There are few liturgical feasts that are more directly relevant to the pro-life cause than the Solemnity of the Annunciation. The Word became Flesh at the Annunciation, when the Virgin Mary is told that she has been chosen to be the Mother of the Savior and gives her consent.
Luke’s Gospel (1:26-38) tells us that "the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you… Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus."
For Christians, the Annunciation should be a rich source of reflection on the sacred dignity of human life from its very beginning at conception. Our Lord didn’t descend from Heaven as a 30-year-old adult and begin His ministry. He "became man" like every human being, as a single cell embryo.
Single Cell Embryo
Our Lord did nothing by chance. Therefore, the fact that He began His earthly life as an embryo and experienced every subsequent stage of human life (fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult) necessarily gives significant meaning and dignity to each of these stages.
Scripture (Luke 1:41-44) also tells us that after the Annunciation, Mary went in haste to visit her cousin Elizabeth. "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
"And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy." Hence, it was an unborn child (John the Baptist) who first recognized Christ’s presence on earth.
In his meditations on the Annunciation, Father Frank Pavone asks these provocative questions: "Would it long be possible for believers, who meditate on the unborn child who was God, to fail to see that unborn children are made in God’s image?
"Would it be likely that those who ponder that our Almighty Protector was a baby in the womb will fail to see that babies in the womb deserve protection? Would it happen that Christians, who acknowledge that their Lord and Brother was an embryo and fetus, will fail to see that every embryo and fetus is a brother and sister in the Lord?"
Six Weeks
"Yet the marvels revealed by the Annunciation do not stop there," Father Pavone continues. "There is also the mystery of Mary’s freedom, her ‘Fiat’ – ‘Let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk. 1:38).
"This is freedom of choice which serves the truth, as opposed to ‘pro-choice’ which claims to create its own truth. This is choice at the service of life, rather than the perverted choice to take life. This is the moment when Mary gave her body to the One who would bring life to the world by saying ‘This is My Body,’ forever undoing the sin of those who justify abortion by saying, ‘This is my body!’
My office has a flier entitled "The Word Became Flesh" that contains fetal development pictures and Father Pavone’s reflections. Contact my office at necatholic.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 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Pro Life Secretariat recently developed new materials to communicate the Church’s message of hope and healing to post-abortive women and men. The materials promote Project Rachel, an outreach of the Church that provides post-abortion counseling and reconciliation by specially trained clergy and professional counselors.
"Don’t be afraid. Draw close to my heart. There you will find the peace and happiness you seek. Jesus speaks these words to every human being in every generation. He knows well that each of us is broken by sin and burdened by selfishness and past hurts. As St. Paul has written, ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ Yet we are saved ‘by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.’"
These are the opening words of the Project Rachel brochure produced by the Pro Life Secretariat. The brochure and other promotional materials are intended to communicate God’s limitless love and mercy to all who are affected by abortion.
The materials feature images representing the age, gender and ethnic diversity of those suffering from a past abortion. The messages include various sentiments from those who struggle with a past abortion and God’s response to those sentiments. For example:
"God will never forgive me for this" – "God’s greatest desire is to forgive"; "I don’t deserve to be happy" – "God wants to restore your happiness"; "I can’t believe I let this happen" – "Never let your past keep you from God"; "I failed as a father" – "Do not despair. All is not lost"; "My heart is broken" – "God will take away your pain"; "I feel so worthless" – "You are precious to God."
In all of the materials it communicates that same message of hope to those wounded by a past abortion: "Come back to God, Who is love and mercy" and "Project Rachel: Peace starts here."
For Lent this year, the Pro Life Secretariat produced a version of their promotional ad that says: "This Lent, make peace with your past" (see below). They also produced bulletin announcements, prayers of the faithful and homily notes for the third Sunday in Lent. These resources can be downloaded for use at www.usccb.org/prolife.
The following excerpt from the aforementioned homily notes should provide all of us with a powerful point of reflection during this Lenten season.
"The story of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well is a lesson in Divine Mercy. Jesus did not come for the righteous. He came to call sinners to repentance, and repentance allows us to receive an outpouring of grace, the living water of which he speaks. In this passage, we discover the lengths to which Jesus will go to seek out those who are suffering for their mistakes, so that he can restore their dignity as children of God, their peace of heart, and their hope of salvation."
If you or anyone you know is suffering from a past abortion, invite them to contact Project Rachel at 1-888-456-HOPE (4673) or online at www.hopeafterabortion.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.
Last week, newspapers reported about a Grand Island couple’s pregnancy gone awry and tragic death of their premature child after birth. According to these reports, Danielle Deaver was 22-23 weeks pregnant when she lost most of the amniotic fluid surrounding her unborn child. Her doctors said the condition would arrest the baby’s development, leading to deformities and a slim chance of survival.
The Omaha World-Herald said the couple decided that they "didn’t want to continue putting their unborn baby through what they feared was agony, so they asked the doctors to induce labor early." Inducing labor prior to viability, with the intent that it end the baby’s life, is an abortion.
Consequently, the couple was told that Nebraska’s new abortion law stood in their way. That law, LB 1103, was enacted last year and prohibits abortions after 20 weeks from fertilization, unless it’s necessary to avert the mother’s death. This point was chosen because of strong evidence that an unborn child can feel pain by this stage of development.
The World-Herald story said the couple went public with their story "in the hope of making a difference for other families in similar situations." They are urging law makers in other states to consider their situation before enacting laws similar to LB 1103 and "have not decided whether to mount a legal challenge to the Nebraska law."
In a March 14 editorial in the World-Herald, Dr. Sean Kenney, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Lincoln replied to this couple’s situation as presented by the newspaper.
"Although my heart goes out to the Deavers, as a Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist who has cared for several patients in similar situations and who testified on behalf of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act, I think it is imperative to make clear that their understanding of the facts is wrong."
"What most specialists try to do in these situations is maintain the pregnancy for as long as possible," Dr. Kenney said. "If she had delivered two days later at 24 weeks, the baby’s chance of survival without profound neurodevelopmental impairment would have increased to 50%, 65% if she had received steroids."
The Deaver’s baby weighed about 740 grams at birth (1 lb, 10 oz). Dr. Kenney said that the "edge of viability is usually felt to be around 400-500 grams. Based on an estimated gestational age of 23 weeks, female infant and 740gms, the National Institute of Child Health and Development …would quote her a 37% chance of survival without profound neurodevelopmental impairment, based on data prior to 2003."
"Tragic as the outcome was," Dr. Kenney continued, "the pessimism that predicted inevitable death for the baby was certainly unwarranted." Unfortunately, some doctors are quick to suggest and even urge mothers like Mrs. Deaver to abort their child instead of letting nature take its course or trying to maintain the pregnancy long enough to increase the baby’s chance of survival.
The mentality underlying the recommendation to abort babies with lethal anomalies is eerily similar to the mentality underlying euthanasia (i.e. it is more humane to deliberately end someone’s life than to let them suffer). Fortunately, as with born humans, unborn babies with life-threatening conditions need not be subjected to a choice between a life of pain and intentional death.
There is a growing utilization of perinatal hospice care which applies the hospice model to unborn babies with fatal anomalies. I’m aware of two such programs in Nebraska (Methodist Hospital in Omaha and St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in Lincoln) but there may be more. More information on this beautiful service can be seen online at www.perinatalhospice.org.
There are also support groups like Isaiah’s Promise (www.isaiahspromise.net), sponsored by mothers who chose not to abort babies with disabilities. Nancy Mayer-Whittington, a co-founder of Isaiah’s Promise shares these beautiful words about her experience:
"I was so happy I did what I did," she says of her decision to bring Angela to term. "You get to see your child’s birth and death all collapsed in one time frame. What most people want for their kids is for them to go to heaven. You get to complete that journey with them. As a parent, that is unbelievable. Life is about relationship to God. You know that when you literally pass them from your hands to His."
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.
Undoubtedly, many Catholics have already determined what special prayers and sacrifices they will embrace to grow spiritually this Lent. However, I have another suggestion for Catholics to consider: offer special prayers and sacrifices specifically for those women and men contemplating abortion.
Specifically, I encourage Catholics to offer prayers and sacrifices on the days that abortions are done. At the Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Lincoln, abortions are typically done on Tuesdays and Fridays. At the Bellevue abortion mill, abortions are done on varying days but usually Thursday through Sunday.
In both locations, there are dedicated, even heroic, men and women who come (rain or shine, cold or heat) to pray and/or reach out to the mothers with messages of hope and help. This prayerful presence has been extremely powerful and fruitful in prompting mothers to reject abortion and choose life for their children.
For example, on a recent abortion day in Lincoln, seven out of 26 mothers scheduled to have abortions that day changed their mind and left the abortion mill without having an abortion. Praise God! Although 19 women still had abortions, seven "saves" that day was unprecedented; truly a miracle.
That day, like most abortion days, there were various individuals and groups who came to pray at the abortion mill. We know from personal testimonies that the visible witness and blanket of prayer that these "pray-ers" provide has been the catalyst for mothers who changed their mind about abortion.
For those individuals who live within a reasonable drive to the abortion mills in Lincoln and Omaha, there is much need for more volunteers to be present in prayer or, if so called, to help as a sidewalk "counselor." Lincoln Right to Life or Nebraskans United for Life (Omaha) can be contacted for more information about such volunteering.
In addition, both groups have sponsored the "40 Days for Life" prayer event during Lent this year. This event proposes to have a physical presence of prayer at the abortion mills 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Around the country, "40 Days for Life" efforts have been credited with the closure of some abortion mills, and the conversion of abortion mill workers and mothers scheduled for abortions.
For those who cannot be physically present at the abortion mills, prayers and sacrifices can still be offered in solidarity with those who are physically present. For example, consider offering a holy hour (or just a short visit) before the Blessed Sacrament at your local church on one of the days abortions are done.
Or, pray a rosary or some other prayer at home, while you are driving to work or while doing other daily activities. Offering some sort of sacrifice—big or small—in tandem with your prayers is also powerful and fruitful.
Those who are confined to their homes due to illness, age, or frailty or who live in nursing homes can be just as efficacious in their prayers and sacrifices as those who are physically present at the abortion mills. And those who suffer—physically, emotionally, or spiritually—can be particularly powerful intercessors by offering their suffering for the conversion of mothers contemplating abortion.
Our Lord Jesus said that "certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting" (Mt. 17:21). Therefore, our prayers and sacrifices this Lent and beyond can be a very significant contribution toward saving lives and 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.
Last week, Dr. Bernard Nathanson died. Dr. Nathanson was co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), played an instrumental role in the effort to legalize abortion, was responsible for 75,000 abortions including the abortion of his own child, and once described himself as a Jewish atheist.
Thanks to the "Hand of God" (the name of a book he wrote), Dr. Nathanson died a revered pro-life activist and a Roman Catholic. Dr. Nathanson’s conversion is nothing short of miraculous; compelling evidence of our Lord’s assurance that "with God all things are possible".
Dr. Nathanson’s conversion as an abortionist occurred after witnessing an ultrasound of an abortion. "I had come to the conclusion that there was no reason for an abortion at any time" he said. "[T]his person in the womb is a living human being, and we could not continue to wage war against the most defenseless of human beings. Having looked at the ultrasound, I could no longer go on as before."
After his abortion conversion, Dr. Nathanson wrote his famous book "Aborting America" in which he acknowledged a number of lies that he and his NARAL collaborators produced. For example, regarding the number of deaths from illegal, "back alley" abortions, he said NARAL claimed that 5,000 to 10,000 women died each year.
"I confess that I knew the figures were totally false," Dr. Nathanson said, "and I suppose the others did to if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics."
In 1985, Dr. Nathanson produced a video called "Silent Scream" which used ultrasound to show images of an abortion on a 12-week old unborn child. He later produced a second video entitled "Eclipse of Reason" featuring a late term abortion.
Dr. Nathanson stated repeatedly that his "switch to pro-life had nothing to do with religion." Instead, he said his mind was changed "based on the scientific evidence…based on fetoscopies and ultrasound studies."
However, as he explained in his book "Hand of God", his conversion was not yet complete. After 13 years of spiritual searching, Dr. Nathanson was baptized into the Catholic faith in 1996 by Cardinal John O’Connor, Archbishop of New York.
There is a fascinating local angle to Dr. Nathanson’s conversion to Catholicism. He credits Msgr. Thomas Holoman, a retired priest of the Diocese of Lincoln and former pro-life director for the diocese, with being a catalyst to his conversion.
In 2004 when Msgr. Holoman retired as pro-life director, Dr. Nathanson wrote him a letter saying the following:
"I recall that twenty years ago you found me in personal crisis and with compassion, infinite patience and understanding you helped me to resolve that crisis. I date the beginning of my thirteen-year-long hegira to Christ to that event. I personally owe you an unrequitable debt in helping me to find the peace of Christ."
Joan Andrews Bell, a long-time pro-life activist who was Dr. Nathanson’s godmother for baptism, said "He will be remembered as a very strong advocate for the babies. One factor stood out, knowing him over the years, and that was that he had a deep pain for what he had done in terms of abortion. I remember there were periods he was fasting; he underwent huge amounts of fasting to make up for it."
"He was like St. Paul," Bell continued, "who was a great persecutor of the Church, yet when he saw the light of Christ, he was perhaps the greatest apostle for the Gospel. Dr. Nathanson was like that after his conversion. He went all around the world talking about the babies and the evils of abortion."
Dr. Nathanson’s funeral Mass was held on February 28 at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City with Archbishop Timothy Dolan as main celebrant. Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord, and let the Perpetual Light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.
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.
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) is a long-time pro-life leader in the U.S. House of Representatives. Recently, I heard him say that the current House has the most number of pro-life members he has seen in his 30 years as a Congressman.
Furthermore, Cong. Smith said that the House leadership, which determines the legislative agenda, is more committed to pursuing pro-life policies than any leadership he has experienced. Coming from Cong. Smith, this is certainly encouraging news.
What follows is a brief summary of some of the pro-life legislation that has been introduced so far this year in the House. Most of this information is provided by the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA), an excellent resource on federal pro-life legislation.
Protect Life Act (H.R. 358)
This bill would correct serious abortion-related flaws in the federal health care reform act (PPACA). First, it would apply the Hyde Amendment policy to the entire act ensuring that no funds pay for abortions (except in cases of rape/incest or to prevent the death of the mother) or subsidize health plans that cover abortions.
SSecond, H.R. 358 would uphold rights of conscience related to abortion. Third, the bill would close a loophole in PPACA’s non-preemption clause so that state laws restricting abortion can’t be preempted by PPACA and so that state laws can’t override pro-life provisions in PPACA. The bill was voted out of committee and awaits action by the full House.
Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations (H.R. 1) /p>
Since Congress has not produced a budget for fiscal year 2011, it is funding the federal government through temporary continuing resolutions (CR). The next CR, introduced by the House Republicans (H.R. 1), restores three pro-life policies removed by President Obama or the previous Congress.
First, the CR restores a ban on government funding of abortions in the District of Columbia. Second, it restores the Mexico City Policy which prohibits the use of taxpayer funds from going to groups that promote or perform abortions in other nations.
Third, the CR would remove funding for the United Nations Family Planning Agency. The UNFPA has promoted abortion globally and shown support for China’s one-child policy with forced abortions and sterilizations.
IIn addition, two pro-life amendments were offered to the CR. First, Congressman Mike Pence offered an amendment that would deny funds to Planned Parenthood. This amendment was adopted on a vote of 240 to 185. Second, Congressman John Fleming offered an amendment to help maintain conscience protection regulations put in place by the Bush administration for pro-life medical workers.
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3) /p>
TThis bill would place into permanent law the various appropriations policies that restrict the funding of abortion. For decades, these policies, such as the Hyde Amendment, had to be attached to annual appropriations bills. This bill would eliminate that annual process by enacting these policies, permanently, into law.
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361) /p>
A national campaign by abortion activists to force health care providers to participate in abortion threatens the civil rights of health care professionals and other health care entities. This bill would strengthen existing federal conscience protection laws and affirms the principle that no health care entity should be forced by government to perform or participate in abortions.
To follow the progress of these and other pro-life bills in Congress, and to see how our Congressmen vote, check out NCHLA’s excellent website at www.nchla.org. And please join me in praying, fasting and working so that much progress will be made in Congress to protect women and children from the violence of 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.
Last week, I represented the Bishops of Nebraska with testimony against two bills in our State Legislature. The first bill (LB 192), introduced by Sen. Brenda Council, mandates so-called comprehensive sex education in all public schools.
Sen. Council introduced the bill in response to the extremely high rates of sexually-transmitted diseases in various parts of Nebraska, including her north Omaha legislative district. In my testimony I expressed understanding for her legitimate concern but asserted that her bill is the wrong approach to address the problem.
