentence as every other—the 17-year-old and the 14-year-old, the shooter and the accomplice, the child from a stable household and the child from a chaotic and abusive one. And still worse, each juvenile (including these two 14-year-olds) will receive the same sentence as the vast majority of adults committing similar homicide offenses."
The Court cited immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences as among the characteristics and circumstances necessitating that age be considered. Moreover, there is much evidence that full brain development has not occurred before age 18.
Like Alabama—and at least two dozen other states—Nebraska has one of "these schemes"; that is, mandatory life-without-parole sentencing for anyone convicted of first-degree murder, including felony murder, regardless of the perpetrator’s age. Nebraska’s current law, like Alabama’s, is unconstitutional.
Twenty-seven Nebraska inmates are serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed while younger than 18. This includes 26 convicted of first-degree murder and one of kidnapping. In essence, they were sentenced pursuant to an unconstitutional law. So, what happens now?
And, there is another compelling question: what is the process going to be henceforward? In other words, how is the law going to be modified to replace the unconstitutional aspect regarding sentencing of juveniles convicted of murder? It’s a policy issue for the Legislature to decide.
Perhaps the answer to the second question could serve the first question as well; that is, look to the Legislature to decide all related matters. But retroactive application of a new law most likely won’t be possible. Most likely, the legislative branch of government will have to defer to the judicial branch for adjudications. Presumably, the 27 inmates will have to have their cases renewed and reviewed in light of factors of age.
Interestingly, in late November, the State Board of Pardons, which consists of three elected officials, the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, tried to take control of the situation and handle the 27 cases pursuant to the Board’s authority to conduct hearings and commute sentences. The idea, apparently, was to allow about 20 minutes for separate presentations on each inmate’s original case and current situation and based thereupon, to commute the sentences, one-by-one, to a term of years.
The Board of Pardon’s initiative didn’t come to fruition. Legal counsel for some of the inmates sought an injunction to stop the commutation process. A state district court granted a temporary injunction, which was upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court.
So, a lot has already happened; and a lot more will happen, especially in the Legislature. No doubt those deliberations will include a proposal to eliminate life-without-parole sentencing of juveniles altogether, in favor of severe terms-of-years sentences, but not foreclosing on an eventual opportunity to petition for parole. As alluded to in the Supreme Court’s ruling, there are policy justifications for doing that.
And finally…. on some other matters….
National Migration Week, sponsored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, concludes Jan. 12. This year’s observance has included a campaign to encourage constituents to urge their U.S. Senators and Representatives to enact immigration-reform legislation in this 113th Congress. There is still time to do this and the effort is vitally important. A handy, electronic postcard is available to make the effort easy to fulfill. Visit www.justiceforimmigrants.org.
Residents of the First Congressional District should appreciate Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s "Fort Report" on the "fiscal cliff" agreement. It was a concise, informative summary of a "complicated, hard decision." It presented his rationale for voting for the agreement, and some helpful, basic information about what was included. It was disconcerting though, to learn that "three more ‘fiscal cliff’ scenarios" loom ahead: the debt ceiling, a continuing resolution to fund the government and, after a two-month reprieve, the sequester, which would apply automatic spending cuts.
More cliffs? Uh oh. Brace ourselves.
The 103rd Nebraska Legislature will commence its first regular session on January 9 at 10 a.m. at the State Capitol in Lincoln. Forty-nine citizen legislators will participate in a public-policy process that will last for up to 90 legislative days, likely extending into early June. It is the longer of two regular sessions for this Legislature. A session of up to 60 legislative days will follow in 2014.
The 49-member Unicameral, unique among all the states, will include 11 members who were not part of the preceding Legislature and were elected to office as a result of the General Election on November 6. The new members are: Dan Watermeier from Syracuse, District 1; Bill Kintner from Papillion, District 2; Sara Howard, Omaha, District 9; Ernie Chambers, Omaha, District 11; Jim Scheer, Norfolk, District 19; Jerry Johnson, Wahoo, District 23; Kate Bolz, Lincoln, District 29; Rick Kolowski, Omaha, District 31; Al Davis, Hyannis, District 43; Sue Crawford, Bellevue, District 45; and John Murante from Gretna, District 49.
All but Kintner and Chambers are replacing incumbents who were prohibited from running for re-election a second time due to term limits prescribed by the Nebraska Constitution. Senators-Elect Kintner and Chambers defeated incumbents at the polls.
Fifteen incumbent legislators won re-election in November. The remaining 23 seats are held by legislators who have completed just half of their current four-year terms.
