RELATED STORIES Anti-Abortion PACs Target NU Regents Fetal Cells Studied at NU Med Center RELATED LINKS UNMC Gov. Mike Johanns

Predictably, anti-abortion activists are insisting on total surrender by the University of Nebraska in the controversy over use of fetal-cell tissue in Alzheimer's disease research at the NU Medical Center.

Less predicable was the fact that a leading role would be played by Gov. Mike Johanns in the ranks of those asserting that major concessions made by the university are not enough, insisting that they will be satisfied only with total victory for their point of view.

"We're right. You're wrong. Public policy for the State of Nebraska and its university must be totally consistent with our moral/religious beliefs in regard to this issue." That, I believe, is a fair paraphrase of the viewpoint that characterizes most of the opposition to the university's position.

In this space earlier this month I wrote that amid the clamor of criticism, Governor Johanns had been one of those expressing "some sounds of reason." The governor had expressed "grave concern" over the research, but a spokesman for his office said it was a matter of difference of philosophy and "funding for the university is not in danger over this."

Nothing in those statements prepared the public for what Johanns said more recently, after university officials had announced that whenever possible they would use alternate sources of research material, such as miscarriages, instead of cells from elective abortions. The university also announced that an outside ethics advisory panel would be appointed and all research involving human fetal tissue would be put through a full internal review.

I think it is reasonable to say that these were significant concessions. But not enough, quickly declared Governor Johanns and like-minded abortion opponents.

Johanns said he's not going to lead an effort to cut the university budget. (Would this leave the door open to supporting somebody else's effort?) But, the governor said, he is "going to use the bully pulpit any way that I can" to advance this bottom-line goal: "I want the research not fueled by the product of abortions, period."

I wonder if the governor has considered that the bully pulpit - the office of governor - is really owned by all the people of Nebraska and he is borrowing it for what may be no longer than three more years. Surely a good many Nebraskans who supported Johanns did not understand that he would use the office as a platform for advocating "any way that I can" his personal views in a controversial matter that calls for leadership which seeks rational resolution, not leadership that seeks total victory consistent with the leader's personal feelings.

Another comment from the governor, following the University Board of Regents' unanimous vote in support of continuing the restructured fetal-tissue research program at the Medical Center: "This issue won't go away. There are too many good Nebraskans who are very disturbed by the use of an abortion clinic to fuel the research."

The governor should understand that there are many "good Nebraskans" on the other side of the issue, too, including a good many who voted for him with the expectation that he would represent all Nebraskans.

The suggestion that abortion opponents are "good Nebraskans" who occupy the moral high ground in this controversy is reflected also in critical letters that have been written to me following my earlier column on the subject. I wrote that the current state of the law and national public policy are that abortions are legal and there is a federally authorized program for the use of tissue from legally aborted fetuses for research designed to relieve human suffering.

The most common themes in the critical letters that have come my way are these: God's law supersedes man's law, anything connected with abortion in any way is evil and the issue should be decided on the basis of morals and ethics, not the rule of law.

The clear implication is that those who reject anything connected with abortion are morally and ethically right and those who approve the Medical Center research are morally and ethically wrong. (Incidentally, I know a number of supporters of the Medical Center research who are not abortion advocates.)

Can't other good Nebraskans listen to the arguments of the opponents of the Medical Center's research policy and still conscientiously conclude that, by their own moral and ethical standards, the university is pursuing a proper public policy, especially after making the major concessions recently announced?

Isn't there more than a little "holier than thou" self-righteousness in the implication that one's own moral and ethical standards are loftier than the moral and ethical standards of others, especially when the issue is controversial and opinions on both sides are conscientiously held?

Among the definitions of "moral" my dictionary offers is this: "Based upon inner conviction . . . virtual rather than actual, immediate or completely demonstrable . . . sanctioned by or operating upon one's conscience or ethical judgment." When there is no consensus on a controversial issue, how can a group claim that their "inner convictions," sincerely and conscientiously held as they may be, must be accepted as the moral and ethical basis for establishing public policy?

Governor Johanns has predicted that the issue will be debated by the Legislature in 2000. I hope that rather than adding fuel to the fire of controversy, he might decide to use the "bully pulpit" to win public recognition of the major concessions the University has made - concessions which, I believe, a good many Nebraskans feel should resolve the research issue in a way that gives total victory to neither side.

Speaking of the reaction to my earlier column, the letters have been mostly critical, and the personal comments, made to me by people around the community, have been strongly supportive.

I welcome the reaction, pro or con, even when a critic accuses me of saying things I didn't say, such as the accusation that I believe that "anything medical science can do is appropriate." I don't believe that.

Especially interesting to me was one statement in a letter from a western Nebraska pastor who was critical of my position. He wrote, among other things:

"If those favoring the research have the right to use the law in order to continue, those against it have the right to seek to change the law."

Amen to that. The right to seek to change the law, of course, but not the right to impose their views as a matter of public policy despite the law.

The pastor also suggested that I don't understand "the basic difference between what is legal and what is ethical."

I certainly do understand the difference. What I don't understand is why I should agree to let someone impose his ethical standards on me and the rest of the public in a controversy where good people on either side of the issue conscientiously hold sharply different views of the ethics of the issue.

* * *

A couple who moved from Omaha some years ago but have kept in touch with their friends here sent a holiday greeting to Marian and me which noted that the closing weeks of the century have featured countless lists selecting the millennium's "Hundred Greatest Whatevers." They went on to say that their holiday greeting card would serve to inform us that we have made their list of "One Hundred Greatest Friends."

This being the season of good will and that sort of thing, I'm resisting the temptation to call this gregarious couple of longtime friends and ask them how many copies of that card they had mailed out.

The writer, retired publisher of The World-Herald, may be reached at P.O. Box 27347, Omaha, Neb., 68127. The telephone number is (402) 593-4553.