So-called comprehensive sex education that emphasizes, and even promotes, contraception embodies a certain defeatism that presumes young people are incapable of controlling themselves sexually and therefore reduces expectations and education to the lowest common denominator.
In my observations and study of young people today, it is clear to me that they are capable of—and they desire—self-control in this important area of their lives. And they want their parents’ and society’s help to achieve it rather than be abandoned to the mediocrity of risk reduction strategies; strategies that don’t even purport to address the emotional, psychological and spiritual consequences of sexual activity.
Abstinence-based education, by contrast, takes a truly comprehensive approach to human sexuality that conforms better to human nature and dignity. This approach recognizes and addresses all the dimensions and consequences of sexual activity (i.e. the physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual, social, economic, and educational consequences). Abstinence-based education does not simply tell students to avoid sexual activity until marriage; it helps them develop the skills and character to achieve this goal.
Nebraska’s State Board of Education and the Association of School Boards also oppose LB 192, primarily due to their opposition to state mandated curricula. Opposition by these heavy hitters will likely dim this bill’s prospects of success.
The second bill (LB 540), introduced by the Health and Human Services Committee, directs our state to apply for a federal Medicaid waiver to expand family planning services in Nebraska. This bill is a priority of Planned Parenthood and its cohorts who are seeking a new funding stream for contraception.
Currently, Medicaid covers "family planning" services for those whose incomes are at or below 100 percent of the poverty guidelines. The Medicaid waiver would allow Nebraska to expand those services to those whose income is at or below 185 percent of poverty guidelines.
One of the main points in my testimony countered the claims that contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and abortions, and, by averting births that would have to be paid for under Medicaid, saves the state money.
To substantiate this claim, proponents of contraception point primarily to a 2004 study commissioned by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The study examined six Medicaid waiver states and claims that every state experienced a cost savings based on births that were averted by expanding access to contraception. A critical examination of this study reveals that it is based on estimates and assumptions not on empirical data.
What’s particularly questionable and troubling is that the study admits that not every state examined saw a reduction in unintended pregnancies nor did every state experience an increase in family planning use. Yet the study claims that every state saved money by increasing funding for family planning and subsequently averting births. It’s doubtful that those states not seeing a drop in unintended pregnancies saw a decline in births. But if they did, the decrease in births had to come from abortions and miscarriages.
I was the only person to testify against this bill although Nebraska Right to Life communicated its opposition to the bill by e-mail. This bill’s prospects are more difficult to predict at this point. For my complete testimony and for updates on these and other bills my office is following, check out the Nebraska Catholic Conference website at www.nebcathcon.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.
One of my favorite pro-life groups—and one of the most effective in my opinion—is Feminists for Life of America (FFL). According to its website, www.feministsforlife.org, FFL was established in 1972 as a "non-sectarian, non-partisan, grassroots organization that seeks real solutions to the challenges women face."
FFL’s "efforts are shaped by the core feminist values of justice, nondiscrimination and nonviolence…Feminists for Life recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women." FFL is "dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic woman-centered solutions."
If we believed the masterful verbal engineering of abortion advocates we’d think that pro-life feminism is an oxymoron. Feminists for Life, however, just as masterfully points out that early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony were opposed to abortion.
"Without known exception," FFL President Serrin Foster says in The Feminist Case Against Abortion, "the early feminists condemned abortion in the strongest terms." Early 18th and 19th century suffragist writings regularly referred to abortion as "ante-natal murder," "child murder," "ante-natal infanticide," or "infanticide," reports Cat Clark in "The Truth About Susan B. Anthony: Did One of America’s First Feminists Oppose Abortion?"
"These early feminists regarded abortion as violence against women and their children, and attributed its practice to the denial of their rights and a dearth of nonviolent choices for women," Clark said. "Like Feminists for Life today, the early feminists saw abortion as a symptom of, not a solution to, the struggles women face. And the early feminists, like FFL, sought to eradicate abortion by addressing its root causes."
"The most important evidence regarding Anthony’s own stance on abortion", Clark says, "are those writings which may be attributed to her with certainty. Her comments relating to abortion are few, but considered in the broader context of early feminist writings, it is reasonable to conclude that Anthony was truly both pro-woman and pro-life."
In Anthony’s famous speech "Social Purity," delivered on March 14, 1875, abortion is listed with infanticide and other murders among the negative consequences of the "evils" perpetrated by men: "The prosecutions on our courts for breach of promise, divorce, adultery, bigamy, seduction, rape; the newspaper reports every day of every year of scandals and outrages, of wife murders and paramour shooting, of abortions and infanticides, are perpetual reminders of men’s incapacity to cope successfully with this monster evil of society."
"This speech," Clark says, "clearly presents abortion as a symptom of the problems faced by women, especially when subjected ‘to the tyranny of men’s appetites and passions.’"
Another quote attributed to Anthony was recorded by fellow suffragist Frances Willard. After Anthony was complimented by a man who said: "you, of all women I have met, ought to have been a wife and mother," Anthony replied: "I thank you, sir…but sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so that their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."
A final quote that has been attributed, arguably, to Anthony appeared in her newspaper The Revolution in an article entitled "Marriage and Maternity". "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!"
Feminists for Life said in a recent e-mail that "Pro-life feminism is under attack on every website that supports abortion." This testifies to the effectiveness of FLA’s efforts to expose the abortion industry’s shameful and erroneous linkage of abortion advocacy to feminism. To counter these attacks, FLA urges pro-lifers to use the excellent resources found on its website to launch an educational effort beginning on February 15th (Susan B. Anthony’s birthday) and lasting through Women’s History Month in March.
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 Monday I had the great privilege of joining hundreds of thousands of pro-life individuals in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. The annual march has taken place every year on or near Jan. 22, the date that the Supreme Court issued its infamous abortion rulings (Roe v Wade and Doe v. Bolton).
On the evening prior to the march, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat sponsors a vigil Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. For Catholics, this Mass serves as an inspirational kick-off to the march, reminding us that at its core the pro-life battle is a spiritual battle.
Every year the enormous Basilica is overflowing, usually several hours before the Mass begins, with mostly young people. This year an estimated 10,000 attended the Mass which began with a massive procession of hundreds of seminarians, deacons and priests followed by 39 bishops and five cardinals.
I’ve had the privilege of attending this vigil Mass many times and it represents Catholic liturgy and culture in all its glory. The opening procession itself took 45 minutes! The homily is typically given by the chairman of the Bishops’ Pro Life Committee, currently Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston.
On the morning of the march, there are several pro-life Masses and youth rallies prior to the march at noon. Years ago, I recall these Masses/rallies being held in several churches around D.C.
These venues were quickly outgrown and a massive Mass/rally has been held at the Verizon Center for several years. Because the crowds continue to grow, this year a second large venue for a Mass and rally was added to the Verizon Center venue.
In addition to these venues a Mass was celebrated at the Basilica with standing room only. Six busloads of high school students and chaperones from the Archdiocese of Omaha, led by Father Damien Cook, attended that Mass, as did I. Archbishop George Lucas concelebrated the Mass.
After the Mass we were bussed down to the National Gallery of Art on the Mall where we waited for the March to begin. During this time, Father Cook fired up the group of more than 300 students with a variety of pro-life cheers that the students produced during the 20-plus hour bus trip from Nebraska.
As the National Mall filled up with marchers, the Omaha group participated in "interactive chanting" with other groups. The most common chant volleyed back and forth between groups was "we love babies, yes we do, we love babies how ‘bout you!"
Another catchy chant that let other marchers know who we were was this: "Who’s on the March? Nebraska’s on the March. And when Nebraska’s on the March we’re gonna de-fend-life, huh!" Great stuff. And it added to the electric environment of the March which was driven by the enthusiasm of the young people who dominated the crowd.
While waiting for the March to begin we were pleased to have Sen. Mike Johanns address the crowd of Nebraskans. Congressman Jeff Fortenberry hosted the Nebraska group in his office building after the March and invited the Nebraska Congressional delegation to address our group. Sen. Johanns was not able to join us after the March so he waded through the massive crowd on the Mall to address our group.
March organizers estimated the crowd at 400,000. Nellie Gray, long-time leader of the March said it was the largest march in her memory. When we consider that the vast majority of the crowd was young people under the age of 25, the pro-life movement has reason to be encouraged and hopeful that the future of our efforts to build a culture of life and love is bright indeed!
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 Jan. 5, the Nebraska Legislature opened the first session of its one hundred and second Legislature. Each new Legislature begins in the odd-numbered years with a long session (90 legislative days) and is completed in the even-numbered years with a short session (60 legislative days).
This year, along with its hefty budget and redistricting work, the Legislature will consider several pro-life bills. One of these bills is LB 521 introduced by Sen. Tony Fulton.
LB 521would prohibit so-called "web cam" abortions being practiced in Iowa by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, which also operates abortion facilities in Omaha and Lincoln. This practice allows Planned Parenthood to do chemical (RU 486) abortions in more remote communities without the physical presence of a physician.
The way this practice works is that the pregnant mother interacts with the physician through an internet video (or "web cam") connection. When the interaction is complete, the physician uses the "mouse" on his/her computer to remotely open a drawer containing a dosage of RU 486. The pregnant mother then ingests the first drug which begins the abortion process and takes home the second drug to be ingested later to complete the abortion.
Another subject being addressed is a ban on abortion coverage in insurance plans included in new "state exchanges" established by the federal health care bill. Sen. Annette Dubas introduced LB 132 to accomplish this purpose. Sen. Beau McCoy also introduced a bill, LB 22, which would ban abortion coverage in these "state exchanges" and in private insurance plans, except when purchased through a separate rider.
Freshman senator Lydia Brasch (from Bancroft) has introduced LB 690 to require parental consent before a minor child can get an abortion. Since 1991, Nebraska has had a parental notification requirement before minors can obtain an abortion. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a parental consent law in Pennsylvania and since then a couple dozen more states have enacted similar legislation. Taking on a controversial subject like abortion is daunting for even veteran senators. Consequently, Sen. Brasch deserves significant credit for stepping up to the plate right after getting into the "game."
Second-term Senator Pete Pirsch has also stepped up to the plate by introducing LB 461. This bill would protect the right of health care professionals and institutions to refuse to perform or in any way engage in the practice of abortion based on moral or religious grounds.
Thankfully, the number of health care professionals and institutions willing to participate in the evil practice of abortion is dwindling. Ironically, the "pro-choice" crowd doesn’t like the trend and is trying to force individuals and institutions to embrace abortion, thus necessitating bills like LB 461.
I was amazed and thrilled that the pro-life movement was able to get two pro-life bills introduced and enacted last year. Getting to address four different pro-life concerns this year with bills introduced by five senators is incredible and hopeful.
Those wanting to stay informed as these bills wind their way through our legislative process have at least a couple of options. One is to get on my mailing and/or e-mail list by contacting my office at 402-477-7517. I will provide occasional updates and action alerts on this legislation.
The other option is to access the Legislature’s website at www.nebraskalegislature.gov. This website is an excellent tool for staying current and connected to what the Legislature is doing. On this site you can read the text of bills, check on their status, watch committee hearings and floor debate, and access your senator’s contact information.
January 22, 2011 marks the 38th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s tragic rulings (Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton) legalizing abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason. In a legal brief filed with the Supreme Court in 1994, Mother Teresa (Blessed Teresa of Calcutta) said this about the Court’s ruling:
"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe vs. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society.
"It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the dependent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners."
Criticism of Roe has even come from legal scholars who support abortion. 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."
This and other quotes (with citations can be found in a pamphlet entitled "Roe Reality Check" produced by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat. It is available from my office and can also be downloaded for free at www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/roevwade (English and Spanish).
On Jan. 24, (because Jan. 22 falls on a Saturday this year) the annual March for Life will take place in Washington, D.C. This massive and peaceful public demonstration has occurred every year since 1973 to witness against the Supreme Court’s destructive ruling.
I, along with hundreds of other Nebraskans (mostly students), will join hundreds of thousands of other Americans (again mostly students) in Washington, D.C. for this year’s March. I highly recommend this experience as it is impossible not to be inspired by it to become more engaged in the cause to build a culture of life and love.
Nebraskans, however, have a more local opportunity to publicly stand up for the dignity of life with the annual Walk for Life sponsored by Nebraska Right to Life. This year’s Walk will be held Saturday, Jan. 29 at 10 a.m. on the west steps of our State Capitol.
Preceding the Walk a special pro-life Mass will take place at 9 a.m. at St. Mary’s Church across the street from the Capitol. We’re privileged to have two of our three Nebraska bishops (Bishop William Dendinger and Archbishop George Lucas) concelebrating the Mass (Bishop Bruskewitz had a previously scheduled commitment).
We’re also privileged to have Msgr. Philip Reilly as the homilist for this Mass. Msgr. Reilly received a People of Life award last year from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat for his work as founder and director of Helpers of God’s Precious Infants (http://www.helpersbrooklynny.org/mpr.htm), an organization that focuses on sidewalk ministry outside abortion facilities. Having heard his acceptance speech for this award, I can confidently tell you that you won’t want to miss his inspirational words.
For those able to stay after the Walk for Life events, Msgr. Reilly will conduct a workshop beginning at 1:30 p.m. in which he will talk about the methodology and spirituality of the Helper’s approach to sidewalk ministry. There is no need to pre-register and no registration fee for this workshop which will be held at St. Thomas Aquinas Newman Center (16th and Q) just a couple blocks from the UNL Student Union where the Walk for Life talk will be held.
A promotional poster for these Walk events is posted on my website (www.nebcathcon.org) and is available in Spanish. Please do what you can to attend and promote this wonderful opportunity to be counted among those standing up, publicly, for life.
The Knights of Columbus, an organization I’m proud to be a member of, is a staunch defender of the right to life of unborn children. Nationally and locally, the Knights have sponsored many powerful pro-life activities and projects.
One of the Knight’s national pro-life initiatives is their "Memorials to Unborn Children." According to the Knights’ website, "the idea for these memorials grew from a challenge made by the late Cardinal John O’Connor in his homily at the opening Mass of the 110th annual Supreme Council Meeting held in New York in 1992."
Since the program’s inception more than 2,000 monuments have been built around the country (dozens in Nebraska). "These monuments, ranging from simple headstones to elaborate memorials, stand as testimony to one simple fact: Human life is a sacred gift from God to be protected and cherished at all stages from conception to natural death," the website states.
In Nebraska, the Knights’ commitment to the pro-life cause is equally evident. In addition to pro-life activities sponsored by local councils, the state council sponsors an annual pro-life art contest, and co-sponsors (with my office) a state-level pro-life essay contest.
Another significant pro-life contribution the Knights make in Nebraska is the funding they provide to numerous pro-life groups, activities and programs. My office is one of the Knight’s major beneficiaries. Another beneficiary in 2009 was the Collage Center, a pregnancy-help center in Kearney, which got a new 4D ultrasound machine from the Knights.
According to the Collage Center, since getting the ultrasound machine on September 10th of 2009, 83 women took advantage of the free ultrasound service. Out of the 83 women who were able to see their child in their womb, 77 chose to continue their pregnancy to full term. Clearly, this ultrasound machine was a life-saving gift.
Furthermore, several other pregnancy-help centers around Nebraska receive financial assistance from the Knights as does the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha. Equally important is the funding the Knights provide to students wanting to attend the March for Life in Washington, D.C. For many students, attending the March for Life is the catalyst for a lifetime of pro-life activism.
The Knights primarily raise funds for pro-life activities through a "Buck a Month" collection among its members and through its annual One Rose One Life collection carried out in parishes.
One Rose One Life (OROL) is implemented at weekend Masses on or around Jan. 22, the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s abortion rulings. The OROL name comes from its original activity of distributing paper roses that included a pro-life message to be sent to our Congressmen.
Many years ago, the paper roses were replaced with a prayer card. The artwork for each year’s prayer card comes from the winning entry of the Knights’ pro-life art contest. So in addition to collecting donations for pro-life activities, OROL facilitates the critically important act of prayer for the pro-life cause.
I cannot thank or commend the Knights enough for their extraordinary support of pro-life activities nationally and in Nebraska. Each of us can collaborate with the Knights in supporting pro-life efforts through our generous donations to One Rose One Life. Know that our donations to OROL will benefit many worthy and effective pro-life offices and activities.
I love music. I grew up in a family that was taught an appreciation for music—both vocal and instrumental. As a member of a schola (Canticum Caelorum) I have been exposed to a treasure of indescribably beautiful sacred music from composers like Mozart, Palestrina, Byrd, Victoria, and Morales.