As anyone who follows the Legislature knows, Ernie Chambers presents a unique situation. He isn’t really a new legislator; not really a Senator-Elect. He brings with him 38 years of prior service in the Unicameral. He was term-limited at the end of 2008. He sat out four years as required by law. Then he won another election in November, becoming the first term-limited legislator to return.
On the new session’s first day, after participating in the pomp and ceremony, the 49 senators will elect their leadership for the next two years. Due primarily to term limits, several prominent positions are open, without incumbent leaders returning. These positions include Speaker of the Legislature and chairpersons of the following standing committees: Appropriations; Banking, Commerce and Insurance; Natural Resources; Revenue; and Transportation and Telecommunications.
In addition, the incumbent chairman of the Education Committee, Senator Greg Adams from York, has announced his intention of seeking to be chosen Speaker. If that happens, as is likely, then the Education Committee will need a new chairperson as well.
In the first year of a new Legislature, the foremost responsibility of the collective body is to develop the state’s spending plan, for the ensuing Biennium. In this situation, that’s the period of two fiscal years running from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015.
The budget-process starts in essence with the Governor submitting his program-by-program spending recommendations to the Legislature. The Appropriations Committee will spend the next 10 weeks or so pouring over the numbers and conducting public hearings. Ultimately, the committee will present its recommendations to the full Legislature. The package of budget bills will be subject to floor debate, amendments and votes. Once passed, the package will go back to the Governor for possible line-item vetoes and then back to the Legislature for potential veto overrides.
There will be many other issues throughout the 2013 session; some routine, some fairly controversial and some hotly contested. For instance, issues stemming from implementation of federal health-care-reforms are ripe for debate, such as expanding eligibility for Medicaid coverage. On the way toward requiring the states to cooperate in this, the federal law got tripped up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the federal government can’t make the states do it.
Having not a mandate, but the option, and quite a bit of incentive through a plan of considerably higher federal financial participation, should Nebraska do the expansion anyway? Is it the right thing to do? A showdown looms over the idea.
Regrettably, an effort is probably going to be made, urged on by the Governor, to repeal the fundamentally pro life and fiscally-prudent policy of providing medical-assistance coverage for prenatal care for the unborn children of impoverished pregnant women who are themselves ineligible due to unauthorized immigration status. The federal Children’s Health Insurance Program, which pays nearly three-fourths of the cost, considers an unborn child the same as any child in relation to eligibility.
Those whose opposition to this narrowly tailored but highly important medical coverage is based on the bogus claim that it is an immigration issue cannot defend such a harsh view of the unborn child. If the woman was not pregnant, there would be no need for prenatal care. It’s the pregnancy—the presence of the unborn child—that substantiates the policy. Thirty legislators did the right thing in enacting it over the Governor’s veto last year. Any effort to reverse that decision deserves no traction.
Another issue among many that will receive attention will be the Legislature’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for those under the age of 18 when they commit murder violate the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
A benefit of several weeks of surgery-caused medical leave was that the down time for healing provided opportunities to work on the fat file marked "things to read and review when there’s time."
This included a lot of catching up on "Obamacare," the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Numerous analyses and commentaries that had been variously deposited in the fat file were typically informational and interesting.
Some of PPACA is already in effect. This includes, as of last August, the highly controversial, unjust mandate for coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs as applied to many private, non-secular employers. A lot of PPACA though, including most of its major policies, takes effect January 1, 2014. There are more than enough issues and yet-to-be answered questions to project an implementation mess between now and then and on into the future One commentator says implementation of PPACA is inevitably headed into the "eye of a hurricane."
The issue of the definition of religious employer for purposes of exemption from the -government’s mandate forcing employers to cover sterilization and contraceptives, including those that can function as early abortions, will continue to be contested.
The federal lawsuit that was filed in Nebraska by the state Attorney General, on behalf of his office and the attorneys general of six other states, as well as three church institutions and two individuals, was dismissed on July 17 by a U.S. District Court judge in Lincoln. He ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they were not facing any direct and immediate harm. This is because the federal government relented a bit in June and allowed a "safe harbor" until August 2013 for religious organizations that cannot qualify under the narrow definition used for the exemption.
The lower court’s ruling has been appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
The General Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty says, don’t read too much into this dismissal. "The decision has nothing to do with the main question of why the mandate violates the Constitution and federal religious-liberty law," Kyle Duncan wrote in Bench Memos.
More about the struggle with the federal government over mandated coverage of contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs: In an article in the diocesan newspaper of Arlington, VA, a pastor reflected on the life of St. Thomas More and urged that More’s faithful witness to his Catholic faith and willingness to lose his life rather than violate his conscience be instructive and inspirational in the present dilemma.
