NELSON, HAGEL AND TERRY GOT IT RIGHT ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

LINCOLN---Nebraska Right to Life today praised the vote of Congressman Lee Terry against the Shays-Meehan campaign reform proposal and added that U.S. Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel are also to be commended for standing firm against the Senate version of the bill.

"We are thankful that Senators Nelson and Hagel and Congressman Terry understand the concerns held by issue advocacy groups such as ours," said Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life. "Shays-Meehan and the McCain-Feingold bill would impose restrictions that would strip our First Amendment right to communicate with the general public via broadcast advertising during election cycles. If these measures had been in place during the partial-birth abortion debate a few years ago, television ads that ran asking pro-lifers to call their Senator about the bill would have been banned."

"How un-American is it for members of Congress to dictate to average citizens how and when they can talk about congressional voting records and issues while at the same time allowing the media free rein?"said Schmit-Albin. "In their quest to address campaign reform many members of Congress feel no compunction in trampling on the rights of citizens and issue advocacy groups, which are noticeably those persons with the least amount of money attempting to influence the political process."

The campaign reform bills would ban citizens groups from sponsoring radio or TV ads that mention a candidate, including any member of Congress, for 30 days before a Primary Election and 60 days before a General Election. In addition, the Shays-Meehan bill raises questions about the legality of a group other than a Federal PAC distributing printed literature publicizing the results of a candidate questionnaire on one or more issues which could establish illicit "coordination" between an advocacy group and a member of Congress.

9/7/01

To: University of Nebraska Board of Regents

Re: Resolution Approving NU Bioethics Advisory Committee Report on Destructive Embryonic Research

From: Julie Schmit-Albin, NRL Executive Director

In December of 1999 pro-life advocates appeared before this board and asked you to stop UNMC’s use of aborted babies for research. At the time I remember invoking the slippery slope argument; that that immoral type of research would lead to further degradation of human life and I asked you, on behalf of thousands of pro-life Nebraskans, to draw a line in the sand. But that line was never drawn. We moved on to the legislative process, time marched on and here we are today, almost two years later, asking you again....when and where are you willing to draw the line?

We were put off with assurances that UNMC was aggressively pursuing alternative sources of tissue, derived from moral means. We heard about attempts to set up programs whereby tissue from miscarried babies could be gathered quickly. We heard that UNMC was throwing money into the pursuit of a rapid autopsy program, again with the goal of garnering tissue from moral means. We heard from State Senators and Regents and UNMC that all that was needed was just a little more time until UNMC could hopefully minimize its dependency on aborted babies’ brains.

When the issue of destructive embryo research began playing out in the media, in Nebraska over a year ago and on the national scene in the past few months; we saw carefully crafted answers from UNMC officials about the likelihood of it happening at UNMC. When asked if UNMC was currently doing embryonic stem cell research the reply from Dr. Berndt in statepaper.com Sept. 15, 2000, was "I know of no plans for anybody to do that." When asked if UNMC might be recruiting a researcher to do embryonic stem cell research, Dr. Berndt said, "I don’t know of anyone on this campus recruiting such an individual." When asked if someone then engaged in such research could come to UNMC on their own, Dr. Berndt said, "I’m telling you honestly I’m not aware of anybody right now, but that is not to preclude somebody coming down the road two, three, five years from now."

When Dr. Howard Gendelman was asked by the Chronicle of Higher Education in its April 6, 2001 issue, if he planned to undertake research on embryonic stem cells, the journal reported "he stiffens and says, ‘That’s nobody’s business right now.’"

During the past legislative session I posed this to a number of senators: "Does not UNMC’s cagey answers on whether they intend to embark on embryonic stem cell research negate all their claims that they are aggressively searching for alternatives to aborted fetal tissue?" Why would UNMC engage in yet another form of research that is morally reprehensible to thousands of Nebraskans?

So from two years ago to today we have come further down the slippery slope that we in the pro-life movement have invoked since 1973 when abortion was legalized. Who knew two years ago or even a year ago that a research firm in Virginia would boast of its goal to clone embryos for the express purpose of killing them for research?

President Smith has already stated that his Bioethics Advisory Committee may well take up the topic of cloning next. What will you do when that committee recommends cloning for research purposes?

On behalf of thousands of pro-life Nebraskans who are opposed to immoral research and who fear that we are now spiraling down that slippery slope faster than anyone could ever imagine, I ask you to consider what your actions will mean one or two years from now when the next moral dilemma in research confronts you.

In addendum to my prepared remarks, I would like to note: I am not confident that UNMC will remain within the framework of the National Institute of Health (NIH) guidelines proposed by President Bush which state research will be conducted on 60 past stem cell lines. I believe that UNMC will attract private funds so they do not have to be constrained by federal guidelines. Interestingly enough, James Thomson, the University of Wisconsin researcher who first isolated embryonic stem cells; had his lab set up with private funds so he did not have to follow NIH guidelines. The source for this was the recent Time magazine article about Dr. Thomsen.

Also, in the Aug. 10, 2001 statepaper.com, Dr. Sam Cohen of UNMC was asked, "Would UNMC scientists seek private funding so they can experiment on cell lines other than the 60 allowed by Bush?" His response was, "I think there will be a large number of decisions that have to be made before that could happen." Again, my concern is that UNMC is very cagey about future plans and always responds in a manner that doesn’t shut the door to anything.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

7/10/01
CONTACT: Julie Schmit-Albin @ 402-770-5433 or 402-489-4802

ELECTED OFFICIALS’ COMING OUT ON DESTRUCTIVE EMBRYO RESEARCH NEED ALL THE FACTS

LINCOLN----President Bush’s impending decision on whether to allow federal funding of destructive human embryonic research has created a frenzy with the national media dispensing much inaccurate information. As such, a number of U.S. Senators and Congressmen have been asked their opinions and some appear to be issuing statements without all the facts at hand, said a spokesperson for Nebraska Right to Life.

"Case in point is Senator Ben Nelson’s unfortunate comment that he would support the destruction of human embryos for research as long as no one profited from it," said Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life (NRL). "We hope that Senator Nelson will reconsider his statement, in light of what he said on our NRL PAC survey during the 2000 election. He said "Yes" when asked the question, "Would you support legislation prohibiting the sale, purchase, research and/or transplantation of fetal tissue from induced abortion?"

"Granted, our PAC survey question was not specifically on the use of embryos from in vitro fertilization, but we hope to make the case to Senator Nelson that he is already on record in opposition to the research and/or transplantation of aborted fetal tissue." said Schmit-Albin. "How can he then support research on human embryonic cells, by stating that,‘ ‘if you put the right kind of safeguards in, the answer is yes...They’re otherwise going to be destroyed.’ as Senator Nelson said in Statepaper.com on 7/10/01. He does not make the same distinction with aborted fetal tissue; which has been one of the common arguments for it."