One need not have any particular training in music to recognize and appreciate the objective beauty of this sacred music. What’s more, sacred music can help us to experience and appreciate the supernatural.
One of Mozart’s concertos (Violin Concerto #3 in G major) has particularly captured my attention of late. As I listen to the exquisite beauty of the violin in this piece, it inevitably prompts me to think of (and thank) God. And I find myself trying to imagine that it is me playing that violin.
As I snap back to reality I lament that producing music with such mastery is not likely among my gifts. Nonetheless, it occurred to me that while most of us may not be able to produce music like Mozart, every person (regardless of his/her gifts or limitations) is capable of doing something beautiful in the eyes of our Creator.
For example, every time we demonstrate the simplest act of love or forgiveness to another person I believe that in God’s eyes the beauty of our action far surpasses the beauty of Mozart’s most sublime concerto. Likewise, as our Lord explains in the parable of the Prodigal Son, there is nothing more beautiful to God than a repentant sinner.
Blessed Teresa of Calcutta also demonstrated so beautifully in her loving care of the poorest of the poor that every one of us can "do something beautiful for God."
"The dying, the cripple, the mental, the unwanted, the unloved - they are Jesus in disguise..." she said. "Speak tenderly to them. Let there be kindness in your face, in your eyes, in your smile, in the warmth of your greeting. Always have a cheerful smile. Don’t only give your care, but give your heart as well...
"The poor give us much more than we give them. They’re such strong people, living day to day with no food, and they never curse, never complain. Really we don’t have to give them pity or sympathy. We have so much to learn from them... Only in heaven will we see how much we owe the poor for helping us to love God better because of them."
"Love does not measure;" Blessed Teresa said, "it just gives. In the world, love cannot remain by itself but must be put into action through service. Whatever we are like, able or disabled, rich or poor, it is not how much we do but how much love we put into the doing... (so)… Put your love in living action.
"The hunger for love is much more difficult than the hunger for bread. In loving others you are loving God Himself... We cannot do great things. We can only do little things with great love... Keep the joy of loving God in your heart and share this joy with all you meet, especially your family."
Blessed Teresa said that "[e]very person is Christ for me, and since there is only One, that person is the one person in the world at that time... I see God in every human being. When I wash lepers’ wounds, I feel I am nursing the Lord himself. Is it not a beautiful experience?"
Even something as simple as a kind word can be most beautiful in God’s eyes. "Kind words can be short and easy to speak," Blessed Teresa said, "but their echoes are truly endless. Let no one ever come away without leaving better and happier. Be the living expression of God’s kindness: kindness in your face, kindness in your eyes, and kindness in your smile."
There it is. Blessed Teresa is telling us that every person can be "Mozart" in the eyes of God with the simplest acts of kindness and love. So let’s get to it and do something beautiful for God.
The holy season of Christmas is nearly upon us. One of the ways that we can truly celebrate this amazing act of our loving God to take on human form is to reflect on the value, dignity and meaning of human life.
In the introduction of his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life"), Pope John Paul II refers to the Incarnation to remind us about the "incomparable value of every human person":
"‘By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being.’ … This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who ‘so loved the world that he gave his only Son’ (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person" (no. 2).
In her Life Issues Forum column, Susan Wills from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat provides another extraordinary source of reflection from C.S. Lewis’s The Weight of Glory:
"The dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship. … There are no ordinary people. ... Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ … is truly hidden."
Mrs. Wills then provides this encouragement: "At Christmas gatherings, in long checkout lines, and in overcrowded parking lots, let’s remember that Christ lives in the people around us. Let’s celebrate Christmas with profound gratitude that through his Incarnation and birth, Jesus showed us the meaning of love and the priceless value of every human life."
Another way to celebrate Christmas is to focus on the great work being accomplished by the pregnancy assistance centers throughout Nebraska. What could be more appropriate as we contemplate the gestation and birth of our Lord and the many challenges encountered by Mary and Joseph?
There are 31 pregnancy centers that serve the people of Nebraska. A complete list of these centers with contact information is available from my office or online at www.nebcathcon.org (under "pro-life").
These centers provide or facilitate housing, instructional programs, provision of maternity and baby clothes, furniture and other necessities, adoption through licensed agencies, parenting classes, job training, medical care including pregnancy testing, prenatal and obstetrical care, social services, including counseling, arrangement for transportation, child health care, assistance in applying for financial help before and after the birth, including the WIC (Women, Infants, Children) program, Medicaid, and child support.
Over the last few weeks during my weekly Friday morning segment on Spirit Catholic Radio (KVSS) I have interviewed directors from pregnancy assistance centers in Nebraska. These centers truly represent the heart of the pro-life movement and our effort to make abortion unthinkable.
What makes the extraordinary work of these centers even more edifying is that most of them operate with volunteers only. And all of them operate solely, or primarily, with funds from caring, pro-life individuals. By supporting these centers with our time and treasure, we truly celebrate and honor God’s sublime gift of the Incarnation, and we make a concrete contribution to building a culture of life and love.
In last week’s column I provided an introduction to Fr. Robert Spitzer’s Life Principles, which are based upon Aristotle’s four levels of happiness. Fr. Spitzer explains the Life Principles in his book Healing the Culture: A Commonsense Philosophy of Happiness, Freedom, and the Life Issues.
Happiness level one is focused on "physical pleasure and possession". Happiness level two is based upon "ego-gratification" and personal success. Happiness level three focuses on "commitment and contribution to others" as well as giving and receiving love. Happiness level four comes from "letting God direct our desires toward eternal happiness."
These levels are hierarchical in the sense that a person may be willing to sacrifice a lower level of happiness for a higher one. For example, sacrificing food (level one) and enduring some displeasure from exercising in order to lose weight or improve one’s physical health (level two).
After establishing this foundation for the Life Principles, Fr. Spitzer applies the four levels of happiness to several key cultural concepts such as defining personhood, inalienable rights, freedom, ethics, quality of life, success and suffering. I’ll focus here on personhood and suffering.
The following quotes are taken from a series of articles by Camille Pauley and Marie Harkins found on the Healing the Culture website: www.healingtheculture.com.
If level one happiness is our focus in life, we will tend to define the human person as a "physical, material being who is meant to enjoy pleasure and avoid pain." Therefore, "if someone does not look a certain way, or lacks certain physical function, or cannot experience certain pleasures, I may become convinced that he or she is not a person."
Likewise, a level one view of suffering would conclude that suffering is meaningless and to be avoided at all costs, including recourse to euthanasia and assisted suicide to end suffering.
If level two happiness is our focus in life, we may conclude that to be a person, one must be "independent, accomplished, successful, powerful, in control, admired, and popular." Level two also "leads us to view suffering as a setback. After all, if I can no longer run the fastest mile on the track team, get the highest grades, or outpace my colleagues…I will begin to believe that my life (and my suffering) is meaningless."
If level three happiness is what drives us, we "would probably not exclude any human being from personhood" but would not have "the most complete definition of what it means to be a human person." At this level "we risk convincing ourselves that compassion toward someone who is suffering means to take that person’s life into our own hands and to end the suffering by doing away with the person."
A level three view of suffering is "able to recognize that even in the midst of terrible pain, great good can emerge." Suffering can provide an "opportunity for great growth—growth in wisdom, love, forgiveness, concern for others, compassion, leadership, and humility."
A level four view of personhood would conclude that since "all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore created for His unconditional love, all human beings are human persons. A Level 4 definition of personhood, then, defines one’s end by the eternal destiny for which each of us was created."
Likewise, from "a Level 4 view of life, suffering obtains even greater meaning. "When offered to God in humble trust, our human suffering can be an incredible agent of grace and holiness for ourselves and for the world.
"Level 4 allows us to trust that even in our deepest pain, even when we cannot see it, God can bring about a good that we never thought possible. Such a perception allows us to look to Him with confidence, to surrender ourselves to His perfect wisdom, and to declare with true courage: ‘Thy will be done.’"
A key component to transforming a culture of death into a culture of life and love is having an accurate understanding of the values and beliefs that drive our culture. An invaluable resource for understanding what drives our culture is Fr. Robert J. Spitzer’s book, Healing the Culture: A Commonsense Philosophy of Happiness, Freedom, and the Life Issues. I read and wrote about this book some time ago but revisited it recently and was amazed and inspired again by its insights.
The core of what Fr. Spitzer calls "The Life Principles" is Aristotle’s four levels of happiness. Fr. Spitzer points out that "Aristotle taught that happiness is the one thing we seek for its own sake. Everything else we want for the sake of happiness. In other words, happiness is the ultimate end of the human person (our ultimate goal), and all our desires are shaped by what we think happiness is.
"Unfortunately," Father continues, "our culture defines happiness in very narrow and tangible ways, causing young people especially to seek fulfillment in material/ego gratification, autonomy, and control. These substitutes for true happiness ultimately lead to emptiness, frustration, and despair."
Aristotle’s four levels of happiness are 1. physical pleasure and possession; 2. ego-gratification; 3. commitment and contribution; and 4. giving our lives over to unconditional, infinite, perfect, and unrestricted Love, Truth, Justice, Peace, and Unity. These levels are hierarchical in the sense that a person can be willing to sacrifice a lower level of happiness for a higher one.
In their article summarizing Fr. Spitzer’s book, Marie Harkins and Camille Pauley explain that level one happiness "is the most basic level of happiness, and comes from physically stimulating the five senses in a positive way. It is experienced as ‘feeling good’ or ‘having things.’"
Although level one happiness is good and necessary, "there is a serious problem if human beings begin to seek physical pleasure and possessions as if they were the only, or the most important good." "If we live only for this type of happiness", the writers point out, "we will find ourselves constantly driven to hoard material goods and to indulge in physical pleasures, and we will be exceedingly unhappy in the long run."
If we are driven by materialism it can lead us to view the needs of others as a burden or obstacle to our pursuit of "things" instead of as an opportunity to demonstrate love.
Level two happiness is characterized by "the desire for being better than others, being successful, or being admired, popular, powerful, or in control." Harkins and Pauley point out that, as with level one, these desires are not bad, per se. "But problems arise again when we seek Level 2 as our ‘end’ [or] most important thing in life."
"If a person’s whole view of happiness comes from gaining a comparative advantage, the result is not happiness, but suspicion of others, fear of losing, resentment toward those who are better, contempt for those who do not achieve as much…[and] an exhausting drive to achieve more and to look better at the expense of personal relationships and growth…"
Level three happiness "is the kind of happiness that comes from trying to make the world a better place, or to make a positive difference in the world through self-sacrifice…But, as good as level three is" if we expect "that our final happiness will come from our own contributions in the world…this will inevitably lead to disappointment, crushed ideals, dashed expectations, and maybe even despair."
This is because "we simply can’t find ultimate fulfillment in other human beings… Nor can we give ultimate fulfillment to others." "We can prevent our Level 3 desires from descending into an ‘I have to save the world all by myself’ mentality," Harkins and Pauley write, "by allowing our Level 4 desire to direct Level 3."
For people of faith, the writers continue, level four happiness is "the happiness that comes from letting go and letting God direct our desires toward eternal happiness." It is "surrender to the unconditional love of God" and the belief that "God always wants what is best for us…"
The point here is not to abandon the lower levels of happiness in favor of the higher ones, the writers stress. "Instead, the point is to identify how we can frequently frustrate our own pursuit of happiness by…pursuing the lower levels without allowing them to be guided by the higher ones."
The University of Nebraska Medical Center continues to offend the moral sensibilities of many Nebraskans with its insistence on conducting, and now expanding, immoral and divisive research involving human embryonic stem cells (ESCR).
The Med Center has been conducting ESCR for several years, but after President Obama expanded federal funding for the research, Med Center officials quickly pounced on the opportunity to expand ESCR at UNMC.
A few weeks ago, UNMC officials announced the creation of a new program called the Nebraska Regenerative Medicine Project dedicated to research using human embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells and other forms of regenerative medicine. Dr. Harold Maurer, UNMC’s Chancellor, defended the move by saying "This is the cutting edge, and UNMC wants to be part of that."
It may be true that "stem cell" research is on the cutting edge of medical research, but even leading ESCR researchers are indicating that the cutting edge of stem cell research is happening with non-embryonic stem cells.
For example, although they publicly defend the merits of ESCR, leading embryonic stem cell scientists like James Thompson and Ian Wilmut (who cloned Dolly the sheep) have shifted their own research enterprises to focus on non-embryonic stem cell research.
Equally compelling evidence can be found with recent funding decisions by California’s Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). The CIRM was established in 2004 when California voters decided to appropriate $3 billion specifically to fund embryonic stem cell and cloning research.
Last year, the CIRM funded 14 "Disease Research Team" grants with only 4 of the 14 grants using embryonic stem cells, and zero grants involving cloned embryos. This year, CIRM approved funding for 19 grants worth $67 million. According to CIRM, this year’s funding is "its second round of awards designed to move good ideas out of the lab and into the clinic." Only five of the 19 funded grants involve embryonic stem cells. Again, zero grants involving cloned embryos.
These funding decisions by CIRM are an acknowledgment that non-embryonic stem cells are likely to provide the best opportunity for helping patients. In fact, the Do No Harm Coalition for Research Ethics has provided evidence from peer-reviewed journals of adult stem cells that have provided some level of success in treating more than 70 diseases in human patients.
And the success of adult stem cells in treating human patients grows almost daily. To see a list of diseases that have benefited from adult stem cell treatments, go online to www.stemcellresearch.org or www.stemcellresearchfacts.org.
Conversely, not a single human patient has benefited from treatments using embryonic stem cells. In fact, until this year, there has never been a human trial involving embryonic stem cells. And even some ESCR advocates are concerned that it is way too soon to safely introduce embryonic stem cells (which have caused tumors in animals) into human patients.
The bottom line is that there is ample and compelling evidence that research enterprises, like UNMC’s, can be "on the cutting edge" of stem cell research without embracing human embryonic stem cell research. This evidence makes UNMC’s expansion of ESCR all the more offensive and inexcusable.
Pope John Paul II referred to the various attacks against human life and the impoverished attitudes, philosophies, world views that undergird theses attacks as a "culture of death." This "culture of death" has significantly undermined society’s regard for the dignity of human life.
Many in our society do not view human life as a sacred gift, nor do they see other people and their needs as opportunities for us to demonstrate true love. Instead, they view human life as a burden, an obstacle to freedom or problem to be eliminated.
This impoverished view of human life has metastasized to an even more troubling violation of human rights and dignity: man’s transgression into God’s domain as the Author of Life. Artificial reproductive technologies that have given man the ability to "produce" human life in a petri dish has exposed nascent human life to a whole new level of abuse (e.g. being frozen, eugenically screened, objectified as biological material to be destroyed and exploited for the benefit of others).
Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat, explained this new challenge as follows: "Today we face a challenge that is more subtle, but even more overpowering, as human beings are tempted to exert ultimate control over the origins and traits of fellow humans. As ethicist Nigel Cameron has said, we are moving from the "Cain and Abel issues" to the "Tower of Babel issues," from denying human lives to denying our human limitations."
The varied and growing attacks against the rights and dignity of our most defenseless brothers and sisters has prompted our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, to open the new liturgical year by celebrating a "Vigil for All Nascent Human Life" at St. Peter’s Basilica Nov. 27. The pope has requested that "all diocesan bishops (and their equivalent) of every particular church preside in analogous celebrations involving the faithful in their respective parishes, religious communities, associations and movements." In the Diocese of Lincoln, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz will lead a prayer vigil Nov. 27 from 7 to 8 p.m. at the Cathedral of the Risen Christ in Lincoln.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Secretariats of Divine Worship and of Pro-Life Activities have developed resources to help parishes, religious communities and organizations participate.
One of those aids is the following prayer of supplication for all nascent human life. This Thanksgiving, let us give thanks for God’s sacred gift of human life, for our own life, and for the lives of our family, friends and parishioners. And let us pray that our society will rediscover a proper sense of awe for the miracle that is human life.
Supplications for Vigil for All Nascent Human Life
Let us pray to God, the Father of Life and Font of all Mercy:
Lord, have mercy on all who have sinned against life.
You knit us in our mother’s womb,
— Preserve all children from bodily harm
From the moment of conception.
Your Son ennobled all human life when he became flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary,
— Enlighten our minds to see the dignity of every human life
From its earliest embryonic beginnings.
You are author of science and knowledge,
— Bring an end to the destruction of human embryos
In research facilities and IVF clinics.
You are the law-giver and ruler of the world,
Help us to overturn unjust laws that permit the destruction of innocent lives,
And guide our public officials to defend the littlest among us.
You love those who are afflicted,
Help parents of unborn children with disabilities
To cherish the baby you have entrusted to their care.