As Chancellor of England, lawyer and author Thomas More faced a moral crisis when the Catholic Church would not approve King Henry VIII’s divorce and the king responded by redefining the Church to fit his desire. Because his conscience would not allow him to support that response, More resigned from office. The king then demanded that More take an oath affirming the divorce. When More refused, he was imprisoned and subsequently beheaded.
In his article, the Virginia pastor compared Thomas More’s struggle with the king to that of the current struggle against a mandate that is attempting to define and dictate what is or isn’t religious enough to qualify for an exemption.
The Virginia pastor’s name is Father Paul D. Scalia. His father is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
On a fat-file topic of a much different nature:
Since 1997, Arizona has had a law that allows individuals to claim a credit against their state income-tax liability for up to $500 of contributions made to tax-exempt, charitable organizations that allocate at least 90 percent of their revenue for private-school scholarships. This scholarship-tax-credit program in Arizona is like what was introduced as legislation in Nebraska in 2009-10 (LB 67) and again in 2011-12 (LB 50).
Charles M. North, Ph.D., J.D., a professor of Economics at Baylor University, issued a report that assessed data from Arizona’s scholarship-contribution tax-credit legislation for calendar year 2008. He calculated that it would have cost the state, county and local governments $241.5 million to provide a public-school education for all the private-school students who received scholarships from the program. That was more than four times the amount of revenue not collected due to the credit.
In a narrower context, North calculated that the cost to provide a public education to students who, but for the scholarship assistance, would not have been able to enroll in a private school, would have been $99.8 million per year.
Overall, North’s assessments showed that contributions to private-school scholarship programs saved Arizona taxpayers from $99.8 million to $241.5 million in 2008, at a cost of only $55.3 million in revenue reduction.
In 2010, a similar analysis in Nebraska, conducted by a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Educational Choice, forecast a net benefit of $51 million over 10 years.
It is time for Nebraska legislators to get serious about facilitating this school-choice policy in the Cornhusker State, and for Catholic-school parents to work for it.
LINCOLN (NCC/SNR) - Nebraska’s 2012 General Election will take place Tuesday, Nov. 6. On that day, voters throughout the Cornhusker State will determine their representation in important public offices.
This survey of candidates is presented as a means of promoting faithful citizenship and political responsibility among Catholic Nebraskans throughout the state. It provides an opportunity to become better informed about positions and views of numerous candidates whose names will be on the ballots.
Neither the Nebraska Catholic Conference nor the Diocese of Lincoln, the Archdiocese of Omaha or the Diocese of Grand Island endorses or opposes any candidate for public office. Rather, they cooperatively facilitate this source of unbiased information.
All candidates for the United States Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives were mailed an identical questionnaire. A separate, state-based questionnaire was mailed to all candidates for the Nebraska State Legislature. All candidates for the same office were contacted in the same manner and advised of the same opportunity to respond.
All candidates were given the same deadline for responding, approximately eight weeks after the questionnaires were mailed. Reminder notices were mailed approximately four weeks, two weeks and one week prior to the deadline. Given this process, readers may fairly assume that if a candidate did not respond, it was a decision knowingly made.
The cover letter that accompanied each questionnaire informed the candidate of the opportunity to provide comments on any and every question. With few exceptions, comments appear just as submitted. In a few instances, some editing was necessary in order to respect a word limit, which was set forth in the cover letter.
All original responses are being retained by the Nebraska Catholic Conference and will soon be published on the Conference’s website: www.nebcathcon.org.
It is the sincerest hope of the Nebraska Catholic Conference and the Diocesan Bishops that Catholic Nebraskans will avail themselves of the information provided by this special project. Only a little time is required to take three important actions: first, review the full text of each question; second, consider the candidates’ responses to those questions as part of becoming an informed voter; third, be sure to vote on Tuesday, Nov. 6.
When Nebraska voters consider their ballots in the 2012 General Election on November 6, two of their decisions will pertain to proposed amendments to Article III of the State Constitution. Article III authorizes and governs the State Legislature.
Each of the proposed amendments, if approved, will have an impact—one sooner than the other—on the relatively few citizens—no more than 49 at any point in time—who have the privilege and honor of serving in the nation’s only Unicameral Legislature.
Proposed Amendment Number 3 would amend section 12 of Article III in a way that would change from two to three the number of consecutive terms a member of the Legislature is permitted to serve. Except for uncommon circumstances, each term is four-years in length.
As long-time Omaha senator Ernie Chambers is showing this year, a term-limited legislator can seek election to return to the Legislature after four years have passed.
Term limits for state legislators were instituted in 2000. The proposal qualified for the ballot by means of a citizens’ initiative petition. Having received a sufficient number of valid signatures across the state, the proposal was certified for the ballot as Initiative Measure 415. It was approved by almost 56 percent of the electorate. Since it took effect on January 1, 2001, 44 legislators have been term-limited.
