ePub 版

c. continues to support the establishment of medically sound, easily available, and low-cost abortion services * * *

e. supports legislation to repeal abortion laws not in harmony with this statement and encourages responsible groups working for such repeal.

It is important to note that as far back as 1970 the national meeting of the United Presbyterian women's organization of our denomination, representing over 350,000 women also supported repeal of laws restricting abortion in an unanimous vote at their national meeting. They resolved that

1. All abortion should be voluntary. The decision for or against abortion should be without legal encumbrance so that women and physicians and pastors or other counselors may be able to exercise their individual best judgment;

2. Abortion by licensed physicians be subject only to the general laws regulating medical licensure and practice, and not to special criminal penalties;

3. Present laws regulating abortion which do not confrom to such criteria be repealed; and

4. Abortion services be made available to all women regardless of economic status. Our judgment concerning the rights of women in these resolutions stems in part from an awareness that women throughout the history of our country have contributed to the strength of our people. They have originated and participated in a number of the great institutions and movements of our country: our schools, churches, charities, governments and the voluntary efforts for equality, peace, and equal justice. The United Presbyterian Church supports and is committed to secure for women the full rights and privileges of citizens for fair and equal justice and treatment before the law. Support of legislative actions and judicial decisions to secure abortion rights for women is seen to be a part of this effort.

United Presbyterians took these positions in support of abortion rights because we were concerned with the effect which restrictive legislation had upon women, children, families and upon the society at large. A brief review will underline the concern Presbyterians have had for the value of human life and wholeness with respect to this issue. When New York and California changed earlier restrictive statutes to new statutes which allowed safe, legal abortions there were significant effects within these States.

The largest cause of maternal deaths-illegal abortion-declined from 5.3 per 10,000 births in 1969 to 2.6 in 1972 in New York.

Admission to hospitals for “botched” abortions in San Francisco was reduced from 68 in 1967 to 22 in 1969.

Infants put out for adoption or abandoned at a large New York City hospital declined from 14.9 infants per 1,000 deliveries to 6.6 infants.

Out-of-wedlock births in New York were reduced from 21.4 percent in 1970 to 12 percent in 1971.

In the 2 years abortions have been legal in New York City the Health Services Administration estimated that the decline in unwanted births to public assistance recipients saved the city some $15 million.

A recent study in New York showed that out of 10 legal abortions performed, 7 would have been done under unsafe and hazardous conditions even if abortions had been illegal.

Statements of the United Presbyterian Church bear witness to the belief that motherhood should be a choice of free citizens and that women have a right to bear children when they are prepared in their own view to undertake this responsibility. Forced motherhood is not the basis on which a democratic society can function. It is against the best interests of children, women, the family, and the society itself. Only tyrannies insist that women must bear children as a duty they owe as citizens.

Furthermore, the positions of the General Assemblies of the United Presbyterian Church recognize there are competing rights within the situation of pregnancy: The rights of women, other family members, and the medical care personnel-but, the person most responsible for the consequences of the pregnancy, the woman, is the proper person to make the decision. Few women make an abortion decision without careful and soul-searching thought.

United Presbyterians know that a variety of Biblical and theological views on abortion have traditionally been held by people throughout history and across diverse religious communions. Significant and contradictory views of sincere religious groups with respect to abortion are found in our country. While the General Assemblies of the United Presbyterian Church support safe and legal abortions, we know that some religious groups and their members believe that abortion is against their theological understandings. We regret the confusion and the sometimes heated debate between religious groups on abortion. It is important to note, however, that the Supreme Court decisions of January 22, 1973 on abortion do not force any person to violate a religious principle or moral law but allow each woman to decide on the basis of her personal religious or moral belief whether to continue or to abort a pregnancy. These decisions coerce no one and establish equal freedom of choice for all. On the other hand, the proposed constitutional amendments would compel women to bear children against their consciences and force particular religious and moral standards on every citizen.