Your Son, Jesus, healed the sick,
— Guide all doctors to be guardians of life,
Especially the lives of unborn children with serious health conditions.
Lord, you are love and mercy itself,
Draw all who have acted against innocent human life
To repentance and forgiveness,
And heal them through an outpouring of grace.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is deliberating on what preventative services will be required under our nation’s new healthcare law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA).
There are powerful forces in and out of Congress that are pushing hard for contraceptive drugs and devices to be included among the required taxpayer funded services.
On a recent radio show, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, argued that not only is contraception good for women’s health but is an "investment" that will save our government money in the long run by reducing unintended pregnancies.
"I think it’s important," Richards said, "to understand that unlike some other issues of cost, birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money.
"So an investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don’t have children that they weren’t planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy."
Planned Parenthood and its allies have been making this assertion for decades: more contraception means fewer unintended pregnancies, which results in cost savings to states from not having to pay for the expenses related to unintended pregnancies. While this argument may have some intuitive appeal, there is little evidence to back it up.
I know this firsthand because I have done my own search (which is ongoing) of publications by Planned Parenthood and its research affiliate, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, as well as the documentation provided by local groups urging our Legislature to expand funding for "family planning." What I’ve noticed with all the studies I’ve seen is that they draw conclusions based on estimates and assumptions not on hard, empirical data.
The study most often cited by these groups to substantiate their claims is a study commissioned by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). This study examined a handful of states that had expanded Medicaid contraceptive services to see if it increased use of such services and reduced unintended pregnancies.
The study claims that every state saved money by averting births, but provides no empirical data linking the expansion of contraceptive services to a decrease in unintended pregnancies. In fact, the study admits that unintended pregnancies actually increased in at least one state and some states didn’t even see an increase in use of contraception.
In contrast, there are dozens of studies (conducted by advocates of contraception) which show that greater access to contraception does not reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion. Abstracts and citations of these studies can be seen on the U.S. Bishops’ website at www.usccb.org/prolife (click on issues, contraception, fact sheets).
One of the studies you’ll find there is by James Trussell, who originated the claim that easier access to emergency contraception could "result in a greater than 50% reduction in abortion rates." According to every one of the 23 studies, published between 1998 and 2006, that Trussell reviewed, easier access to emergency contraception failed to achieve any statistically significant reduction in rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion (see Raymond, Trussell and Polis, "Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills," Obstetrics & Gynecology 109 (2007): 181-8).
Planned Parenthood has indicated that at both the federal and state level it will make expansion of taxpayer-funded contraception one of its top priorities. To defeat this effort, it will be critical that Planned Parenthood’s flimsy argument for increased government spending on contraception is exposed and challenged with the facts.
The recent solemnity of All Souls Day is an appropriate time
to consider the Church’s teaching on end-of-life care and medical treatment decisionmaking.. Making medical decisions about our care or the care of a loved one, with fidelity to our Catholic faith, can be among the toughest decisions we’ll make in our lives.
Fortunately, the Catholic Church provides the moral guidance we need to make medical treatment decisions in accord with our responsibility as Christians. For example, the Nebraska Catholic Conference (NCC), which represents the Bishops of Nebraska, issued a document many years ago entitled "Medical-Treatment Decisionmaking: Moral Guidance and Considerations from Catholic Teaching."
The document’s introduction presents the basic foundation for our moral obligation to be responsible stewards of our lives: "The Catholic Church affirms the sanctity and dignity of every human life as a precious gift of a loving God. All men and women must respect the lives of others while accepting the duties of responsible stewardship for their own lives and for the lives in their care.
"At the same time, however, faith in the resurrection and hope for eternal life have enabled the Catholic tradition to accept death as the inevitable end to temporal life and to believe that death is the gateway to eternal life. It is for this reason that there is no obligation to utilize all possible medical interventions, all possible means of prolonging life. Death need not be avoided at all costs.
"Although Catholic teaching does not look upon biological life as an absolute value, nevertheless it rejects suicide, assisted suicide and mercy killing because they are intrinsically opposed to the reverence for life that Christians are called upon to manifest and express. Compassion and care for dying and seriously ill or disabled persons must never include the willingness to assist in the direct ending of their lives."
In other words, by applying Catholic teaching on the meaning of life, suffering and death to the use of life-sustaining technology we can avoid two extremes: withholding or withdrawing technology with the intention of causing death on the one hand, and insisting on useless or disproportionately burdensome treatment to avoid death at all costs on the other hand.
Most decisions that individuals or families must make about whether to utilize or forego medical treatment fall somewhere between these extremes. Therefore, the NCC document provides this basic moral principle to assist us in determining whether a medical intervention is morally required or morally optional:
"If a particular medical intervention is necessary or useful for the preservation of life or restoration of health, it is ethically ordinary and there is a moral obligation to use it. If, however, a particular medical intervention is analyzed and judged by the patient to be useless (offering no reasonable hope of benefit) or excessively burdensome, it is ethically extraordinary and therefore morally optional."
With regard to artificially-administered nutrition and hydration (ANH), the Church has a longstanding teaching, reflected in several documents, that ANH should be provided as part of any patient’s normal care, even when the assistance of medical intervention is necessary. This obligation, however, does not apply if the provision of ANH is clinically useless or causes excessive burdens to the patient.
This teaching, specifically applied to persons in a so-called persistent vegetative state, was confirmed by Pope John Paul II in a 2004 address to participants at the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State". The Pope’s statement prompted the U.S. Bishops to revise their document "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" in November 2009 to say the following:
"In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in…the ‘persistent vegetative state’" unless such provision becomes useless or "excessively burdensome for the patient."
I strongly urge Catholics to obtain the Nebraska Catholic Conference’s Medical Treatment Decisionmaking document and become familiar with the principles it presents. It can be obtained online at www.nebcathcon.org or by calling my office. My office also can provide a sample healthcare power of attorney document that reflects the Church’s moral teaching.
Four years ago, my office established the Gospel of Life Award to recognize and thank Catholic individuals who have demonstrated exemplary efforts to promote the Gospel of Life in their parish and community. One individual is chosen from each of the three dioceses of Nebraska.
On Oct. 22, at the annual Bishops’ Pro Life Conference banquet, three women were recognized for their decades of extraordinary commitment and leadership to building a civilization of love and life.
Mrs. Bernadine Overman of the Diocese of Grand Island
This year’s recipient from the Grand Island Diocese is Mrs. Bernadine Overman from Scottsbluff. Thirty years ago, Mrs. Overman saw a need for helping pregnant women who saw abortion as their only option out of a difficult situation. After months of prayer and discussion with others, she founded Birthright in Scottsbluff and served as its director for 30 years until her retirement this October.
Over those 30 years Bernadine recruited and trained volunteers, rented space for an office, maintained the accounting and correspondence and gave talks about Birthright throughout the community and region. In addition, she made sure there were at least two scholarships available each year to the local community college for those who gave birth to their babies and needed an education. According to Bernadine, it was a "labor of love."
Mrs. Shirley Lang of the Diocese of Lincoln
The recipient from the Lincoln Diocese is Mrs. Shirley Lang. Mrs. Lang has an extensive background of pro-life leadership with state and local pro-life groups. She was a founding member of Lincoln Right to Life, serving as its president, secretary, treasurer and speakers bureau chairman. She also served as president, national director and lobbyist for Nebraska Right to Life and was the master of ceremonies for the annual Walk for Life in Lincoln for many years.
As impressive as this list of accomplishments is, Shirley’s commitment to the pro-life cause is best exemplified by her willingness to open her home to a pregnant teen in need of help. Shirley’s positive influence on this young mother was evident in a number of ways. The mother eventually married the father of her child, went back to school and became a nurse and, with Shirley as her sponsor, was welcomed into the Catholic Church.
Mrs. Agnes Schleppenbach of the Archdiocese of Omaha
The recipient from the Archdiocese of Omaha is Mrs. Agnes Schleppenbach. If her last name looks a little familiar it’s because she is my mother! Mrs. Schleppenbach built the foundation of Pierce County Right to Life shortly after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973. It was one of the first county pro-life groups in the state.
Despite raising 11 children, she found time to lead the group, recruit members, conduct meetings, develop educational materials, fundraise and serve as a regional director and board member of Nebraska Right to Life. In addition to her community and regional leadership she was a pro-life coordinator at St. Joseph’s parish in Pierce for 25 years and served as a board member of Birthright in Norfolk for 10 years.
In their document "Living the Gospel of Life", the U.S. Bishops said that "Scripture calls us to ‘be doers of the word and not hearers only… [for] faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead’…Life in Christ is a life of active witness. It demands moral leadership. Each and every person baptized in the truth of the Catholic faith is a member of the ‘people of life’ sent by God to evangelize the world."
These three extraordinary women are inspiring examples of this "active witness" and "moral leadership" through their faithful and generous service to our least brothers and sisters. God bless them for their service.
This coming Tuesday, Nov. 2, is General Election day in our nation. Citizens of our nation will choose who will represent us in federal, state and local offices. The privilege we have of choosing our leaders is a right for which millions of our fellow citizens have fought and died.
Our Catholic faith teaches us that we have a serious moral obligation to use our vote to advance the common good. "The Gospel of Life must be proclaimed, and human life defended, in all places and all times. The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government but the voting booth as well. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts..." (USCCB, Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, nos. 33-34).
Past elections have demonstrated that a shameful percentage of citizens do not exercise this right and moral responsibility. Perhaps many fail in this responsibility because of carelessness or because of cynicism. Neither of these excuses will hold up when we account before God how we used the gifts He gave us to safeguard His sacred gift of human life.
Our faith not only teaches the importance of voting, but voting with a properly formed conscience. "Conscience," our bishops point out, "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 moral judgments based on the truths of our faith." "At the center of these truths," the Bishops continue, "is respect for the dignity of every person. This is the core of Catholic moral and social teaching" (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, November 2007, #10, #17).
In the few days remaining before Election Day, I urge everyone (assuming you didn’t vote early) to study the positions of the candidates, giving appropriate weight to their views on such intrinsic evils as abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. For most candidates, these and other positions can be found in the Nebraska Catholic Conferences candidate survey which appeared in the last issue of this newspaper and can be seen online at www.nebcathcon.org.
Equally important in the remaining days is our prayer and fasting for God’s mercy on our nation and that He will give us virtuous leaders who will safeguard the rights and dignity of every human person, from conception to natural death. I certainly urge asking our Blessed Mother’s intercession for this intention through praying the Rosary, especially as we conclude this month of the Rosary.
I also urge praying of this wonderful election prayer from Fr. Frank Pavone at Priests for Life: "O God, we acknowledge you today as Lord, not only of individuals, but of nations and governments. We thank you for the privilege of being able to organize ourselves politically and of knowing that political loyalty does not have to mean disloyalty to you.
We thank you for your law, which our Founding Fathers acknowledged and recognized as higher than any human law. We thank you for the opportunity that this election year puts before us, to exercise our solemn duty not only to vote, but to influence countless others to vote, and to vote correctly.
Lord, we pray that your people may be awakened. Let them realize that while politics is not their salvation, their response to you requires that they be politically active. Awaken your people to know that they are not called to be a sect fleeing the world but rather a community of faith renewing the world.
Awaken them that the same hands lifted up to you in prayer are the hands that pull the lever in the voting booth; that the same eyes that read your Word are the eyes that read the names on the ballot, and that they do not cease to be Christians when they enter the voting booth.
Awaken your people to a commitment to justice to the sanctity of marriage and the family, to the dignity of each individual human life, and to the truth that human rights begin when human lives begin, and not one moment later. Lord, we rejoice today that we are citizens of your kingdom. May that make us all the more committed to being faithful citizens on earth. We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
On Oct. 3, Respect Life Sunday of all Sundays, the Lincoln Journal Star featured a prominent front page story about Dr. Jill Meadows, the medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Midlands, which operates in Nebraska and Iowa.
Planned Parenthood is the largest advocate and perpetrator of abortions in the nation. Planned Parenthood has operated an abortion facility in Lincoln for about 15 years, during which time it has killed roughly 10,000 unborn babies. And now it is in the process of opening another abortion facility in Omaha.
In the aforementioned story, the Journal Star reporter provides a glimpse inside the mind of Dr. Meadows as an abortion advocate. As I read Dr. Meadows’ rationale in defense of abortion, I was stunned by her incoherent and impoverished arguments.
For example, Dr. Meadows said that "she has come to believe that life begins, not at conception, but when it becomes meaningful, when ensoulment is possible, when viability and taking breath is possible. The miracle of life occurs at birth, she says."
The incoherence and irresponsibility of this statement is breathtaking. First, how can any thoughtful or rational person argue that human life (and its concomitant rights) begins when that life "becomes meaningful"? The danger of this arbitrary and judgmental criteria for recognizing human rights should be obvious.
Second, Dr. Meadows lists a few other criteria for her definition of when life begins (i.e. ensoulment, viability, taking breath, birth). Given that each of these criteria occurs at different points in a human being’s development, her view that these criteria define the beginning of life is painfully incoherent.
Another example is Dr. Meadows saying that women have abortions for "very good and moral reasons." She said that studies show "the No. 1 reason women give for terminating a pregnancy is their sense of responsibility toward others. That includes lack of adequate financial support, existing responsibilities, lack of a supporting partner or estrangement from family."
Elsewhere in the article, a sociology professor from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, says that "doctors like Jill Meadows know how important it is to take a stand for people who are vulnerable, who are facing horrible choices in a culture that frequently does not offer a living wage, that does not rise to the obligation to care for children no matter how they come into this world."
Let’s unpack these statements. They are correct about these injustices and that they often play a major role in a woman’s decision to have an abortion. However, their view is impoverished in that they believe it is "good and moral" to respond to these injustices with another injustice—killing the mother’s innocent and helpless unborn child.
Dr. Meadows says that she views the world as a "Christian feminist," but the pioneers of the feminist movement recognized that far from overcoming the injustices that women face, abortion perpetuates and exacerbates the injustices.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in 1873 that "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." (Letter to Julia Ward Howe)
Mattie Brinkerhoff said in 1869 that "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." (The Revolution, 4(9): 138-9, Sept. 2, 1869)
Feminists for Life, a modern group that embodies the pro-life ethic expressed by these feminist pioneers, says that "pro-life feminists recognize abortion as a symptom of, not a solution to, the continuing struggles we face in the workplace, educational institutions, at home and in society. Like Susan B. Anthony and other early American suffragists, today’s pro-life feminists envision a better world, where no woman would be driven by desperation into the personal tragedy of abortion."
The late theologian, Msgr. William Smith, once quipped (I’m paraphrasing), that man first did everything possible to have sex without babies and now man is doing everything possible to have babies without sex. That latter pursuit was dramatically advanced in the late 1970s with the advent of in-vitro fertilization (IVF).
The IVF technique involves surgically removing eggs from a woman and fertilizing them in a petri dish with sperm from a man. The resulting human embryo is then nourished and grown in the dish for four or five days at which time he/she is implanted in a mother’s womb or frozen for future “use”.
The first human being produced and born using IVF was Louise Brown, in 1978. Since then, about four million babies have been born using IVF.
Robert Edwards, who developed the IVF technique was recently awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine drawing strong criticism from Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, president of the pontifical Academy for Life.
“Without Edwards,” the bishop said, “there would be no market for human eggs; without Edwards there would not be freezers full of embryos waiting to be transferred to a uterus, or, more likely, used for research or left to die, abandoned and forgotten about by all.”
“This scientist is regarded as a hero,” Bishop de Paula continued, “but what he has really done is to create a market for manufactured humanity.” “This is not a gift to humanity, it is a death sentence to millions of tiny human beings who are created only to be destroyed.”
“Edwards supposedly great accomplishment has also created a means for the ultra-rich to tamper with every genetic aspect of the person, creating designer human beings,” the bishop lamented. “Sadly, we are reminded that the very real good of science can be destroyed when fundamental and universal ethical principles are kept out of the scientific process—in this case, the great value and dignity of the human person.”
The Church’s teaching on artificial reproductive technologies like IVF is explained in the Vatican’s 1987 document Donum Vitae and in its 2008 document Dignitas Personae. In an article for the U.S. Bishops Respect Life Program entitled “Begotten Not Made”, Dr. John Haas summarized the Church’s teaching thus:
“In 1987 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document known as Donum Vitae (“The Gift of Life”), which addressed the morality of many modern fertility procedures. The document did not judge the use of technology to overcome infertility as wrong in itself. It concluded that some methods are moral, while others—because they do violence to the dignity of the human person and the institution of marriage—are immoral.