While Proposed Amendment Number 3 pertains to time, Proposed Amendment Number 4 pertains to money, in relation to compensation. It would amend section 7 of Article III in a way that would increase the salary paid to each state legislator from the current figure of $1,000 per month to an annual salary of $22,500.
The last time the salary paid to legislators was increased was 1988, 24 years ago. The increase approved then by voters was from $400 per month to the current number.
In addition to salary, state legislators receive reimbursement for travel expenses.
Amendment 3 on term limits is the result of Legislative Resolution 358CA, which passed April 4 on a vote of 31-14, with four excused. Amendment 4 on legislative salaries is the result of Legislative Resolution 373CA, which likewise passed on April 4, on a vote of 31-15, with one abstention and two excused.
As with "regular" legislative bills, each of these constitutional-amendment resolutions had a public hearing in front of a committee—the Executive Board for both—and advanced out of the committee and through two stages of consideration by the full Legislature before having a vote on final passage. Once passed, constitutional-amendment resolutions don’t move to the Governor for approval or veto as a bill does; they move directly to the Secretary of State for ballot certification.
An interesting, but not too meaningful tidbit is that 25 legislators voted to send both time (LR358CA) and money (LR373CA) to the voters, while 10 of their colleagues voted against both. Five of those who voted for both resolutions and two of those who voted against both are being term limited this year.
There are no initiative measures on the ballot this year. In all, there are four proposed constitutional amendments; all four result from legislative resolutions.
In addition to Amendments 3 and 4, Amendment 1 proposes to authorize impeachment of elected officials for misdemeanors committed while pursuing office and Amendment 2 proposes to state a constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife.
The numbers three and five are particularly relevant to the ballot measures. Unlike most legislative bills, legislative resolutions with a "CA" in the title must have a three-fifths majority—that’s 30 votes—in order to be passed and certified to the Secretary of State. And, in order to be approved by the voters, the votes in favor must constitute at least 35 percent of all the votes cast at the statewide election. In other words, casting a ballot but not voting on a constitutional amendment is the same as a "no" vote.
Speaking of the upcoming election, the issue of this diocesan newspaper on Oct. 26 will include the traditional candidate survey coordinated by the Nebraska Catholic Conference. A questionnaire covering a range of federal policy issues was disseminated to the candidates for U.S. Senate and the three U.S. House of Representatives districts. A questionnaire covering a range of state policy issues was disseminated to each candidate for the State Legislature. In addition to the printed format, the NCC’s candidate survey also will be posted as of October 25 on its website: www.nebcathcon.org.
And finally… Our longtime friend and colleague who is the executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference recently made a great suggestion for how Catholic citizens should acknowledge Election Day: make a point of attending Mass and receiving Holy Communion on November 6. Given all the partisan sniping and tension and acrimony and harsh, difficult campaigning leading up to that day, as well as the great significance of the decisions in relation to political leadership, it’s appropriate to join alongside others in the greatest of prayers.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 28 on legal challenges made against the Affordable Care Act, federal health-care-reform legislation of significance and notoriety, most of the reaction focused on the individual-insurance mandate. That was understandable. The ruling that such a mandate survives constitutional scrutiny under the government’s taxing authority was surprising and intriguing; pretty much a "wow" result.
But another component of the ruling packs some wallop as well, especially for policy making by the states. The Court ruled that expanding eligibility for health-care coverage through Medicaid must be optional for state governments, rather than mandatory as called for by the ACA.
The Act makes non-elderly persons with household income less than 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Line eligible for Medicaid. (In effect, it’s actually 138 percent of the FPL, because in most circumstances the law disregards five percent of income.) That’s quite a bit higher than current eligibility ceilings, thus expanding this means of access to health care.
Another prong of the ACA will provide subsidies—in the form of refundable tax credits—to enable persons to purchase health insurance through exchanges. But this assistance won’t be available to most people who would be eligible for Medicaid pursuant to the expansion. Thus, states that opt not to adopt expanded Medicaid eligibility will have a coverage gap for some who are poor and uninsured. Some say this exemplifies the "house of cards" construction of the ACA, which relies upon an intricate connectivity of provisions.
Expanded Medicaid eligibility would primarily impact previously uninsured adults (age 19 to 64). This is because Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) already provide a strong base of coverage for children. Most states have previously expanded eligibility for children and pregnant women beyond the federal minimum, as allowed by pre-ACA Medicaid law.
