his safest refuge, how much more abominable ought it to be considered to kill a fetus in the womb who has not yet been brought into the light." History clearly establishes that the position which is so often dismissed as "The Catholic Church" is actually the historic position of protestantism as well. As for Protestant thinking on abortion since Luther and Calvin one must observe that in general non-Catholic Christianity there was never in the formative generations any explicit or reasoned disavowal of anything in the Catholic view on abortion. The literature of the English reformation reveals an occasional reference to abortion. Richard Baxter, one of the better known Puritans, refers to abortion in the context of murder. John Weemse, of Scotland, commented on Exodus 21: 22-23 under the title "De Infanticido, of the killing of an infant in the mother's womb." He not only appeals to Scripture, but formulates anew the touching appeal to a sense of decency:

"It is a great cruelty to kill the child in the mother's belly, to kill this innocent in his first mansion, which should have been the place of his refuge; the shelter, in which he is wrapped in his mother's belly, is called Shiloh, because (as the Hebrews say) the young infant should live peaceably in it, in his mother's womb, as in the a place of refuge."

Weemse's treatise is evidence that the traditional Catholic position regarding abortion would find strong defenders in the Protestant branch of modern Christianity. From the evidence available in the Protestant tradition we can see that the Calvinists tended to maintain the received morality in all its force and the Lutheran moral theologians of the seventeeth century took a more rigoristic view of the matter than that espoused even by Roman Catholic moralists of the same period. A good example is Johaan Osiander in 1680. He stressed his treatise on the Fifth Commandment along traditional lines, stressing that the Old Testament proctetion of the life of man, as an image of God, is still valid. With regard to abortion, Osiander asks: "Whether a pregnant woman can conscientiously take a medicine of which the fetus will probably perish?" The answer is negative, on the ground that this is killing forbidden by God under the Fifth Commandment. In America the same tradition was maintained in the writings of Colonial ministers. An example is a brief reference in a treatise by Benjamin Wadsworth, where obortion is maintained as an additional mode by which some violate "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Poisoners violate the divine Command: "And so do those, who purposely endeavor to destroy the life of a child in the womb, whether the woman herself or another, does it." By the latter part of the nineteenth century cvil law was not providing an effective barrier against the increasing practice of abortion. Concerned Protestants took the occasion to reiterate the tradi tional doctrine. Dr. John Todd, a Protestant minister in Boston, wrote in 1867 that his fellow Christians must make a more serious effort to teach the evils of abortion. For Todd, abortion is "deliberate, cold murder" and incurs the full moral guilt of murder. In 1869 both Episcopal and Presbyterian public statements were made declaring that abortion was the killing of life. In the same year in a report to the Pennsylvania medical society Dr. Andrew Lebinger urged the Protestant churches to instruct people on three points: that the unborn is human at all stages, that it has a right to life, and that killing is murder in the Biblical sense.

Mr. Chairman, the stifling of this Protestant tradition has been a slow process and only in recent decades have the churches begun officially to approve what they had traditionally rejected. The 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Bishops of the Church of England recorded its abhorrence of the sinful practice of abortion. As recently as 1950 a Committee of the same Conference reaffirmed the traditional teaching on abortion stating, "In the strongest terms, Christians reject the practice of induced abortion, or infanticide, which involves the killing of a life already conceived." Yet by 1967 and 1968 the Episcopal Church and American Baptists, respectively, were calling for relaxation of the laws and the jettisoning of the traditional Protestant position.

I have only referred to a few sample statements and evidence to establish, without contradiction, the historical fact that is being ignored in the debate on this issue-anti-abortion conviction is Protestant as well as Catholic. Nevertheless, it is true that Protestant ministers are not conspicuously identified in the eyes of legislators, physicians, psychiatrists, and social workers with the highly articulated position on abortion commonly associated with Catholics. In seeking to ascertain the reason for the marked difference between the well-defined Protestant position of history and that espoused today by many spokesmen for those denominations I quote from an excellent article written by Professor George Williams of the Harvard University Divinity School:

"In the first place, Protestants from the outset, by returning to Scripture as sole authority in religion, tended to exclude centuries of tradition as normative, cutting themselves off from much of the aforementioned patristic texts against abortion in the Greco-Roman environment. In the second place, "In the nineteenth century the social idealism of post-revivalist Protestantism also passed by the problem of abortion of the fetus as the clergy turned successively to various groupings of more visibly disadvantaged persons-slaves, children engaged in prematurely heavy labor, immigrant laborers, and finally disenfranchised women. The involvement of the liberal Protestant clergy in the women's rights movement and the political and then the full cultural and economic disenfranchisement of women must be set down as another factor in the conspicuous present-day concern of many ministers for the complete autonomy of the mother and the protection of her from an "unwanted child". Thus taken together, both the social gospel and Protestant individualism comprise a factor in the extreme feminism which has promoted in some religiously Protestant women a self-righteous indifference about the destiny of the fetus in their overriding preoccupation with the “dignity of woman" as a sovereign individual who should not be socially enthralled by motherhood.

In the revolt of woman against sex servitude, the right of abortion is often understood as the final step in her enfranchisement, all in the conviction that no woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not become a mother.

Present day Protestant involvement

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the “myth” of Catholic concern in abortion restriction must be exploded in the face of the overwhelming evidence of involvement by non-Catholic religious groups. I have already made reference to some Baptist pronouncements and we have here today spokesmen for others as well. Since the formation of "Baptists for Life" I have received cards, letters, telegrams, and telephone calls from Maine to California, Minnesota to Florida. Not from Board and agency spokesmen, but the men and women who make up the membership of the local churches. Before I left Texas Tuesday I received a check for $400 to help in the work of "Baptists for Life." That check came from a Baptist physician in Austin whom I have never met or spoken to-he said he was grateful to learn that a voice was being given for Baptists in the life issues and he wanted to share in it. While receiving a telegram communication some time ago from a teletype operator I was surprised when she broke the usual professional conversation to ask "Do you think you can do any good in this fight?" She then expressed her concern over the slaughter of the unborn and requested that I put her on the mailing list of "Baptists for Life.”

I do not believe there can be found in America today a more zealous and committed group of Christians espousing the prolife philosophy than the millions of Baptists in the Independent churches. Because of their lack of central organization on a national level their voice is often neglected but I would hazard the opinion that the pastors of these vigorous and rapidly growing churches are "anti-abortion" to the man. Being Biblical conservatives, they have a deep conviction of the sanctity of life.

Mr. Chairman, testimony before this Committee has stated that opinions concerning abortion which are grounded in "religious" convictions should have no hearing because it would be a violation of the first Amendment. But such arguments block the path to reasonable examination of the current proposals regarding a Human Life Amendment. The argument should be concerned with sound public policy; instead, proponents of abortion divert attention to the religious convictions of many in the opposition. The assumption seems to be that a publicpolicy position grounded in religious conviction is automatically ruled out of consideration without any hearing on its merits. Surely, the sincere convictions of Roman Catholics, Baptists, and all the others should not be tossed out of the public forum because they are theologically grounded.

The movement for the abolition of slavery (and the contemporary continuation in the fight against racial discrimination) was largely religious in inspiration owing a great deal, epescially, to liberal Protestant leadership. But the conviction of those seeking racial equality was not systematically brushed aside merely because of their religious source, this position amounts to asserting that citizens who have moral convictions are entitled to invoke the law to enforce these convictions only if they are grounded in the religious ideology of secular humanism, but not if they are grounded in a theological view. This position is clearly absurd

as presented yesterday by Congresswoman Bella Abzug. The U.S. Constitution forbids the establishment of any religion in order to allow for the freedom of all in this most important matter. But the Constitution does not justify a religious ideology in their claim to a prior right in the formation of public policy. May I remind this Committee that the Supreme Court has declared "Secular Humanism” a religion in Torcaso v. Watkins. Secular Humanists who demand that public policy be judged solely by utilitarian criteria are attempting to impose their particular "religion" on a pluralistic society, many of whose members still believe in a personal God.

I urge you, gentlemen, to judge this issue on the merits of the case and once and for all let us be done with appeals to bigotry and ignorance.

Mr. Chairman, it was with some surprise that I noted in the official publication of the Church annd Society Committee of the United Methodist Church, Engage/Social Action, Vol. 2 #2, February, 1974, that the group of organizations calling themselves the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights has stated on page 62 (see attached) that they have selected your state, Indiana, for “particular attention . . . to stir support for Senator Bayh, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on constitutional amendments, who's up for re-election."