“Donum Vitae reaffirmed an obligation to protect all human life when married couples use various technologies to try to have children. Without questioning the motives of those using these techniques, Donum Vitae pointed out that people can do harm to themselves and others even as they try to do what is good, that is, overcome infertility. The fundamental principle which the Church used to assess the morality of various means of overcoming infertility was a rather simple one, even if its application is sometimes difficult.
“Donum Vitae teaches that if a given medical intervention helps or assists the marriage act to achieve pregnancy, it may be considered moral; if the intervention replaces the marriage act in order to engender life, it is not moral.”
Donum Vitae, Dignitas Personae and other documents like the U.S. Bishops’ “Married Love and the Gift of Life” that explain this vital teaching on human love and life are available online at www.usccb.org/prolife. Another great resource available to assist those experiencing infertility is the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha (www.popepaulvi.com; 402-390-6600).
The month of October is designated by the U.S. Bishops as Respect Life Month. The objective of designating this month as such is to draw society’s attention to the meaning and value of human life at every stage and in every condition.
It is a sad indictment on our culture that we need a special event to help us rediscover a sense of awe for human life. But there is no question that a variety of factors have contributed to a pervasive view of human life as a burden or problem, rather than as a sacred, precious gift from God and an opportunity for love.
The advent of contraception, the legalization of abortion and embryo-destructive research are three such factors that have violated and degraded the dignity of nascent human life. Probing even deeper, in his encyclical “The Gospel of Life”, Pope John Paul II exposed various roots of what he called “the culture of death.”
These roots include a distorted notion of freedom characterized by radical individualism (self-centeredness, viewing others as obstacles/burdens not opportunities to give/receive love); relativism (no recognition of moral absolutes or objective truth) and materialism (valuing possessions above people).
But the deepest root, John Paul says, is alienation from God, characterized by a society dominated by secularism. If our relationship with our Creator is weak, then our understanding of the value and meaning of human life created in His image is also weak.
Consequently, to counter this deepest root of attacks against human life, we must grow in our relationship with God and help others to do so as well. It is also necessary for us to reflect on what John Paul calls “the incomparable worth of the human person.”
“Indeed, ‘despite its hardships, its hidden mysteries, its suffering and its inevitable frailty, this mortal life is a most beautiful thing, a marvel ever new and moving, an event worthy of being exalted in joy and glory’…Moreover, man and his life appear to us not only as one of the greatest marvels of creation: For God has granted to man a dignity which is near to divine (Ps. 8:5-6). 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.” (EV #84)
It is also an extraordinarily compelling point of reflection to ponder the Annunciation when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” “God was once an unborn child,” says Fr. Frank Pavone in his book Ending Abortion. “Every unborn child, therefore, is in some fashion united with God. As the Second Vatican Council asserted, ‘By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being’ (Gaudium et Spes, 22).
“In the writings of the Fathers of the Church,” Fr. Pavone continues, “we encounter reflections on the theme that Christ redeemed us by assuming all the different aspects of our life on earth, including our childhood, our life of work, our family life, our sufferings, and our death.” In our modern culture of death, then, “we should also reflect on the fact that the Son of God shared in our life in the womb.”
“Would it long be possible for believers, who meditate on the unborn child who was God, to fail to see that unborn children are made in God’s image?” Fr. Pavone asks. “Would it be likely that those who ponder that our Almighty Protector was a baby in the womb will fail to see that babies in the womb deserve protection? Would it happen that Christians, who acknowledge that their Lord and Brother was an embryo and fetus, will fail to see that every embryo and fetus is a brother and sister in the Lord?”
Planned Parenthood, an organization with racist and eugenic origins, has become infamous as our nation’s largest perpetrator and advocate of abortion (not to mention its hedonistic view of human sexuality). That appalling distinction has been particularly on display in Nebraska in recent days.
In the span of just a few days, Planned Parenthood announced publicly that it intends to open a new abortion center in Omaha and has filed a lawsuit to challenge one of the pro-life laws (LB 594, the Women’s Health Protection Act) enacted by our Legislature this year.
Planned Parenthood (PP) has operated an abortion center in Lincoln for nearly 15 years and in that time span has killed close to 10,000 unborn babies by abortion. Nationally, PP operates 304 centers that do either surgical or medical (RU 486) abortions and, in 2009 alone, PP killed more than 300,000 unborn babies at these abortion "mills."
Apparently, PP of the Heartland (Iowa and Nebraska) doesn’t think it has a big enough piece of the abortion pie in Nebraska, given its intention to open a new abortion center in Omaha. This effort will be vigorously opposed by pro-life groups, public officials, area business owners and a large portion of the neighborhood (and broader Omaha) community.
Planned Parenthood’s distinction as America’s largest abortion perpetrator is matched by its abortion advocacy. Not only is PP the most significant opponent of anti-abortion legislation, but it is often the lead organization filing suit to prevent such laws from going into effect.
On Monday, June 28, PP announced that it filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to prevent LB 594, the Women’s Health Protection Act, from going into effect. The measure, introduced by Sen. Cap Dierks and enacted by a vote of 40 to 9 in our Legislature, is scheduled to go into effect July 15.
The law better protects women from undergoing coerced abortions and clarifies in statute the duty of abortionists to screen women for risk factors that are known to place them at increased risk for psychological or physical complications from an abortion and to inform her of the results of this screening. Such screening is standard practice in every area of medicine and LB 594 simply ensures that women seeking abortions are afforded the same standard of care.
In its lawsuit, PP claims the new law is "an attack on our patients… on providers… and on the ethics and integrity of the medical profession." In fact, just the opposite is true. This law protects women from abortionists who often compromise the standard of care for counseling and screening of patients in order to reduce costs and maximize profits.
According to David Reardon, director of the Elliott Institute, in hundreds of cases each day, known risk factors for physical and psychological complications are not being detected because of negligent pre-abortion screening. As a result, women are suffering from avoidable complications that may have been prevented or minimized if the proper pre-abortion screening standards had been met.
Furthermore, it is PP’s abortion practice—not this law—that attacks the "ethics and integrity of the medical profession." Planned Parenthood’s abortion centers (and others like them) are really abortion "mills" that typically do 20 to 30 or more abortions in one day. In these mills, the doctor-patient relationship is transformed into a technician-customer relationship.
A hearing to consider PP’s lawsuit against LB 594 has been scheduled in federal court July 13. Please join me in praying that this commonsense law will be upheld. And join me in praying that PP’s effort to open another abortion mill will be thwarted.
Coming soon to a store near you: the “week after” pill named “Ella.” This new drug, hailed by some as the next generation of the “morning after” birth control pill or “emergency contraception”
claims to prevent “pregnancy” up to five days after sexual intercourse.
Nearly universal access to contraception apparently wasn’t sufficient for our sexually permissive culture so—shazam!—along comes “emergency contraception”(EC). The “morning after” pill or EC is a high dose (a really high dose, at 40 times the potency) of the ordinary birth control pill. Emergency contraception claims to prevent pregnancy up to 72 hours after sexual intercourse.
Now, apparently EC isn’t enough. On June 17, an advisory committee gave its unanimous recommendation to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the sale of “Ella” in the United States. This development is another sad indictment of our society’s impoverished view and abuse of human sexuality.
The characterization of Ella (by the FDA and others) as the next generation of “emergency contraception” is also an abuse—of truth in advertising. Ella is, in fact, closer to the abortion drug RU 486 than it is to emergency contraception.
Here is the difference. As just mentioned, EC is a high dose of the hormone progesterone which can suppress ovulation (contraceptive effect) or alter the lining of the uterus so a conceived embryo can’t implant (abortifacient effect). It is not known with certainty how often EC operates as a contraceptive versus an abortifacient.
Ella, on the other hand, is a progesterone blocker called “selective progesterone receptor modulator” (SPRM). This is the same type of drug used in the chemical abortion regimen RU 486. A SPRM works by preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting in the uterine lining or by starving an already implanted embryo. This is an early abortion—not contraception!
This biological fact hasn’t stopped Ella supporters from claiming that it is a new form of contraception, not abortion. This claim is based on a biological sleight of hand that dates back to the advent of the birth control pill 50 years ago.
When it was discovered that one of the ways in which the Pill works is to alter the uterine lining to prevent implantation of an embryo (abortifacient), its supporters knew that would be a problem for those who might accept contraception but not abortion.
To remedy this, Pill advocates convinced key players in the medical establishment to change the definition of pregnancy from conception to implantation. By doing this, if the Pill prevented an embryo from implanting, they could claim that it was preventing a pregnancy, not ending one. This deceptive act is an example of the maxim that “verbal engineering always precedes social engineering.”
In a letter to the head of the FDA, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, expressed “grave concern” over the FDA’s move to approve an abortion drug as an “emergency contraceptive.”
“Millions of American women, even those willing to use a contraceptive to prevent fertilization in various circumstances, would personally never choose to have an abortion,” said Cardinal DiNardo. “They would be ill served by a misleading campaign to present [Ella] simply as a ‘contraceptive.’
“In fact,” the Cardinal continued, “FDA approval for that purpose would likely make the drug available for ‘off-label’ use simply as an abortion drug—including its use by unscrupulous men with the intent of causing an early abortion without a woman’s knowledge or consent. Such abuses have already occurred in the case of RU-486, despite its warning labels and limited distribution.”
As the “aging sex symbol” Rachel Welch said in a recent editorial challenging the sexually permissive culture created by the birth control pill, “we’re capable of so much better.”
The University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) in Omaha recently announced it had obtained a new embryonic stem cell line for its research enterprise. The Med Center announced more than a year ago its enthusiasm for expanding its embryonic stem cell research after President Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of this immoral research.
In an Omaha World Herald story (May 25), Dr. George Daley, whose lab provided the embryonic stem cells to UNMC, said he “obtains discarded human embryos and places them in petri dishes filled with a ‘broth’ of nutrients and chemicals that helps embryonic stem cells to grow and divide.”
He called embryonic stem cells “precious tools” in medical research and said that the cells “were derived from unusable embryos” that “were not viable to be implanted in a woman and would have been discarded as ‘medical waste.’”
Dr. Daley’s reference to tiny, defenseless human beings as “precious tools,” “discarded human embryos,” “unusable embryos,”
and “medical waste” should send chills down the spine of any thinking and feeling person.
It is a scientific fact that human embryos are human beings in the initial stage of their lives. This is not religious opinion or moral conjecture, but scientific fact sustained by virtually every human embryology textbook and scientific reference.
Embryos are real human beings, not mere “clumps of cells” or “products of conception.” Therefore, these are real human beings who Dr. Daley and his collaborators at our state University refer to as “unusable” and destined to be “discarded.” These are real human beings who Dr. Daley is vivisecting so he and others can use their cells as “precious tools.”
Sadly, such dehumanizing terms have been employed throughout the history of man to oppress various categories of human beings: Native Americans, African Americans, Jews, and women among others. Sociologist Dr. William Brennan chronicled this history in his book “Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives” (Loyola University Press, 1995)
As the saying goes, “verbal engineering always precedes social engineering.” In other words, it’s difficult to get a society to embrace killing unborn children (abortion), destroying human embryos for research or killing elderly and disabled persons (euthanasia/assisted suicide).
Hence, advocates of abortion, embryo-destructive research and euthanasia employ verbal deception (e.g. “reproductive freedom,” “pregnancy termination,” “blastocysts,” “precious tools” and “death with dignity”) to advance their destructive agenda.
Another disturbing tactic used by Dr. Daley and other embryo research supporters is to dismiss ethical concerns by saying “the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.” This response is an appalling cop out.
If supporters of embryo-destructive research had any meaningful regard for human embryos, they wouldn’t simply shrug their shoulders at the prospect of “discarded” humans as they eagerly take advantage of them. Rather, they would question why it is that human beings are being produced and discarded in the first place.
The use of “discarded” human beings as “precious tools” for the benefit of other humans is exactly what happens when man transgresses (e.g. in vitro fertilization) into God’s domain as the Author of Life.
Since CSS covers all of the area south of the Platte River, we receive calls from many locations across the diocese. It seems that over the last six months there have been an increase in house fires and accidents. All of the fires that we are aware of have destroyed the respective homes, tragically with some loss of family members in several. Sadly, there has been loss of life in the accidents as well.
It is edifying how in some of these cases the local communities have stepped up and helped. Since more help was needed, CSS was there to join in the effort with our available resources, including cash assistance and material items (including a vehicle).
You might have heard that some entertainers are holding benefit concerts for the earthquake victims in Haiti. Over the past six years, musicians here in the heartland have donated their time to benefit the poor in southern Nebraska. That said, if cabin fever is setting in and you cannot wait another six weeks for warmer weather, I have just the thing for you, something that will warm your heart – Trumpet Fest 2010!
I am excited to announce that this will be the seventh annual “Trumpet Fest” for Catholic Social Services, a benefit for poor and needy individuals and families who live in southern Nebraska. It is presented by Murray’s for Men of Stature.
Like past years, Trumpet Fest 2010 will highlight some of the areas finest trumpeters including Mac McCune, Darryl White, Dennis Schneider, Dean Haist, Barb Schmit, Tom Kelly, Kevin Murray and more. There will be solo performances, duets by Denny Schneider and Tom Kelly, and another with Darryl White and Kevin Murray. There will also be a family performance by Barb Schmit, her husband and children. There will even be performances by some of the most talented students around! Then to cap off the event, there will be a jam session that I cannot begin to describe, something guaranteed to warm your soul.
Trumpet Fest 2010 takes place Sunday, Feb. 7 at 3 p.m. in Pius X High School, Lincoln. Admission is free but hats will be passed for a free-will offering. All proceeds will be used to assist the numerous needy individuals and families that come to us on a daily basis. Visit www.cssisus.org for more details.
Let me take this opportunity to thank all of the musicians who will be performing, and all of our patrons who are planning to attend. For those who are on the fence, you can ‘kill two birds with one stone’: after hearing the performances of the above musicians, you will walk away amazed and entertained, and with the monies collected by the passing of the hat, you will help us continue to assist those who are in dire need.
Please know that we at Catholic Social Services will keep these musicians, and you in our prayers as we routinely pray for our benefactors every morning at 8:30. See you at Pius High School at 3 p.m. Feb. 7!
The 50th anniversary of the birth control pill (May 9) has prompted some public reflection about its effect on our culture. The most surprising reflection I came across was from none other than Raquel Welch, the famous actress, model, and in her words, “aging sex symbol.”
In her column for CNN.com, Welch begins by referencing the opening of the first American family-planning clinic in 1916 by Margaret Sanger concluding that “nothing would be the same again.” “Since then the growing proliferation of birth control methods has had an awesome effect on both sexes and led to a sea of change in moral values.”
“And as I’ve grown older over the past five decades,” Welch continues, “and lived through this revolutionary period in female sexuality, I’ve seen how it has altered American society—for better or worse.” The only “upside” Welch mentions is that the Pill “made it easier for a woman to choose to delay having children until after she established herself in a career.”
“Nonetheless,” she says, “for young women of childbearing age… there was a need for some careful soul searching—and consideration about the long-range effects of oral contraceptives—before addressing this very personal decision. It was a decision I too would have to face when I discovered I was pregnant at age 19,” Welch continued.
Welch recounts that although she was married, she wasn’t ready to be pregnant and was concerned about putting her career ambitions on hold. Fortunately, her husband (Jim Welch) was “unflinching in his desire to keep our baby and his positive, upbeat attitude about the whole prospect turned everything around.” She says that she has “always loved Jim for how he responded in that moment.”
In a very refreshing and candid statement, Welch says that during her pregnancy she “came to realize that this process was not about me. I was just a spectator to the metamorphosis that was happening inside my womb so that another life could be born. It came down to an act of self-sacrifice, especially for me, as a woman,” Welch concluded.
In another very candid statement, Welch admits that a “significant, and enduring, effect of The Pill on female sexual attitudes during the ‘60s, was: ‘Now we can have sex anytime we want, without the consequences. Hallelujah, let’s party!’ It remains this way,” she says.
“These days,” Welch continues, “nobody seems able to ‘keep it in their pants’ or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option?” Admitting to be ashamed at having been married four times, Welch says that she still believes marriage is “the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.”
“In stark contrast,” Welch points out, “a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, ‘sexual freedom,’ has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune,” Welch asserts.
Welch concludes her column by saying “Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it’s gotta be pretty bad. It’s precisely because of the sexy image I’ve had that it’s important for me to speak up and say: Come on girls! Time to pull up our socks! We’re capable of so much better.”
Ms. Welch’s personal reflections and candor about the negative impacts of The Pill and the “sexual freedom” it facilitated is rather surprising and refreshing. Equally impressive is her admitting a sense of responsibility to speak up and urge society to strive toward higher moral standards.