In Nebraska, for example, the income-eligibility limit for infants--birth to age one—is 150 percent FPL for purposes of Medicaid funding and 200 percent for CHIP funding. For children ages one through five, the eligibility limits are 133 percent and 200 percent respectively; and for children ages six through 18, the eligibility limits are 100 percent and 200 percent. For pregnant women, the Medicaid income-eligibility limit in Nebraska is 185 percent FPL ($34,280 for a family of three).
The ACA prohibits these already expanded eligibility limits from being lowered.
On the other hand, for most adults (other than pregnant women) the ceiling on Medicaid eligibility is much lower. For Nebraska, it’s 46 percent for these adults when they are jobless and 57 percent when employed. What’s more, prior to the ACA, states were prohibited from covering childless, non-disabled adults under Medicaid.
It is likely, if not a foregone conclusion, that expanding Medicaid eligibility, as in essence presupposed by the ACA, but made optional by the Supreme Court’s ruling, will be a major issue for the Nebraska Legislature in 2013. And it could be a donnybrook.
Even though the ACA has the federal government paying 100 percent of the cost of expansion through 2016 and ratcheting that down to no less than 90 percent in 2020 and beyond, the reliability of this fiscal participation is being doubted. The Governor in particular—and numerous legislators will agree—will argue the likelihood that at some point the state will be left holding the bag of costs.
Undoubtedly, the debate in the Legislature will give considerable attention—and rightfully so—to a recently released policy brief by Jim P. Stimpson from the Center for Health Policy at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Its purpose is to provide some evidence of the impact of expanding Medicaid in Nebraska as anticipated by the ACA. As a contribution to the public debate it is worthwhile and provocative. Opponents of expansion will have a tough time challenging it.
Visit www.unmc.edu/publichealth/chp.htm.
Among the evidence it sets forth are these considerations: the estimated number of new Medicaid enrollees from expansion in Nebraska through 2020 ranges from 90,021 to 108,025; the estimated cost of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska ranges from $140 million to $168 million; on the other hand, the estimated revenue coming from the federal government to Nebraska for the Medicaid expansion ranges from $2.9 billion to $3.5 billion through 2020; without the Medicaid expansion, more than $1 billion in uncompensated care would be incurred in Nebraska through 2019; if Medicaid eligibility is expanded, health care providers would save at least $163 million and as much as $ 325 million in costs associated with uncompensated care; spending by the federal government on Medicaid expansion would generate at least $700 million annually in new economic activity in Nebraska, which could finance over 10,000 jobs each year through 2020.
All this analysis, of course, stems from and is related to underlying policy objectives, which seek to provide access to affordable health-care for a significant number of Nebraskans who are now uninsured.
According to at least some of the political pundits and "talking heads" the national conventions of the political parties represent the unofficial start of the official campaign season.
Or is it the official start of the unofficial campaign season? Regardless; now more than ever it’s game on, heading toward Nov. 6.
Of course, the "pre-season" has already been long and contentious. Those who grumble about how turned off they are by the process and the styles and excesses of campaigning have a point. Most of us feel it: the frustration, the nuisance, the disdain.
But perhaps completion of the conventions can artificially signal a fresh start; be the source of an attitude adjustment; reinvigorate our psyches. Why? Because what takes place over the next couple of months is vitally important. After all, we are deciding about those who make and carry out public policy; who make critical decisions about the political, social, economic and global lives of our nation and state.
One excellent, conscientious effort for Catholic citizens to make—highly recommended if not critically necessary—is visiting this website: www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizesnship. It provides access to "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility with Introductory Note," a rich and valuable teaching statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The website includes numerous resources to use in conjunction with the statement.
In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue and participation in political life is a moral obligation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "it is necessary that all participate, each according to his/her position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person… As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life" (nos. 1913-1915).
This does not mean that we all have an obligation to run for public office. For most of us that’s not possible. But it surely does mean that we make a conscientious effort to engage in the political process as citizens and voters.
The statement from the Bishops’ Conference is not an endorsement for any candidate. It does not tell anyone for whom to vote. It is a guide and tool to assess and weigh issues and the positions expressed by candidates. It provides substance to think about, thereby enabling Catholic citizens to be more conscientious in making election decisions than blind partisanship allows.
As its title implies, the statement emphasizes the formation of conscience and the importance of doing so. Paragraph 17 of the statement teaches as follows:
"The Church equips her members to address political and social questions by helping them to develop a well-formed conscience. Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church. Conscience is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere ‘feeling’ about what we should or should not do. Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil. Conscience always requires serious attempts to make sound more judgments based on the truths of our faith…."
