The Good, The Bad, And the Ugly

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

The Ugly

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

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

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

“In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.” As a result, the bishops concluded that the “cost is too high” and the “loss too great” to support the Senate bill with its serious flaws.
Sadly, in the closing days before the vote, the Catholic Health Association and a group of nuns announced support for the Senate bill in contradiction of our bishops and based on erroneous claims that the bill does not fund abortions. This dissent from our shepherds undoubtedly contributed to the passage of a deeply flawed bill that many of us fear will be the largest expansion of abortion access and funding since Roe v. Wade.

The Bad

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

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

In the meantime, we must urgently persuade mothers who may be considering abortion due to the loss of prenatal care services to reject this act of violence. My office is working with others to make sure 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.

Post A Question

All Questions are answered by a priest of the Diocese of Lincoln and published on the Southern Nebraska Register.