One of the most powerful dynamics that stifles an honest assessment of contraception’s negative impact on our society is that most Americans have “bought” into the contraceptive culture. Hence, acknowledging its negative ramifications, as Ms. Welch did, requires some self-incrimination.
Ms. Welch deserves a lot of credit for speaking out so honestly on a very controversial subject. Hopefully her leadership will prompt more people to honestly reflect on and speak out about the negative consequences of contraception. Because as Ms. Welch rightly acknowledges, “we’re capable of so much better.”
I’ve written before in this space about how today’s teens and young adults are fundamentally very pro-life. Multiple surveys over the last several years have revealed the same thing: the current generation of young people (known as Millennials or Generation Y) has considerably more pro-life views than previous generations (Baby Boomers and Gen X).
The latest proof of this reality came from an unlikely source: the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). According to an internal poll NARAL shared with Newsweek (April 16, 2010), young Americans are more passionate about pro-life views than pro-abortion views.
NARAL’s survey of 700 young Americans, conducted earlier this year, revealed a significant “intensity gap” on abortion. According to the Newsweek article, “More than half (51 percent) of young voters (under 30) who opposed abortion rights considered it a ‘very important’ voting issue, compared with just 26 percent of abortion-rights supporters.”
Nancy Keenan, NARAL’s president, expressed concern in the Newsweek article about the aging ranks of pro-abortion activists, which she called the “postmenopausal militia.” “These leaders will retire in a decade or so,” the article says. “And what worries Keenan is that she just doesn’t see a passion among the post-Roe generation—at least, not among those on her side.”
Keenan cites her encounter with pro-life attendees at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. last January as evidence of this phenomenon. “I just thought, my gosh, they are so young,” Keenan recalled. “There are so many of them, and they are so young.” The Newsweek article acknowledges the March for Life estimate of 400,000 participants and compared it to a pro-abortion rally two months earlier that drew about 1,300 attendees.
“Millennials are more likely than their [baby] boomer parents to see abortion as a moral issue,” the article continues. “In the NARAL focus groups, young voters flat-out disapproved of a woman’s abortion, called her actions immoral, yet maintained that the government had absolutely no right to intervene.” That latter sentiment will provide a challenge to the pro-life movement as we work to provide legal protection to unborn children.
The article attributes some of the shift toward pro-life attitudes among young people to the pro-life movement’s focus on the unborn child. It also attributes the increase in pro-life attitudes to the advent of ultrasound technology which provides “increasingly clear pictures of fetal development.”
“The technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being,” admits former NARAL president Kate Michelman. “The other side has been able to use the technology to its own end.”
Michelman’s comment reminds me of this comment made many years ago by Harrison Hickman, former pollster for NARAL, at its 20th anniversary convention:
“Probably nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about the fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something I have an easy answer on how to cure.”
In other words, technology is removing the veil of verbal deception that the abortion industry has used to dehumanize unborn human beings and to deny them the most basic human right—the right to life.
The trend toward pro-life attitudes among young people—and even the population at large—is encouraging. If this trend is to have positive consequences for protecting unborn children and their mothers from the violence of abortion, the pro-life movement must nurture and develop those attitudes and translate them into action.
The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services has just issued its 2009 Statistical Report of Abortions. Nebraska law (28-343) requires that certain information be collected on each abortion performed in the state including the pregnant woman’s age, the state of her residence, her history of previous pregnancies, the type of abortion performed and complications.
According to this report, in 2009 there were 2,551 unborn babies killed by abortion in Nebraska. This sobering number of abortions is mitigated only by the fact that it is 10 percent fewer than in 2008.
Since the high water mark of 6,346 abortions in 1990, there has been a decidedly downward trend in the number of abortions in Nebraska. In 2007, the number of abortions fell to its lowest number on record, 2,481, representing a more than 60 percent decline from 1990.
In 2008, there was a surprising and disturbing increase of 13 percent in the number of abortions (2,813). Thankfully, this was largely reversed in 2009 with a 10 percent decline in abortions.
As has been the case since the abortion report began in 1974, the majority of abortions in 2009 (57.2%) were performed on women in the 20-29 age group. The 19-and-under age group and the 30-and-over age group have changed significantly since 1974.
In 1974, teenagers comprised slightly more than 40 percent of the abortions. In 2009 they comprised 16.3 percent. In 1974, the 30-and-over age group comprised 14.5 percent of abortions and in 2009 they comprised 26.5 percent.
Digging deeper into the age statistics one finds some very disturbing information. Ten abortions were performed on girls under the age of 15. One 15-year-old girl already had one previous abortion. Four 16-year-old girls had already given birth to one child before having this abortion. And one 17-year-old girl had one previous abortion and two live births.
The destructive start to these young girls’ lives is heartbreaking. And for all of these young girls, especially the 17-year old, it is hard not to conclude that they are victims of some form of abuse or neglect.
The report also indicates the reasons women gave for having the abortions. Another consistent statistic from year to year is that only a tiny fraction of abortions are sought for the so-called “hard cases.” In 2009, only 80 abortions (3.1%) were done for the following reasons: sexual assault (11), incest (0), maternal life endangered (3), maternal physical health (33), mental health (7), fetal anomaly (26).
Another particularly sad statistic from this report is the number of repeat abortions. The overall percentage of repeat abortions stays pretty constant each year at around one-third of all abortions. Again, a closer look at this statistic reveals some very disturbing information.
Of the 822 women who had previous abortions, 576 had one previous abortion, 168 had two previous abortions, 50 had three previous abortions, 16 had four previous abortions and 12 had more than four previous abortions.
It is impossible to contemplate the level of grief a mother must feel after having one abortion, let alone after having multiple abortions. Thankfully, we serve a God whose mercy and love are limitless to those who seek it. And, thankfully, we have Project Rachel which helps post-abortive women and men to find hope and healing through God’s mercy and love.
Finally, to achieve our goal of making abortion unthinkable, we must always recognize and internalize that the statistics in this abortion report represent real human lives. The lives of 2,551 unborn children snuffed out by abortion. The lives of more than 5,000 mothers and fathers devastated emotionally and spiritually. And the conscience of a nation hardened by acquiescence or ambivalence to this legalized slaughter of the innocents.
April 22, 2010 marked the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. In honor of this anniversary, the pro-life group CatholicVote.org is sponsoring a campaign to celebrate “nature’s greatest gift”: human life. According to LifeSiteNews, “CatholicVote.org is encouraging Americans to rethink how they celebrate Earth Day, and how to go about building a culture that respects the environment.
“Our goal is to use Earth Day to get Americans to think more deeply about what it means to truly respect the Earth and creation,” said Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org Education Fund. In order to “bring this balanced Catholic view of the environment to the streets,” Burch said, the group purchased ads (like the one pictured below) broadcasting their message on more than 50 buses in Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle.
“Prevailing environmental attitudes too often view humans as the enemy of nature,” Burch said. “We believe the human person is God’s greatest creation, and the Earth’s greatest resource. Building up a culture of life is the single most important way to build a culture that respects the environment.”
Burch also points out that “Respect for God’s creation has a long history in Catholic teaching, long before it became popular with our secular culture.”
The LifeSiteNews article cites Pope Benedict XVI as being very vocal in support of proper stewardship of natural resources, pointing out that Newsweek even dubbed him “the green pope.”
Earlier this year, the article continues, Pope Benedict said in his annual address to the Vatican diplomatic corps: “If we wish to build true peace, how can we separate, or even set at odds, the protection of the environment and the protection of human life, including the life of the unborn?”
“The pope has repeatedly emphasized that respect for the environment must be tied to a larger framework, with respect for the human person at its core,” the article said. In a recent encyclical, Pope Benedict XVI wrote the following:
“If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves.”
Like its other recent “Imagine the Potential” ad campaigns promoting the dignity of human life, this CatholicVote.org campaign is brilliant. It uses amazing creativity to remind our culture that human life is not a burden on the earth but rather its greatest gift.
In the nearly 20 years I have been doing pro-life work for Nebraska’s bishops, I don’t ever recall the Legislature adopting two pro-life bills in one year. Undoubtedly, the absence of Sen. Ernie Chambers, who filibustered every pro-life bill, was a major factor in making this unique accomplishment possible.
What makes this accomplishment even more remarkable is that these two substantive pro-life bills went through three rounds of debate within the last 13 days of a 60-day session and were adopted with lopsided votes of 40-9 and 44-5. Furthermore, I really thought I was in the twilight zone when I read a recent Lincoln Journal Star editorial that was favorable toward LB 1103, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
As a lobbyist for the Catholic Bishops, I was most involved with LB 594, the Women’s Health Protection Act. This new law requires that before abortions can be performed, women must be evaluated for evidence of coercion and for a variety of risk factors that place them at higher risk for post-abortion complications.
According to post-abortion researcher David Reardon of the Elliot Institute, who developed this legislation, “in hundreds of cases each day, known risk factors for physical and psychological complications are not being detected because of negligent pre-abortion screening.” As a result, “women are suffering from complications that may have been prevented or minimized if the proper pre-abortion screening standards had been met.”
Even abortion advocates and researchers, as well as the pro-abortion American Psychological Association, have publicly acknowledged the existence of several risk factors that research indicates are predictors of post-abortion complications. These include a history of mental health problems, pressure or coercion to abort, strong religious convictions against abortion, low self-esteem, lack of parental or partner support, and ambivalence about the abortion decision.
This new law better protects women from undergoing coerced abortions, which is a major risk factor for severe post-abortion psychological problems. It clarifies in statute the duty of abortionists to screen for all risk factors that are known to place women at higher risk of abortion complications.
And this law helps ensure that women are given not only general information about abortion risks, but also specific information most relevant to individual women according to their own unique risk factors.
LB 1103, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, prohibits abortions after 20 weeks of gestation with narrow exceptions. This legislation was drafted by National and Nebraska Right to Life with input from its Legislative sponsor Speaker Mike Flood.
As the name of this new law indicates, the 20-week cutoff is based on the reality (substantiated with credible research) that an unborn child is capable of feeling pain by 20 weeks after fertilization. Therefore, by adopting this new law, our Legislature is asserting that the state of Nebraska has a compelling interest in protecting post-20 week babies from abortion because they can feel pain.
Sen. Cap Dierks (Ewing) and Sen. Mike Flood (Norfolk) deserve enormous credit (and our thanks) for introducing and prioritizing LB 594 and LB 1103 respectively. It’s also important to thank those senators who voted for these bills and to express disappointment to those who voted against them. A report indicating how senators voted on both bills can be obtained online at www.nebcathcon.org or from my office.
It is likely that the abortion industry will pursue legal challenges to both bills. LB 594, however, will be more difficult to challenge because it does not impose a criminal penalty. Please pray that these bills will survive any legal challenge and will save many women and their babies from the evil of abortion.
My daughter, know that My Heart is mercy itself. From this sea of mercy, graces flow out upon the whole world. No soul that has approached Me has ever gone away unconsoled. All misery gets buried in the depths of My mercy, and every saving and sanctifying grace flows from this fountain… Sooner would heaven and earth turn into nothingness than would My mercy not embrace a trusting soul.”
These words from the Diary of St. Maria Faustina Kowalska (#1777) are a beautiful expression of God’s Divine Mercy, which we celebrate this Sunday. Divine Mercy Sunday provides an excellent opportunity to communicate God’s limitless mercy to post-abortive women and men in particular.
The Church communicates and facilitates God’s mercy to those involved in abortion primarily through an outreach called Project Rachel. Project Rachel is comprised of specially trained clergy and professional counselors who provide individual, confidential counseling and reconciliation to women and men suffering from a past abortion.
In Nebraska, Project Rachel can be accessed by calling 1-800-964-3787. Information on abortion’s emotional and spiritual aftermath is also available online at www.hopeafterabortion.com.
The name of this outreach comes from the Old Testament figure Rachel who “mourns her children” and “refuses to be consoled because her children are no more.” Our Lord, however, tells Rachel to “cease your cries of mourning, wipe the tears from your eyes. The sorrow you have shown shall have its reward…There is hope for your future.” (Jeremiah 31:15-17)
Project Rachel acknowledges that abortion can be one of the most traumatic experiences in a person’s life. As outlined in our local Project Rachel brochure “feelings of grief, anxiety, guilt and anger are common, not only for the woman who undergoes an abortion, but also for the man involved, relatives, friends, counselors and even medical personnel.
“In many cases, the pain of loss may initially be buried, sometimes for years, but may be manifested by relationship difficulties, depression, or other psychological or spiritual problems. It may even be intensified by a sense of alienation from God and the Church.”
Project Rachel acknowledges that abortion has physical, psychological and spiritual effects, and that knowledge of God’s limitless mercy and love is a significant part of the healing process. Project Rachel allows post-abortive women and men to move toward reconciliation with themselves, their unborn children, their families, their Church and with God.
The foreword of a recently revised Post-Abortion Manual for Priests and Project Rachel Leaders begins with a reference to Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 homily on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul in which he soberly cautioned that “without the healing of souls, without the healing of man from within there can be no salvation for humanity.”
“How essential then to the mission of the Church are the pastoral and apostolic activities that draw women and men burdened by the sin of abortion closer to God’s merciful heart,” the foreword continues. “It is no exaggeration to say that the Church’s ministry of healing and reconciliation after abortion is at the heart of the Church’s mission at this time in her history.”
The foreword concludes by encouraging us to make this most beautiful prayer of St. Claude de la Colombiere, SJ, the spiritual director of St. Margaret Mary, our own:
“Lord, I am in this world to show Your mercy to others.
Other people will glorify You
By making visible the power of Your grace
By their fidelity and constancy to You.
For my part I will glorify You
By making known how good you are to sinners,
That Your mercy is boundless
And that no sinner no matter how great his offences
Should have reason to despair of pardon.
If I have grievously offended You, My Redeemer,
Let me not offend You even more
By thinking that You are not kind enough to pardon me.
AMEN.
The enactment of a seriously flawed health care bill last week was a major blow to the pro-life cause. Tom Grenchik, director of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office, acknowledged that this healthcare bill “is clearly the largest legislative expansion of abortion funding and mandates in our country’s history.”
Despite extraordinary efforts to advocate for health care reform that protects human life and conscience rights, is fair to immigrants and improves affordability, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) was forced to oppose this health care bill in the end. The Bishops concluded that despite whatever limited good may come from the bill, its expansion of the intrinsic evil of abortion and failure to protect consciences is too high of a cost.
This sobering reality has caused great concern among pro-life Americans. And many people may be tempted to become discouraged or cynical and, as a result, disengaged from the battle for life.
It is providential that we are celebrating Holy Week in the immediate shadow of this setback to the pro-life cause. This holiest time of the year reminds us that the ultimate battle against death and evil has been won—once and for all—by our Lord’s death and resurrection.
Father Frank Pavone from Priests for Life expressed this comforting reality quite cogently when he said that as Christians we engage in the pro-life battle not just for victory but from victory. God does not ask us to defeat death. He has already done this. But evil still exists and is always on the prowl.
What God asks of us is to faithfully, passionately and unceasingly oppose evil wherever and whenever it appears. And He gave each of us unique gifts and opportunities to serve Him in this way.
At our final judgment we will have to account for how we used these gifts and opportunities from God. In particular, I believe, we will account for our action or inaction in proclaiming and defending the sacred dignity of human life.
If we truly embrace and embody the assurance of our faith, we should be confident and joy-filled in our pro-life efforts, in good times and in bad times. The following quote from the late Father Richard John Neuhaus has long been a source of inspiration and encouragement to me. I pray that it also inspires you as we contemplate our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection.
“So long as we have the gift of life we must protect the gift of life. So long as it is threatened, so long must it be defended. This is the time to brace ourselves for the long term. We are today laying the foundations for the prolife movement of the twenty-first century. Pray that the foundations are firm, for we have not yet seen the full fury of the storm that is upon us.
“But we have not the right to despair. We have not the right and we have not the reason to despair if we understand that our entire struggle is premised not upon a victory to be achieved, but a victory that has been achieved. If we understand that, far from despair we have right and reason to rejoice that we are called to such a time as this, a time of testing, a time of truth.
“The encroaching culture of death shall not prevail, for we know, as we read in John’s gospel, ‘The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.’ The darkness will never overcome that light.”
Recent public policy developments at the state and federal level can be categorized as the good, the bad and the ugly. I’ll address these in reverse order so I can end on a positive note.
The Ugly
Last Sunday’s vote in the House of Representatives to adopt the Senate’s healthcare bill has pro-life groups and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) deeply concerned about the expanded access and funding for abortion that will result from enactment of this bill.