Through their statement, the Bishops cite a number of issues about which we should form our consciences. Some of these are: continuing killing of unborn children through abortion and other threats to the lives and dignity of the vulnerable, sick or unwanted; renewed efforts to force Catholic ministries to violate their religious and moral values or stop their services; efforts to redefine marriage and to enact measures that undermine marriage as between one man and one woman and an institution essential to the common good; an economic crisis that has devastated lives and livelihoods, increasing unemployment, poverty, hunger, deficits and debt, and the duty to respond in ways that protect the poor and future generations.
The Church fosters well-formed consciences not only by teaching moral truth, but also by encouraging development and application of the virtue of prudence. The Catechism describes prudence as enabling us "to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it." Paragraph 19 of the statement says that prudence "shapes and informs our ability to deliberate over available alternatives, to determine what is most fitting to a specific context and to act decisively."
Making practical judgments and choices in the political arena is aided by the virtue of prudence in the exercise of well-formed consciences. Learn more about this, and about actions that must never be condoned because they are "intrinsically evil" in "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility."
Again, that website is: www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship.
In future columns, we hope to examine other aspects of the Faithful Citizenship program. In addition, Catholic Nebraskans might anticipate a mid-October publication of the traditional Nebraska Catholic Conference candidate survey. It is a voter-information project, through which candidates for Congress and the State Legislature are able to share their views on a range of issues.
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its term-ending rulings during the last week in June, the greatly anticipated one of June 28 pertaining to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act received extensive attention. But three days earlier, the Court issued two other rulings of considerable public-policy significance.
Both have implications in and for Nebraska.
In the combined cases of Jackson v. Hobbs (Arkansas) and Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that any state law that mandates a sentence of life-without parole for individuals convicted of murder even when they were younger than 18 at the time of committing the crime violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The majority concluded that mandating life-without-parole in these circumstances categorically precludes consideration of the offender’s young age or any other mitigating circumstances. Moreover, the relative rarity of such sentences in practice reflects a national consensus regarding the reduced criminal culpability of children and juveniles.
Current Nebraska law mandates life without parole for those convicted of first-degree murder (when it is not a capital crime by virtue of aggravating factors) or felony murder and makes no exception for the offender’s age. The Legislature is going to have to change that law, due to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The ruling doesn’t forbid life-without-parole, but it has to be optional, not mandatory for the sentencing court.
Currently, there are 26 lifers in Nebraska prisons who committed a murder or participated in a murder while under the age of 18. Presumably, the Legislature will also have to decide what to do about them. Eight have been incarcerated for 30 years or more.
In 2011, Senator Brenda Council introduced two legislative bills on this topic. LB 202 proposed to provide such prisoners an opportunity, after no less than 20 years of incarceration, to petition for a commutation to a parole-eligible sentence. LB 203 proposed to prohibit life without parole any time the convicted individual was under 18 at the time of the crime and to instead impose minimum terms of lengthy duration. Neither bill made it through the legislative process.
In Arizona v. United States, the other ruling of June 25, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional three of four challenged sections of Arizona’s infamous S.B. 1070 efforts to enforce Federal immigration policy. The sections invalidated were ones that created state crimes for an unauthorized alien to fail to comply with federal alien-registration requirements and to seek or engage in work, and that authorized warrantless arrests of any unauthorized alien believed by probable cause to have committed any public offense that would make him or her removable from the U.S.
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the other provision challenged by the Federal government’s lawsuit: section 2(B), the so-called "show your papers" law. It stated: "for any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official… in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance… where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation." Emphasis is added to indicate that the mandate is pretty "watered down."
In enforcing this provision, law-enforcement officers were not allowed to consider race, color or national origin except to the extent permitted by the Constitution.
A legislative bill akin to the Arizona law was introduced in the Nebraska Legislature in 2011. LB 48 had a probative public hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee, which found the bill abundantly problematic and did nothing more with it during both the 2011 and 2012 sessions. It expired with the end of the latter.
LB 48 included provisions like the invalidated state crimes. It did not include authorization for warrantless arrests.
Per LB 48, "show your papers" was stated as follows: "A peace officer shall determine the immigration status of a person who has been lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States." Its approach to dissuading racial profiling was this statement: "For purposes of the act, a peace officer’s reasonable suspicion shall not be based solely upon a person’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Again, emphasis is added; this time for comparative purposes.
The principal introducer of LB 48, Fremont senator Charlie Janssen, has reportedly declared that the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Arizona’s "show your papers" requirement is a victory for his side of the policy debate and that it should embolden Nebraska legislators, presumably himself included, to introduce another immigration enforcement bill in 2013.