In conclusion, let me briefly review some of the possible consequences of approval of the constitutional amendments against abortion rights:

1. The proposed amendments would severely limit the right of women citizens to privacy and equal justice under the law by removing their freedom to make decisions about their own bodies when they are pregnant. This is a most serious erosion of our individual freedom.

2. These amendments would cause return to the hazards and tragedies of illegal abortions, high maternal death rates, unequal treatment of poor women, unplanned large families, an increase in abandoned and abused children, and an increase in public assistance costs. In addition, severe laws would again be permitted with criminal penalties for women who feel they must prevent childbirth. To approve these constitutional amendments would create greater problems than it solves.

3. Severe stress between religious groups would result if either of these constitutional amendments come to the States for ratification. Because religious people hold deep and contrary views about their theology and abortion, the harmony of our religious institutions will be disrupted as persons on each side of this question marshal their

arguments and prepare as citizens to influence each State legislature. The ecumenical movement will be tragically fractured.

4. Finally, the effect on American communities will be divisive. Where church members have strongly differing views about abortion, the State-by-State ratification of these proposed amendments will erode the mutual respect and goodwill upon which our democracy is built.

On behalf of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., I affirm the belief that freedom of personal choice in problem pregnancies is better than a return to uncontrollable illegal abortions and maternal deaths. I support the Supreme Court rule which allows safe and legal abortions on the decision of the woman. I oppose the proposed amendments as a serious infringement on the rights of women to plan their families, and the rights of all persons to realize a full and healthy life and to increase the public well-being.

I urge this subcommittee to turn back these attempts to amend the Constitution and reduce valuable privacy and responsible freedom in our society.

Senator Bays. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I would like to ask a question or two if I might.

You came down pretty hard on the issue of concern over implementing, within the confines of the Constitution, the religious beliefs of one particular religious sect. Is that really a fair assessment of the opposition to abortion?

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe, Mr. Chairman, if you read the statement, that I have not attributed the views opposing those which I expressed to any one particular sect. I recognize they are held by many religious persons, and it would be the imposition of those views, upon the rest of the citizenry who hold the contrary view.

Senator Bayn. I just thought you had stressed rather strongly that this was imposing the beliefs of one religious group upon everybody else.

Mr. THOMPSON. This was certainly not my intention. If I gave you that impression, I regret it. I have reread my testimony, and I believe that my intenton is clearly stated in there.

Senator Bayu. The full freedom of personal choice is an interesting question. Is it prudent to impose any limitations, in your judgment, on abortion? Is there a time beyond which it would not be wise to have an abortion ?

Mr. THOMPSON. The position of my church does not make any distinction between one time as compared with another.

Senator Bayh. How about William Thompson?

Mr. THOMPSON. My own personal view? As a lawyer, I support the position of the Supreme Court. I think it is judicially sound. My church's position is much further beyond that.

Senator Bayh. So you feel the Court's three-trimester distinction makes sense to you from a legal standpoint ?

Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct and is historically based upon common law developed over the past century or so.

Senator Bays. The right to privacy, of course, is one of our basic rights. The Court decision commented on the right to privacy of the mother. Cardinal Krol today responded to a question I directed to

him with the following statement: “that the right to privacy of one individual has never been protected if it required itself the taking of a life of another individual." As a lawyer, what is your professional opinion on this statement ?

Mr. THOMPSON. I heard the cardinal's testimony. I think in this particular area that so much depends on how we define our terms.

The Supreme Court in its majority opinion said that the right of privacy includes the right of free choice in the case of an abortion, and it defines the right of the mother to make such a free choice as a part of the right to privacy projected to her under the laws of our land. If we define the fetus as a human being, which these amendments would do as a matter of constitutional provision, then we would come out where Cardinal Krol does. If on the other hand, we define the right of privacy as including the right to decide whether or not one would have an abortion, then we come out on the side the Supreme Court does. My own view accords with that of the Supreme Court.