You may possibly not be aware of this avowed support for your re-election by a proabortion group committed to a position opposing a Human Life Amendment-a group testifying at these hearings. Regardless, I am convinced from hearing you state at the hearing on March 6, that is yesterday, that you desire information to enable you to fully understand the abortion controversy that you will make every effort to grant the American people their right to a full and complete hearing. Therefore, I am requesting that you hold another day of hearings for testimony from those prolife religious leaders denied a time-slot in today's hearings. A number of persons are waiting to testify, including United Presbyterians, Orthodox Presbyterians, Methodists, United Church of Christ, Greek Orthodox, American Association of Evangelicals, American Association of Christian Schools, and others. It is essential that they be heard.

RESOLUTION ON ABORTION

WHEREAS the moral standards of the world have so degenerated as to encourage many of our contemporaries to advocate the destruction of unborn and unwanted children, and

WHEREAS the Scriptures declare the sanctity of human life and repudiate the concept of "abortion on demand,"

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the messengers of the churches of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, gathered in annual conference at Kansas City, Missouri, on June 25-29, 1973, reprove such immorality and abortion and openly declare that murder is murder even if it be called "legalized abortion."

Resolution No. 9, passed by unanimous vote June 27, 1973. (General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, 42nd Annual Conference, June 25-29, 1973, Municipal Auditorium, Kansas City, Mo.)

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.,

March 4, 1974.

Rev. BOB HOLBROOK,
First Baptist Church,

Hallettsville, Tex.

In November 1972 the Baptist General convention of Oklahoma in annual session voted the following on abortion: "We urge our legislator to make no change in the existing laws that would not consider the God-ordained principle of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life or that would lower the moral climate of our state by leading to increased immorality". There are 580,000 Baptists in 1382 churches cooperating with this convention. Be assured of my personal support for legislation or constitutional amendments that would protect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. May God bless you in your efforts.

Joe L. Ingram executive director treasurer Baptist general convention of Oklahoma

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY,
PERKINS SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY,
Dallas, Tex., March 1, 1974.

Rev. ROBERT HOLBROOK,
P.O. Box 394,

Hallettsville, Tex.

DEAR DR. HOLBROOK: I was pleased to hear that you will be able to testify next Wednesday before the Senate Committee considering federal legislation concerning abortion on demand. If it were at all possible, I'd be glad to be there with you, offering my own testimony in support of a reasonable and morally defensible law against cheap and easy abortion.

My own basic concerns with respect to this problem could be boiled down to six barebones theses that might be summarized somewhat as follows:

1. Human life is sacred and, therefore, may not be taken by other humans, with any moral justification, except in cases where such killing is clearly the lesser of two evils. The deliberate ending of any human life must never be regarded as a moral good, or even morally innocent. This applies to abortion, murder, war and even "manslaughter," etc.

2. The origins of human life and personhood are shrouded in mystery: no one knows, or can know, exactly when human life begins and when feticide (or even infanticide for that matter) is murder in the moral sense. But the probabilities are very great that one is dealing with a potential human life at least as soon as the fertilized ovum is stabilized in the uterus (nidification) and maybe even at conception (at the latest when pregnancy can be medically diagnosed). Thus the Supreme Court's division of pregnancy into trimesters and its conclusion that abortion in these successive trimesters is less and less innocuous strikes me as arbitrary, simplistic and morally confused. For if the probability is at all real that feticide involves a human life (or a potential human life) then it is as morally indefensible in the first trimester as in the second or third-or in the first three months of infancy (since not even neonates are fully "human," neurologically speaking, in their first three months of post-uterine life).

3. Abortion, therefore, may, in all probability, involve the killing of a defenseless human being. Its only conceivable justification, therefore, would have to be as the lesser of two evils-i.e., as some sort of "therapeutic abortion," defined very, very cautiously. Abortion cannot be justified as a means of population control or as a relief from maternal distress. It is a life-and-death issue and as between human life and human distress, life is clearly the more nearly ultimate value.

4. A woman's rights with respect to her own body and its uses are "absolute”— up to that point where other human rights are involved. If, therefore, a fetus is a potential person-much as an infant is-then its rights have to be weighed into any decision concerning its mother's rights (exigent as they may be).