Even if better drafted than LB 48 was, a new, follow-up bill it won’t be scrutinized or challenged any less. After all, as Justice Kennedy wrote: "This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied…." That would include civil-rights challenges. What’s more, copycat laws from at least four other states—Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah—are already under legal challenge and it might not be too long before the Supreme Court revisits its jurisprudence on state attempts to enforce Federal policy.
Some thoughts still linger about the University of Nebraska Board of Regents’ 5-3 vote June 8 that authorizes treating cohabiting domestic partners of university employees the same as the husbands and wives of married employees, for purposes of eligibility for employment-based benefits—most notably medical and dental insurance.
The benefits-extension was described for the Regents by the NU administration last December. Then the matter was quieted while the State Legislature was in session and making decisions about the university’s requests for funding for three major projects. That accomplishment secured, and the Primary Election out of the way, the matter popped back up with a week’s public notice.
The new coverage options have been given the labels "Employee-Plus-One" and "Employee-Plus-One-and-Family" (to include the children of the added one). The "One" of "Plus One" is identified as the employee’s "Adult Designee."
As with the current plan’s election of spousal and family coverage, the employee will be responsible for about 16 percent of the premium cost, with the University paying the balance. The University’s total cost of adding up to 200 of these coverage-elections is projected to be between $750,000 and $1.5 million a year.
To be eligible for the extension of benefits: the "Adult Designee," whether of the same or opposite gender as the employee, must be at least 18 years of age; must not be the employee’s spouse (obviously); must have resided in the same domicile with the employee for at least the consecutive 12 months prior to the election of coverage and intend to remain so domiciled indefinitely; and must be "directly dependent upon, or interdependent with, the employee, sharing a common financial obligation."
By using "Adult Designee," the university’s top administrators, who vigorously and enthusiastically pursued authorization for the Plus-One benefits, coyly avoid the terms "partner" and "domestic partner." No doubt this is because of the second sentence of article. 1, Section 29 of the Nebraska State Constitution. It prohibits governmental recognition of any "uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship."
The definitional and pre-conditional requirements for being an "Adult Designee," as applied when that individual is the same gender as the employee, suggest a same-sex relationship that, if it isn’t a "domestic partnership" per se, is, at a minimum, similar to one, making the state university’s recognition of it at least constitutionally suspect.
Significantly, the definition of "Adult Designee" also prescribes those who are excluded from being one—most notably blood relatives. This exclusion exposes unfairness in the plan; it also exposes the pretext of recognizing same-sex relationships.
The University’s administration invested in a legal opinion from a law firm. Here’s its conclusion, released just a week before the vote: "Although there is no binding Nebraska precedents and arguments could be made on both sides of this issue, it is our opinion that the Plus One Plan does not violate the Nebraska Marriage Amendment."
Not a single Regent probed that opinion in any manner, at least on the record.
Even more inexplicable, the Nebraska Attorney General apparently prefers to ignore any issue of the Plus-One plan’s constitutionality. Way back in mid-February, a state legislator requested an Attorney General’s Opinion on the issues. Apparently, there has been no attempt to fulfill that legitimate request.
Before the roll-call vote was taken, seven of the eight Regents—all but Chuck Hassebrook—made statements about the "Plus One" proposal and reasons for their votes.
The most puzzling, if not disingenuous, statement was that of Regent Kent Schroeder of Kearney.
He pointed out flaws and weaknesses in the justifications offered for the proposal. He challenged virtually all of the evidence the administration had presented in support of its assertion that partner benefits are needed for recruitment and retention of quality faculty; that evidence sits on thin ice, he said. He pointed out that the proposal actually exacerbates inequality and discrimination because costs will dictate that some unmarried employees will pay disproportionately for single coverage, which could lead to a future decision to limit all eligibility to employees only. He said he didn’t care about what Fortune-500 companies do about extended benefits, because they pass the costs on to consumers. He mentioned that 90 percent of his contacts from constituents urged him to vote against the proposal.
Then, having said all that, he announced he would vote "yes," for two reasons: his admiration for NU President J.B. Milliken and for UNL Chancellor Harvey Perlman.
Just before the Board’s chairman, Regent Jim McClurg of Lincoln, made his statement and called for the vote, he recognized Chancellor Perlman to speak. The Chancellor’s remarks were brief. He closed by telling the Regents that it would be "infinitely harder to manage this university if you don’t vote in favor of this."
"Infinitely harder"? Really? Not just harder, or somewhat harder or a lot harder, but "infinitely" harder? Beyond-comprehension harder? Goodness. What an over-the-top admonition. But perhaps Chancellor Perlman still wasn’t quite sure at that point which way a vote was headed.
Regent McClurg, unsurprisingly, gave the most enthusiastic statement of support for granting the authorization. This is what great universities do, he said, adding his opinion that in 10 or 15 years, they would look back and be glad they did it.