Senator Bayi. I suppose there is a great temptation to determine where an individual wants to go and figure out how he gets there.

Mr. THOMPSOX. That is the hazard. I think that is characteristic of much argument, certainly in this field in which we are now engaged.

Senator Bayh. One of the most, if not the most, fundamental disagreement, of course, is, when does life begin? Do you care to say anything further relative to your views as to when life is really constituted ?

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, let me again state the position of my church. In the view of my church, this is a question that need not be determined, because the position of my church is that an abortion should be a matter of choice for the entire period of pregnancy.

If you are asking me personally, my personal view, I share the views expressed by Mr. Justice Clark in the Law Review article, which I quoted and which Mr. Justice Douglas quoted in his concurring opinion.

Senator BAYH. Your closing concern about fragmenting the ecumenical movement, can you tell how, without violating the rights of all of our citizens to be heard in legislative halls, there is not going to be some significant development of ecumenical differences now after the Court's case?

Mr. THOMPSON. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we all recognize that there are differences within the Christian church, using that term in the most inclusive sense. There are certainly differences of opinion within the United Presbyterian Church. But to create situations in which those differences of opinion are aired publicly is to do a disservice, it seems to me, to the unity of the church unless the particular discussion is absolutely essential.

Now, it seems to me that the arguments against submitting these amendments to the States for ratification are overpowering. But in the event that they are submitted to the States for ratification, one un forunate result will be that we will have a public forum in which the differing views of persons will be expressed with great emotional intensity, and the result will be an adverse effect upon the rather fragile ecumenical movement.

Senator Bayir. I am sure that is happening now. There have been some who have suggested the way to keep this from happening is to just not have any hearings.

But that seems to me then to jeopardize the basic concept of free expression.

Mr. THOMPSON. I quite agree with you. I certainly do not wish to be understood as being critical of this subcommittee.

Senator BAYI. Oh, go right ahead. I did not bring that up to criticize either. I just wanted to get your view.

Mr. TIIOMPSON. Quite the contrary, I think it is very important that the subcommittee hear the views of people on all sides of the issue. And it seems to me that the substantive arguments against the proposing of the amendments are very convincing.

I merely mention that one of the effects of submitting the amendments to the States for ratification will be this adverse effect upon the ecumenical relationships that have developed.

Senator BAYH. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. I do not think there is any need to delay you further. I appreciate your contribution and that of your church.

I understand that our next witness, Dr. Robert Moss, the president of the United Church of Christ, is unable to be here; and Dr. Howard E. Spragg, executive vice president of the board for homeland ministries of the United Church of Christ, is not able to be here with us. But we have Rev. Sidney Lovett, Jr., and Mr. Tilford Dudley present who will present his statement.



Reverend LOVETT. Mr. Chairman

Senator BAYH. Reverend Lovett and Mr. Dudley. I want to apologize for the lateness of the hour, which was something we did not anticipate. We should have but we did not.

Reverend LOVETT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the United Church of Christ I want to thank you for your openness and willingness to extend the hour and your patience and wisdom. I shall be very brief, abridging the message from our denomination for your consideration.

My name is Sidney Lovett and as the elected conference minister of the Central Atlantic Conference of the United Church of Christ, I am appearing today on behalf of Dr. Robert Moss, president for our denomination and the Rev. Howard Spragg, executive vice president of the board for homeland ministries of the United Church of Christ both of whom were unable to be here at this time.

I would like to have their statement entitled “Freedom of Choice Concerning Abortion” submitted into the record.

Senator BAYH. Without objection. [Statement of Robert V. Moss and Dr. Howard E. Spragg follows:]


CHURCH OF CHRIST ON "FREEDOM OF CHOICE CONCERNING ABORTION" This statement is submitted by the Rev. Dr. Robert V. Moss, President of the United Church of Christ, and the Rev. Dr. Howard E. Spragg, Executive Vice President of the Board for Homeland Ministries of the United Church of Christ.

« 上一頁繼續 »