President Obama’s last-minute promise of an Executive Order supposedly to restrict abortion funding was unfortunately enough to secure the votes of Congressman Bart Stupak and a few other pro-life Democrats. Legal experts seem to agree that an Executive Order is effectively meaningless; it cannot trump statutory law. This means we’re stuck for now with the seriously flawed abortion and conscience language in the Senate bill.
The seriousness of the Bishops’ concern is evidenced by the fact that despite decades of advocacy for healthcare reforms, in the end the USCCB urged House members to oppose the Senate bill because of its serious flaws on abortion and conscience rights. In a statement prior to the vote, Cardinal Francis George said the Senate bill “expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures.
“In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.” As a result, the bishops concluded that the “cost is too high” and the “loss too great” to support the Senate bill with its serious flaws.
Sadly, in the closing days before the vote, the Catholic Health Association and a group of nuns announced support for the Senate bill in contradiction of our bishops and based on erroneous claims that the bill does not fund abortions. This dissent from our shepherds undoubtedly contributed to the passage of a deeply flawed bill that many of us fear will be the largest expansion of abortion access and funding since Roe v. Wade.
The Bad
Last week, LB 1110 was pulled from our state Legislature’s agenda by its sponsor Sen. Kathy Campbell due to insufficient support by fellow senators and strong opposition (and veto threat) by Governor Heineman. This bill would have continued Nebraska’s longstanding policy of providing prenatal care services to unborn children in impoverished families regardless of the mother’s immigration status.
Tragically, some providers of prenatal care services are reporting that several women have had or are considering having abortions at least in part due to the loss of prenatal care services. These reports are causing some senators to look for new ways to resurrect and adopt LB 1110, a move my office strongly supports.
In the meantime, we must urgently persuade mothers who may be considering abortion due to the loss of prenatal care services to reject this act of violence. My office is working with others to make sure these mothers know that there are agencies and providers who will find a way to provide them with needed prenatal services.
The Good
Now for some good news. Last week, the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee advanced two pro-life bills for debate and vote by the full Legislature. The Women’s Health Protection Act (LB 594) would require abortionists to screen women for risk factors that could increase their likelihood of having post-abortion complications.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (LB 1103) prohibits abortions (with narrow exceptions) after 20 of gestation, the point at which compelling evidence suggests the unborn child can experience pain.
These bills could come up for debate as soon as the week of March 29. I urge readers to contact your state senator as soon as possible and urge him/her to support both bills. More information on these bills and an action alert is available online at www.nebcathcon.org.
Two weeks ago in this column I explained the reasons why the Nebraska Catholic Conference supports LB 1110. This bill would allow Nebraska to continue to offer prenatal services to unborn children of low-income women, including those who are undocumented immigrants.
Since then, I’ve received or witnessed a variety of communications from individuals who oppose LB 1110. Some were downright nasty, some were more interested in venting than understanding the Church’s view, and some were challenging but thoughtful.
The third category of communications prompted me to think more deeply about the legitimate concerns on both sides of this debate. On one side is the concern that a nation must have a just and fair immigration policy and this policy must be enforced as best as possible or many social, economic and now security problems can result.
Immigration policy, however, is set by the federal government and states have little authority or ability to affect or enforce this policy. States are largely left to deal with the human realities and injustices of an extremely deficient federal immigration policy.
On the other side is the important good of providing prenatal care to unborn children. It is well documented that providing prenatal care greatly increases the likelihood of a healthy start to a child’s life. It is important to emphasize that the recipient/beneficiary of prenatal care is the unborn child (who has no immigration status and will be a citizen if/when born in this country) not the undocumented mother.
Another good is that providing coverage for prenatal care can be a contributing or even decisive factor in keeping an abortion-vulnerable woman from having an abortion. Sadly, I’ve already heard of a few confirmed cases of impoverished pregnant women in Nebraska who have had or are considering having abortions (at least in part) because of losing this benefit for their unborn child.
A final good is that this area of federal policy/law (Children’s Health Insurance Program or CHIP) which is reflected in LB 1110, recognizes the unborn child as a person and recipient of benefits on his or her own account—separate from the mother’s interests.
Some, however, have presented the straightforward argument that if undocumented pregnant mothers present themselves for prenatal care, why not just send them back to their home countries? Doing this, however, is much more complicated than it appears.
For example, if it becomes known that pregnant undocumented mothers will be deported if they present themselves for prenatal care services, they simply won’t present themselves. The likely result will be that their unborn children will not get needed prenatal care and the mother will continue to stay in our country.
This means that when these children are born, they will be citizens and will likely be eligible for Medicaid. And, because of not getting prenatal care, they will likely need even more expensive medical care at taxpayer expense.
The bottom line is that this is a very complex problem with legitimate concerns and goods (and potential unintended consequences) on both sides of the debate. I find it helpful to consider the fact that this complexity and balance of concerns is present in other areas of serving our least brothers and sisters.
For example, in serving the poor through the St. Vincent de Paul Society or other outreaches, we often find people in dire need because of irresponsible choices on their part. Sometimes federal social policy enables such behavior (or at least provides little incentive to change it).
But when a person is in need of basic human needs (food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc.) we rightly help them with those basic needs. At the same time we rightly work to address the underlying social and public policy problems that contributed to this situation.
I think that balance of concerns/goods applies to this debate on prenatal care as well. At the very least, when conflicted about the balance of such goods, it seems right to err on the side of helping vulnerable human beings over strict adherence to human laws.
At this year’s Catholic Social Services banquet, I was privileged to present the agency’s annual Cor Christi (The Heart of Christ) award to Bob and Pam McCabe. The McCabes were honored for their work in organizing the “sidewalk counselors” and prayer presence outside the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Lincoln for the past dozen or so years.
I mentioned in my introduction that Bob and Pam’s efforts provide the last line of defense to protect women and their children from the violence of abortion. Being visibly present—with a smile, caring words, kneeling in prayer—as women drive into the abortion facility can literally make the difference between life and death for a baby.
Several years ago, Pam received a letter from a woman who changed her mind about having an abortion because of the presence of people praying outside the facility. Addressing the letter to “My angels sent from God” she said the following:
“As we arrived, we pulled into the parking lot and there was a group of people praying on their knees. I can remember even making a joke of it as we parked the car. We got out, and as we walked to the entrance, I again looked over at this group of people praying. At that point God’s spirit hit me like a ton of bricks.
“I began frantically crying in my sister’s arms. In my 20 years on this planet, I have never felt that before. It felt like a 500-pound weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I was no longer afraid, and I knew everything would be okay.
“My family was thrilled I chose to keep the baby, but most importantly I was thrilled. My son was born in August, and he is the BEST blessing God has ever given me. He is my joy, my pride, and my very reason to live… I often look into his beautiful little eyes and many times cry thinking about the decision I almost made. If it had not been for you, well, I don’t even like to think about it.
“Thinking back to that day, I remember it being very cold. Those people who were gathered at Planned Parenthood that day could have very easily stayed at home… Because they didn’t, I was able to see God in them; I was able to see what I was about to do was a terrible mistake.”
“I know how discouraging your fight can be at times, and I hope you never give up… Words cannot express how thankful I am of you and your presence that morning. I will always be eternally grateful for what you have done for me.”
Letters like these punctuate the reality of actual human lives that are at stake in the battle against abortion. Unfortunately, for every life that is spared from abortion, many more are violently destroyed. Roughly 9,000 babies have been destroyed by abortion at the Planned Parenthood facility in Lincoln since it opened in 1996.
However, there is no question that there are people walking this earth because of the dedication of Bob and Pam McCabe and others like them who sacrifice their time, talent, treasure and comfort to be that last line of defense against abortion. And I know that Bob and Pam would say that the best way to honor them is to join them.
Planned Parenthood operates its abortion facility in Lincoln on Tuesdays. On those days there are “sidewalk counselors” present from at least 6:30 a.m. until the last woman leaves the facility (sometimes late in the afternoon).
If you are feeling a call from God to offer your time, talent and heart to this life-saving outreach, please contact Bob and Pam at 402-489-7968. If you’re not ready to make that call, please pray every Tuesday for them, the other “sidewalk counselors” and the women scheduled for abortions that day.
One of the important and “hot” pro-life issues in our Legislature this session is whether Nebraska should continue providing prenatal services to unborn children of undocumented mothers. Nebraska has been providing these important services for three decades under Medicaid.
The federal government, however, notified Nebraska late last year that prenatal services cannot be provided under Medicaid to unborn children in their own right; eligibility for these services is based on the pregnant mother, and undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid.
Nevertheless, Nebraska can continue to provide this benefit if it relies upon the “unborn child option” under the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under CHIP, unborn children are viewed as recipients of prenatal services in their own right, regardless of their mothers’ immigration status.
Legislative Bill 1110 was introduced by Sen. Kathy Campbell to authorize our state Health and Human Services Division to apply for this option. Unfortunately, this bill and the senators who are inclined to support it are being subjected to a lot of heat from individuals who oppose providing any assistance to illegal immigrants. Sadly, Governor Dave Heineman is among those expressing opposition to LB 1110.
There certainly are legitimate concerns about our state not enacting policy that encourages illegal behavior. Having (and enforcing) an orderly and just immigration policy is important. However, as with any law, when its application puts vulnerable human lives in jeopardy, there must be a balancing of principles in favor of human life.
An example of a proper balancing between care for vulnerable human lives and adherence to immigration policy already exists in our society. When an illegal immigrant is in need of urgent medical attention we care for them. Our society has correctly decided that caring for a vulnerable person takes precedence over the fact that the person is in our country illegally.
The Nebraska Catholic Conference, representing the three Bishops of Nebraska, testified in favor of LB 1110 saying that it is our “firmly held view… that continuing to provide prenatal services to unborn children, regardless of their mothers’ immigration status” is another example of this proper balance.
The Conference said this “is an important and urgent pro-life matter. Denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity and a terrible injustice, which could do great harm to the lives of children at a very vulnerable stage in their development. What’s worse, the lack of coverage for such care could be a decisive factor in leading some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth.”
The Conference testimony also responded to those concerned about providing prenatal care and services to unborn children of undocumented mothers. “It must be emphasized,” it said, “that the true and ultimate beneficiary of this coverage is not the mother but her unborn child, who is not an illegal immigrant and who will soon be a U.S. citizen upon his/her birth.
“The immigration status of the mother should not adversely affect the health and well being of the unborn child. Assisting the unborn child, a presumptive citizen, to have a healthier start to life makes sense not only from an economic standpoint, since this child’s healthcare needs are likely to be greater without the benefit of prenatal care and services, but from a human rights standpoint as well.
LB 1110 received a public hearing last week and it is our hope that the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee will soon advance the bill for consideration by the full Legislature. It could be critical to the enactment of this bill that senators receive a strong message of support from their constituents. It could be equally critical that Governor Heineman receives a similarly strong message of support for LB 1110.
I urge all Catholic Nebraskans to call or e-mail their state senator and Governor Heineman and urge them to support LB 1110; to embrace a proper balance of principles in favor of human life. Senators can be contacted online at www.nebraskalegislature.gov or by calling 402-471-2311. The Governor can be contacted at www.governor.nebraska.gov or at 402-471-2244.
In his encyclical “The Gospel of Life,” Pope John Paul II says that in order to counter the culture of death and form a new culture of life, we must “proclaim the Gospel of Life.” “We need to bring the Gospel of life to the heart of every man and woman and to make it penetrate every part of society.”
To do this, we need not be Scripture scholars or moral theologians. As John Paul says succinctly, “to proclaim Jesus is to proclaim life.” We are called to proclaim Jesus, and the Gospel of life “through service of charity, which finds expression in personal witness, various forms of volunteer work, social activity and political commitment.”
This call to witness, and the effect it can have in building a culture of life was exemplified in a story about an Olympic athlete who was converted by an encounter with a group of pro-life students.
Kirstin Holum was a speed skater in the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano placing 6th in the 3,000 meter race. Back then she was, in her words, “a mediocre Christian.” Today, she is Sister Catherine Mary, a member of the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, and has devoted her life to working with the poor and homeless.
Her conversion came from an encounter with Crossroads, a group of pro-life college students who make a yearly pilgrimage on foot across the United States to witness against the killing of the unborn. In 2002, Kirstin came across the group and decided to join them for the remainder of the walk to Washington, DC.
Kirstin said her experience with Crossroads “completely changed [her] life.” “I came onto Crossroads as a mediocre confused Christian,” she said, “and finished as a zealous Roman Catholic… I had never experienced such joyful, young Catholics and I was so inspired.”
“It is funny now to think of how different my life is now,” she told Yahoo! Sports. “I had the wonderful privilege of being able to compete as an Olympian, and now I am blessed to be able to serve God and help those less fortunate… Without my Crossroads experience, who knows where I would be!”
This inspiring story of conversion should encourage each of us with the confidence that even our simplest acts of witness can change lives and ultimately our culture. We should also be reassured knowing that God does not ask us to save the world or defeat the culture of death. He did that already.
Instead, God asks us to use the gifts He gave us to faithfully and persistently witness His truth and love to those He puts in our path: family, friends, co-workers, strangers, etc. Each of us has unique gifts that can reach people and inspire conversion in different ways.
As Mother Teresa said, God does not expect us to be successful in all our endeavors on His behalf, but he does expect us to be faithful—and persistent. This means that we must continually discern the gifts God gave us and how He wants us to use them on His behalf. Then, as we hear at the end of every Mass, “go in peace to love and serve the Lord.”
In addition to witnessing against abortion or euthanasia or embryo-destructive research, or any number of other attacks against human life, there are many ways we can proclaim the Gospel of life. For some simple, everyday examples of how we can evangelize—and thereby help build a culture of life—check out the book “The Everyday Apostle: Commonsense Ways to Draw Others to Christ” by Father Ed Garesche.
A great prayer for life is urgently needed, a prayer which will rise up throughout the world. Through special initiatives and in daily prayer, may an impassioned plea rise to God.... Let us therefore discover anew the humility and the courage to pray and fast so that the power from on high will break down the walls of lies and deceit: the walls which conceal from the sight of so many... the evil of practices and laws which are hostile to life.”
As we begin another Lenten season, these words from Pope John Paul II (The Gospel of Life, no. 100) provide a powerful reminder that prayer and fasting are the most powerful weapons we have for combating the culture of death. This is why prayer, fasting and worship form the foundation of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities.
The Pastoral Plan is the official pro-life program of the Catholic Bishops in the United States. The program focuses the Church’s attention and resources on “the evil of deliberate killing in abortion and euthanasia.”
It “calls upon all the resources of the Church—its people, services, and institutions—to pursue this effort with renewed energy and commitment in four major areas”: Public Information and Education; Pastoral Care; Public Policy and Prayer/Worship.
Although each of these four areas is important, the Pastoral Plan states that “prayer is the foundation of all that we do in defense of human life. Our efforts—whether educational, pastoral, or legislative—will be less than fully fruitful if we do not change hearts and if we do not ourselves overcome our own spiritual blindness.
“Only with prayer—prayer that storms the heavens for justice and mercy, prayer that cleanses our hearts and our souls—will the culture of death that surrounds us today be replaced with a culture of life.”
Having worked in the pro-life field for nearly 20 years, I would say without hesitation that prayer and fasting are our most powerful weapons to counter the culture of death. There is no question that the battle against the culture of death is, at its core, a spiritual battle.
In The Gospel of Life, John Paul II points to our society’s alienation from God as the deepest root of the culture of death. If our relationship with our Creator is weak, then our understanding of the dignity and meaning of human life which He created in His image and likeness will also be weak. And if we don’t understand and appreciate the dignity and meaning of human life, we are more inclined to violate its dignity and rights.
Therefore, the healthier our relationship is with God, the more profound will be our respect for human life. Prayer, fasting and the Sacraments are the most fundamental tools we can embrace to strengthen our relationship with God and thereby help rebuild a culture of life.
Our Lord told us that “certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting” (Mt. 17:21). There can be no doubt that abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia are among these demons. This Lent, each of us can make a significant contribution to the pro-life cause, to the battle to exorcise these demons from our culture, by offering our extra prayers and sacrifices for the success of this cause.
The Nebraska Legislature convened Jan. 6, and over the next couple of months will consider at least a few pro-life measures. The first bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act (LB 594), was introduced last year by Sen. Cap Dierks from Ewing.
This bill would require abortionists to screen for risk factors which place women at higher risk of physical or psychological complications from abortion. It would better protect women from undergoing coerced abortions and ensure that women are given an individualized assessment of risk factors.
LB 594 also removes legal obstacles which typically make it difficult or impossible for a woman to hold an abortionist liable for injuries which may have been avoided with proper screening and counseling.
The problem is that many abortionists have compromised the standard of care for counseling and screening of patients in order to reduce costs and maximize profits. As a result, known risk factors for physical and psychological complications are not detected and women are suffering from avoidable complications.