Perhaps that will be so; as far as the University’s institutional self-interest is concerned, involving its reputation among its Big-10-Conference peers.
Or perhaps by then the policy will have been judicially nullified because in part it violates the Nebraska Constitution. Or perhaps it will have led to a subsequent change: limiting benefits to employees only. Or perhaps by undermining the fundamental meaning and value of marriage, this policy will have taught bad lessons, negatively impacted the common good and contributed to a greater cultural crisis.
By a 5-3 vote at its meeting June 8, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska system authorized extension of employment benefits—most notably health insurance—to the unrelated, cohabiting domestic partners of its unmarried employees.
Like many employers, the University of Nebraska system allows its married employees to elect health-insurance coverage for their husbands or wives (and dependent children). Under the new authorization, which is to take effect next Jan. 1 at all four campuses (Lincoln, Omaha, Kearney and the Medical Center), unrelated, cohabiting domestic partners of the same or opposite gender will be eligible the same as husband and wives. Marriage will no longer matter.
Regents Bob Phares of North Platte, Tim Clare of Lincoln and Randy Ferlic of Omaha voted against the authorization and are to be thanked and commended for doing so. Nevertheless, their five colleagues—Regents Kent Schroeder of Kearney, Jim McClurg of Lincoln, Howard Hawks and Bob Whitehouse of Omaha and Chuck Hassebrook of Lyons—had the upper hand, voting "yes" in line with what the university system’s president and four chancellors wanted them to do.
The mechanism for implementing cohabiting-domestic-partner eligibility has been given the label "Employee-Plus-One" coverage option. The "One" is an "Adult Designee." To be eligible for spousal-equivalent benefits, the "Adult Designee" of the same or opposite gender must be at least 18 years of age; cannot be the spouse (obviously) or a blood relative of the employee; must have shared a domicile with the NU employee for at least the consecutive 12 months prior to the election of coverage; and must be dependent upon, or interdependent with, the employee, as shown by evidence.
Before the vote was taken at the Regents’ meeting, public comments were allowed. Your columnist testified on behalf of the Diocesan Bishops, in their association as the Nebraska Catholic Conference, as follows:
"In early March, the Catholic Diocesan Bishops serving in Nebraska—Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop William Dendinger of Grand Island—wrote jointly to each of you, expressing their opposition to the ‘Plus-One’ partnership proposal and urging you not to authorize it. Their opposition and urging have not waned and are hereby renewed.
"In addition to the significant and serious issues relating to cost and constitutionality, the Diocesan Bishops urge you not to overlook or ignore the significant and serious moral, social and cultural issues involved with this proposal. By providing to cohabiting partners the same benefits and privileges as are provided to husbands or wives, the proposal manipulates the unique and special meaning of marriage—the fundamental institution that, reflecting a deep reality, unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.
"Traditionally, historically, morally and culturally, this family centric institution has an irreplaceable social role and is unequaled in serving the common good. In attempting to elevate cohabitation to an equivalent status of marriage, that is, to treat unmarried partners as though they were the equivalent of married couples, the proposal says, in effect, that marriage really doesn’t matter; that it lacks uniqueness and significance as a social institution for the common good; and that it is no different and no more meaningful and important than merely living together in a domestic relationship for a prescribed minimum period of time, with a prescribed degree of economic partnership.
"As a matter of policy that would be implemented by one of, if not the, most powerful and influential entities in this state, the message that would be conveyed by this proposal would further undermine marriage, which is the foundation for family and society and for providing the healthiest environment for children and their development.
"And for what purpose this social and cultural impact and cost of undermining and devaluing marriage? Apparently, in order to make a one to two percent difference (as projected) in affecting faculty and staff who would be eligible for such extended benefits. What’s more, Nebraskans are being expected to believe and accept that this minimal difference constitutes a major impact with regard to competitiveness and equity in terms of recruiting and retaining faculty and staff.
"As the Diocesan Bishops view this, the moral, social and cultural costs of the message this proposal would convey in terms of manipulating and undermining marriage, far outweigh the purported benefits of such a policy. Moreover, marriage is held in high esteem by scores of Nebraskans, whose families are a big part of the lifeblood of the University of Nebraska. This reality strongly suggests that the state’s university system will earn greater public respect if it stands unique and strong—being different where it matters most—in its support for the uniqueness and special meaning of marriage."
The five Regents whose votes adopted the policy all indicated they considered it the right thing to do for the University of Nebraska’s reputation and its employees. Perhaps it’s the right thing for the narrower, political interests of that institution, but not for the fundamental institution of marriage or the common good of Nebraskans.
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.