5. The case for abortion on demand follows from the same premises as those for euthanasia: i.e., unwanted life may be disposed of by those who do not want it. Thus, legalized abortion, legalized euthanasia, etc. look away from a fully humane society in which the weak are protected from injustice by the law as well as by the moral concerns of sensitive and humane persons.

6. It is misleading to suppose that, among the Christian groups in the USA, only the Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc. are the ones that are opposed to abortion on demand, on moral and religious grounds. As a loyal and devoted United Methodist, I can say with great emphasis that the current "official" position of the United Methodist Church regarding abortion not only does not speak for me but that I regard the process by which this "position" became "official" as being non-representative and morally invalid. It has, therefore, no force or effect as a guide for my conscience or moral judgment-and this is widely and well known. But here I speak for many other United Methodists as well (nobody knows how many there may be since this issue has never been fairly tested throughout the church as a whole). It is, however, my impression and belief that given an honest opportunity to vote for or against a reasonable antiabortion law (i.e., one that disallows abortion on demand but allows, very cautiously, for therapeutic abortion) a majority of United Methodists would vote for it. The case on this point is even clearer with Southern Baptists, Lutherans, the black churches, the pentecostalists, etc. And if this guesstimate of mine is doubted, there is a perfect straightforward democratic way to test the hypothesis. Give the American people an honest and realistic referendum. Why not? Do we mistrust them and their moral judgments or are we content with the present

confusion and one-sidedness of our current abortion legislation and its judicial interpretations as of now?

Thus for many reasons-religious, moral, psychological, sociological, etc.I heartily support a carefully conceived legal referendum that would give the American people a choice that has thus far been denied them by current judicial and legislative processes.

There is much warranted alarm throughout the country over the ominous rise and spread of violence in our American society-and there are many voices raised against it. Yet many of those very same partisans of non-violence are also advocates of one of the most despicable modes of violence there is— violence against the helpless. What fate does a nation in such moral confusion deserve at the hands of a just God?

Very faithfully yours,

ALBERT C. OUTLER.

TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH,
Lubbock, Tex., February 11, 1974.

Rev. ROBERT HOLBROOK,

First Baptist Church,

P.O. Box 394, Hallettsville, Tex.

DEAR BROTHER HOLBROOK: Thank you for your telephone call last week. I have included your suggestion concerning an article in our church paper, and I will send you a copy when it is off the press. Certainly, we stand behind you 100% in this Pro-Life Movement and against abortion. You will find enclosed a number of names and addresses that I am sending you as per your request. I am also sending you, under separate cover, a copy of the directory of the World Baptist Fellowship which gives the names and addresses of churches and pastors in this group. These, of course, will all be conservative preachers, and I think that they would all be against abortion. However, I cannot tell you what kind of reaction that you will get from them as far as giving you any aid or assistance. But, perhaps you would like to mail some of them some of your copies of the publication that you mentioned to me.

If you are interested in a list of pastors and churches who might also be interested in any mail-out material you might have, you can send $2.00 to the Baptist Bible Fellowship International, Box 106, Springfield, Mo. 65802, and they will send you a copy of their directory which lists all of the names and addresses of churches and pastors. Also, you can get the church directory of the General Association of Regular Baptists which is an organization of Fundamentalminded churches by sending $1.50 for the yearbook of the General Association of Regular Baptists. Their address is 1800 Oakton Street, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.

I do trust that your trip to Washington will prove to be successful and that the Congress of the United States will act on the Pro-Life Amendment.

Yours in Christ,

E. L. BYNUM.

NORTH GRAND RIVER BAPTIST ASSOCIATION,
Trenton, Mo., March 2, 1974.

Rev. ROBERT HOLBROOK,
National Right to Life,

1200 15th Street NW., Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHRISTIAN FRIEND: I would like to express to you the fact that the large majority of members of thirty-five Southern Baptist Churches, with a total membership of 8,229, located in North Central Missouri, along with myself, are in opposition to the liberal abortion laws, which have been passed and are now effective in the United States. Not only are they wrong and anti-Christian in our country, but they are also wrong and anti-Christian anywhere else in God's World.

We appreciate the stand you have taken and the efforts that you are making to oppose them. In behalf of both myself and the North Grand River Baptist Association, I would like to encourage you to continue your efforts to awaken the conscience of America of the sinfulness in the sight of God of these evils.

Sincerely,

THOMAS D. HILL.