Even leading mental health associations like the American Psychological Association, which generally downplay the prevalence of post-abortion trauma, have identified risk factors that predict post-abortion problems. And on March 14, 2008, the British Royal Academy of Psychiatrists issued an official statement endorsing the importance of pre-abortion screening for risk factors.
LB 594 had a public hearing last year and is awaiting action by the Judiciary Committee to move this bill to the full Legislature.
A second pro-life bill, the Abortion Pain Prevention Act (LB 1103), was introduced this year by Sen. Mike Flood, the Speaker of the Legislature. This bill would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of gestation unless the abortion is deemed necessary to avert the mother’s death or to avert serious risk of physical impairment of a major bodily function.
The bill identifies fetal pain as the basis for prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. It specifically says that “there is substantial evidence that, by twenty weeks after fertilization, unborn children seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain.”
It further states that “there is substantial evidence that abortion methods used at and after twenty weeks would cause substantial pain to an unborn child…even if the pregnant woman herself has received local analgesic or general anesthesia.” LB 1103 is awaiting a public hearing date in the Judiciary Committee.
The third measure has to do with fixing a serious problem related to providing prenatal benefits under the state’s CHIP program (Children’s Health Insurance Program). CHIP provides health insurance coverage for impoverished children whose parents are not eligible for Medicaid.
Because of its focus on children, CHIP counts the unborn child as a family member for eligibility purposes. Medicaid does not allow this. Since Nebraska chose to implement the CHIP program by expanding Medicaid rather than establishing a separate CHIP program, the federal government recently notified our state that it can’t continue counting the unborn for eligibility purposes.
Consequently, on March 1, roughly 6000 pregnant women in Nebraska who currently qualify for CHIP (because their unborn children are counted) will no longer be able to qualify and will lose their prenatal care. Roughly 1000 are undocumented pregnant women who cannot get Medicaid but whose children can qualify for prenatal care under CHIP because they will be citizens when they are born.
This presents a couple of serious pro-life concerns. First, if these pregnant women lose their prenatal care, it could have terrible effects on the health of their unborn children. Second, losing prenatal coverage could cause some women to have abortions.
Fortunately, the research of several advocacy groups discovered that, with a slight change to our state’s Medicaid/CHIP program, the federal government will continue to fund prenatal care for these women. Our state’s health and human services officials are seeking legislative authority to make this change and there appears to be strong momentum in the Legislature to provide that authority.
Stay tuned for further updates and action alerts as the Legislative session moves forward.
I wouldn’t normally think to use a football metaphor to represent the abortion battle. However, the recent flap over a pro-life Super Bowl ad featuring Florida quarterback and Heisman trophy winner, Tim Tebow, begs its use.
The frantic efforts by pro-abortion groups to get CBS to reject the ad are a clear indication that they are on defense. News reports indicate that these groups are blitzing in hopes of sacking Tim Tebow and his life-affirming message.
According to Focus on the Family, which produced the ad, it will convey the story about Tebow’s mother Pam who rejected advice to abort Tim. Mrs. Tebow and her husband were serving as Christian missionaries when she conceived Tim.
After contracting and being treated for an intestinal infection, Mrs. Tebow was told that the medications caused irreversible damage to Tim and recommended that she have an abortion. She refused the abortion citing her Christian faith as the source of her hope that Tim would be okay. Tim was born healthy and has obviously done quite well since.
This is the life affirming story that pro-abortion fanatics are worried about and trying to squelch. Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center said the ad will use “one story to subtly dictate morality to the American public” and “encourages women to disregard medical advice, potentially putting their lives at risk.”
“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite,” she said, “has no place in the biggest national sports event.”
This response is pathetic—morally and intellectually impoverished. No advertisement is capable of dictating morality, subtly or otherwise. The ad will merely present a story about a woman who chose to give life to her unborn child even though the child may have been born with disabilities.
If the ad changes minds and hearts against abortion, it will do so by the compelling and inspiring nature of the story. The ad will not—and cannot—dictate morality as if it were capable of producing some kind of hypnotic, mind-changing trance.
The notion that the ad might encourage women to ignore medical advice that could put their lives at risk is equally ridiculous. Even if Tim did have disabilities as the doctors wrongly predicted, it is extremely unlikely that continuing the pregnancy would have endangered Mrs. Tebow’s life.
Furthermore, had the pregnancy truly endangered Mrs. Tebow’s life, abortion advocates are saying that a mother risking her life for her child is irresponsible and dangerous. Really? I thought that risking one’s life for another, especially one’s own child, was the ultimate expression of love. In fact, if parents didn’t risk their lives to save the life of their born child, most in our society would deem them to be irresponsible—at the very least.
Even the pro-abortion editorial board of the New York Times called the protest of this ad by abortion advocates “puzzling and dismaying.” In an official editorial titled “Super Bowl Censorship” the Times said abortion advocates are making “a lame attempt to portray the ad as life-threatening.” Those “would-be sensors” who “argue that even a mild discussion of such a divisive issue has no place in the marketing extravaganza known as the Super Bowl… are on the wrong track,” the editorial says.
Pro-lifers should be encouraged by these frantic efforts of abortion activists to censor a life-affirming message. It is another strong indication that they are on defense and worried about public opinion moving against abortion. And when abortion activists can’t even celebrate a mother who made a life-affirming choice, it’s proof positive that they are “pro-abortion” not “pro-choice.”
Last Friday, on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s abortion rulings (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton), I attended the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. I joined thousands of others (one estimate was 300,000) in publicly witnessing against these rulings which legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and for virtually any reason.
The most powerful observation I had was how many young people participated in the March and its related events. On the morning of the March I attended a rally and Mass organized by Father Damien Cook, pro-life director for the Archdiocese of Omaha.
The event was attended by the 350 students and chaperones that Father Cook brought to the March in six buses! It was also attended by students and chaperones from four other dioceses in Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Ohio.
Roughly 1,300 people rocked the gym of Bishop McNamara Catholic High School in suburban Washington, D.C. The students were entertained and pumped up by a seminarian band, and by a bunch of innovative pro-life cheers that could only come from 20+ hours on a bus!
Following the rally, Archbishop George Lucas from Omaha and Bishop Michael Jackels from Wichita concelebrated a beautiful and holy Mass with numerous concelebrating priests. As I surveyed the crowd of teens singing, chanting and then praying with enthusiasm for the pro-life cause, I couldn’t help but get emotional.
It was an enormous gift of hope and encouragement for the future of the pro-life movement to witness this event. And this hope and encouragement was magnified by the fact that tens of thousands of other students were doing the same thing at the Verizon Center in D.C. as well as other venues around the area.
This enthusiasm for the pro-life cause spilled into the streets and National Mall leading up to the U.S. Capitol and Supreme Court. Prior to the start of the March, I positioned myself in a place where I could observe the marchers before jumping in with one of the Nebraska groups. The experience was breathtaking.
The first line of marchers came by about 2:15. Imagine the entire street filled with people, shoulder to shoulder. The packed line of marchers filed by me for more than an hour and a half before I finally jumped in. And there were still thousands of people behind me.
The unmistakable characteristic of the marchers was their youth. The vast majority of marchers were teens and young adults. Although, as usual, most of the secular media largely ignored the March and its youthful composition, Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney noticed it. Here is an excerpt from his story: “I went to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn’t it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What’s more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn’t going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future. How wrong I was.
“The antiabortion movement feels it’s gaining strength, even if it’s not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous. In this case, I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come.”
I have written many times about the current generation of teenagers and young adults (Generation Y) and its strong pro-life inclinations. This was on clear display at the March for Life. It is also, I believe, reflected in the declining number of abortions—especially among teenagers. And, I believe it is one of the reasons why Pope John Paul II said that the 21st Century would be a “springtime in the Church.”
Finally, those unable to go to D.C. for the national March for Life can stand up for life by attending the pro-life Mass and Walk for Life this Saturday, Jan. 30 in Lincoln. Archbishop George Lucas from Omaha and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz will concelebrate a 9 a.m. Mass for Life at St. Mary Church (14th and K). The Walk for Life follows at 10 a.m. across the street on the west steps of the State Capitol.
Thirty-seven years ago today, the United States Supreme Court rocked our nation by declaring the killing of unborn children through abortion to be a fundamental Constitutional right. The aftermath is nothing short of catastrophic.
Since Jan. 22, 1973, well more than 50 million unborn babies have been killed by abortion in the U.S (more than 170,000 in Nebraska). Millions of mothers have been wounded psychologically, relationally, spiritually and physically. Millions more—fathers, grandparents, siblings, friends—have been wounded and our collective conscience as a society has been numbed by this unparalleled destruction and dehumanization of innocent human life.
In a February 1994 brief to the Supreme Court, Mother Teresa said “America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.
“It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts-a child-as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered domination over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.
“And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.”
In 1995, Pope John Paul II also addressed the serious and unique challenge of abortion in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae. He explained that among the myriad of attacks against human life throughout history, abortion represents “another category of attacks affecting life” and presents “new characteristics with respect to the past and which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness.”
“It is not only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer to be considered as ‘crimes,’” John Paul said, “paradoxically they assume the nature of ‘rights’ to the point that the state is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel.
“Such attacks strike human life at the time of its greatest frailty, when it lacks any means of self-defense. Even more serious is that fact that, most often those attacks are carried out in the very heart of and with the complicity of the family…which by its nature is called to be the ‘sanctuary of life.’” (EV #11)
On this anniversary of Roe, it is important to remember that reversing Roe is not the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement. In fact, making abortion illegal is not our ultimate goal. Making abortion unthinkable is our ultimate goal.
To reach this goal, we certainly must address the injustices and behaviors that result in the killing of unborn children. This includes promoting adoption, ensuring that mothers who choose to parent a child have the resources they need, insisting that employers and educational institutions don’t force mothers to choose between children and socio-economic development.
And, as John Paul said in Evangelium Vitae (#97): “It is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not help the young to accept and experience sexuality and love and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection… The trivialization of sexuality is among the principal factors which have led to contempt for new life. Only a true love is able to protect life.”
To make abortion unthinkable we must address all of these matters. But even if doing so would eliminate the incidence of abortion, justice would still demand that unborn human beings be recognized and protected as full persons in our laws. For this to happen, Roe must go.
Making medical decisions about our care or the care of a loved one, with fidelity to our Catholic faith, can be among the toughest decisions we’ll make in our lives. And as medical technology advances and the baby boom generation ages, the frequency of such decision is likely to increase.
Fortunately, the Catholic Church, through its bishops, provides the moral guidance we need to make medical treatment decisions in accord with our responsibility as Christians. For example, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, which represents the mutual interests of the Bishops of Nebraska, issued a document many years ago entitled “Medical-Treatment Decisionmaking: Moral Guidance and Considerations from Catholic Teaching.”
The document’s introduction presents the basic foundation for our moral obligation to be responsible stewards of our lives:
“The Catholic Church affirms the sanctity and dignity of every human life as a precious gift of a loving God. All men and women must respect the lives of others while accepting the duties of responsible stewardship for their own lives and for the lives in their care.
“At the same time, however, faith in the resurrection and hope for eternal life have enabled the Catholic tradition to accept death as the inevitable end to temporal life and to believe that death is the gateway to eternal life. It is for this reason that there is no obligation to utilize all possible medical interventions, all possible means of prolonging life. Death need not be avoided at all costs.
“Although Catholic teaching does not look upon biological life as an absolute value, nevertheless it rejects suicide, assisted suicide and mercy killing because they are intrinsically opposed to the reverence for life that Christians are called upon to manifest and express. Compassion and care for dying and seriously ill or disabled persons must never include the willingness to assist in the direct ending of their lives.”
In other words, by applying Catholic teaching on the meaning of life, suffering and death to the use of life-sustaining technology we can avoid two extremes: withholding or withdrawing technology with the intention of causing death on the one hand, and insisting on useless or disproportionately burdensome treatment to avoid death at all costs on the other hand.
Presumably, most decisions that individuals or families must make about whether to utilize or forego medical treatment fall somewhere between the extremes. Therefore, the document provides this basic moral principle to assist us in determining whether a medical intervention is morally required or morally optional:
“If a particular medical intervention is necessary or useful for the preservation of life or restoration of health, it is ethically ordinary and there is a moral obligation to use it. If, however, a particular medical intervention is analyzed and judged by the patient to be useless (offering no reasonable hope of benefit) or excessively burdensome, it is ethically extraordinary and therefore morally optional.”
A particularly vexing question that has garnered much attention since the tragic killing of Terri Schiavo is whether to provide artificially-administered nutrition and hydration (ANH) to patients in a so-called “persistent vegetative state”. The Church has a longstanding teaching, reflected in several documents, that nutrition and hydration should be provided as part of any patient’s normal care, even when the assistance of medical intervention is necessary. This obligation, however, does not apply if the provision of ANH is clinically useless or causes excessive burdens to the patient.
This teaching, specifically applied to persons in a so-called persistent vegetative state, was confirmed in a 2004 allocution by Pope John Paul II. In an address to participants at the International Congress on “Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State”, John Paul said that “the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.”
As a result of John Paul’s allocution, last November the U.S. Bishops revised their document “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” to say this: “In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in…the ‘persistent vegetative state’” unless such provision becomes useless or “excessively burdensome for the patient”.
The Catholic Conference’s document is available online at www.nebcathcon.org. The document, along with sample healthcare power of attorney forms, can also be obtained from my office.
For weeks Sen. Ben Nelson assured the pro-life community that he wouldn’t support a health care bill unless it contained longstanding federal policy that prohibits funding of abortion and health plans that cover abortion. He even provided some leadership by introducing an amendment to the Senate’s healthcare bill that, had it been adopted, would have accomplished that goal.
Before and after that failed amendment, the pro-life movement thanked and encouraged Sen. Nelson for his seemingly firm resolution in predicating his support for the healthcare bill (at least in large part) on it prohibiting funding of abortions and health plans that cover abortion.
In the end, on Dec. 19, he capitulated to pressure by the Democratic leadership and embraced abortion funding language that would expand the federal government’s role of enabling abortions and force citizens to pay for others’ abortions.
In a statement issued that same day, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said that this new abortion language “does not seem to allow purchasers who exercise freedom of choice or of conscience to ‘opt out’ of abortion coverage in federally subsidized health plans that include such coverage.
“Instead it will require purchasers of such plans to pay a distinct fee or surcharge which is extracted solely to help pay for other people’s abortions. Further, the government agency that currently manages health coverage for federal employees will promote and help subsidize multi-state health plans that include elective abortions, contrary to longstanding law governing this agency.”
Nelson defends his language by claiming it will at least prevent federal funds from paying directly for abortions. But his claim is based on a flimsy bookkeeping gimmick which would require all who enroll in a plan that covers abortion (not just those who want abortion coverage) to make a separate payment into an account that will pay for abortions.
This provision means that Americans could be forced to choose between a health plan that doesn’t cover abortions but doesn’t fit their needs and a plan that fits their needs but forces them to make a separate payment specifically to pay for other people’s abortions. That would be a deplorable situation for pro-life Americans.
The Bishops of Nebraska also issued a statement following Sen. Nelson’s vote expressing disappointment and urging opposition to the bill as it stands now. “We are extremely disappointed in Senator Ben Nelson’s decision to accept language in the Senate health care bill that would expand the federal government’s role of enabling abortions and force citizens to pay for others’ abortions,” the Bishops said.
“Senator Nelson gave numerous public assurances that he would insist on abortion-funding language consistent with longstanding federal policies,” the Bishops continued. “Unfortunately, the language he accepted for the so-called ‘manager’s amendment’ fails to fulfill these assurances.” The Bishops concluded that “given its serious problems with abortion funding, this Senate bill should be opposed.”
Now that the Senate passed its healthcare bill, the next step would normally be for a “conference committee” (appointed representatives from the House and Senate) to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills and then send a final bill back to both Houses for a final vote. This will likely happen in early January.
Thanks to Congressman Bart Stupak and a coalition of 39 pro-life House Democrats, the House bill has strong language that prohibits funding of elective abortions and health plans that cover abortion. Congressman Stupak expressed strong opposition to Sen. Nelson’s abortion funding language and said that he and his coalition of pro-life Democrats will oppose the final healthcare bill if it doesn’t include the Stupak language.
Please pray and fast that Congressman Stupak and his coalition will not capitulate to a likely full-court press by the Democratic leadership pressuring them to abandon their pro-life language. And, if you haven’t already, I urge you to express your disappointment (respectfully) to Sen. Nelson for embracing unacceptable abortion funding language and to urge him to oppose the final bill unless it contains the House bill’s Stupak language.
