« 上一頁繼續 »
The last plateau unfortunately has been reached by the Sangerites. This was reached very recently, I would say the early 1970s. This included several things. It included the increased acceptance of population control and birth control legislation. It was reflected in the increase of the movement's structural and financial stability through increased tax subsidies—that is, my tax dollar and your tax dollarthrough its incorporation into the institutions and mores of society.
This action is continuing at many levels, including the indoctrination of young children in the elementary and secondary schools, the mass media, the university teaching centers, technological services provided by researchers, pharmaceutical industries, government agencies at all levels, and professional groups, such as medical societies and foundations.
As I said, the Supreme Court decision was an inevitable one. All of the cliches of that decision, terms like "unwanted children," terms like "a woman's right to control her own body," terms referring to the "population explosion,” all stem basically from this same Sangerite ethic. The decision represented an accumulation of more than a half century of dedication and tireless effort by the Sangerites and by the Malthusians to convince the American public of the righteousness of their cause, but the most important thing here, and what I would stress most importantly, is we are not talking about private morality, we are talking here about public policy.
This final achievement is portrayed quite candidly in a book which I brought. The cover is quite interesting. It is a book by Lawrence Lader, whom, again, was another gentleman on whom the Supreme Court decision based many of its footnotes. It is called We Are Breeding Ourselves to Death, and the front cover is a bunch of rabbits looking at a large family and saying, Their breeding rate is incredible.
The section has to do with the role of Federal agencies and it has to do with the person of former New York Senator Kenneth Keating, who was at the time the newly-appointed National Director of the Population Crisis Committee, and it tells about how he has eaten in the Senate dining room and I will read the statement which I think is kind of interesting:
He ate in the private Senate dining room where he would spread the gospel of family planning among all of their friends, particularly among the Republican leadership. As one of them recalled, “We may have kidded Ken at first, telling him that he should go and talk to so and so whose wife had just had another baby, but his persuasiveness paid off and he was able to give respectability to these discussions on population.”
What has all of this got to do with this subcommittee hearing on the Human Life amendment ? Simply this: For more than a year now the Hogan-Helms amendment and other similar amendments have been buried in the House where Representative Don Edwards has refused to hold hearings, and in the Senate they have not been buried. However, hearings, in my judgment, have been dragged out month after month, possibly to get Senators and Representatives through the November watershed without a vote on the Human Life amendment.
I truly feel that, obviously, there is no sense of urgency about the matter. With the exception of a handful of dedicated men this Con
gress does not appear to be the least concerned that its inaction will result in the death of hundreds of thousands of unborn children. The fact that millions of Federal tax dollars are used to promote a myriad of anti-life schemes, from direct abortion payments through medicaid and aid to dependent children, to research development and the promoting of new abortion techniques, to the indoctrination of children up to an anti-life ethic, all this appears to raise no particular concern at family-planning authorization and appropriation hearings.
Equally obvious is the fact that under these conditions we are going to have a very difficult time getting a Human Life amendment passed by both Houses of Congress and on its way to the States for ratification.
My purpose here today is to point out the current commitment of the Federal Government, including this Congress, to the anti-life establishment and to show, quite briefly, how such a commitment was obtained and the price that we are currently paying.
Mr. Chairman, it is my feeling and that of the United States Coalition for Life that this Congress owes, it owes its vigorous support for a Human Life amendment which would protect human life from conception, that is to say from fertilization until natural death, to the American people. The coalition would agree that the HoganHelms amendment or the newer Roncallo amendment would provide such protection.
Apart from the merit of these amendments themselves, we feel that Congress should recognize the fact that through its indifference, through its ignorance, and through its inability to withstand the pressures of the anti-life movement, It must bear its share of guilt for the 1972 abortion decision and share its responsibility in seeing that a human life amendment is passed this year to protect the unborn child.
Your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, in this matter I believe is very plain. As for our part, I believe that the coalition and the pro-life movement in the United States will continue to fight at all levels, will fight in the halls of Congress and will even fight in the Senate dining rooms to educate and to promote an ideal which we believe, Mr. Chairman, is as revolutionary in our day as the Sangerite ethic was 50 years ago. That ideal is based on the sancity and innate goodness of all human life.
Ms. Engel. I was going to say before I go, I did want to offer the Coalition's research services in the same way that Mr. VanDerhoef offered his services. We are also available, there must be many questions that you have now or you will have in the future on the extent to which the Federal Government is committeed in the antilife area, and our research services are at your service.
Senator BAYH. Well, we have tried to conduct these hearings in such a manner that those significant groups that represented large numbers of concerned citizens on both sides would be heard.
How many people share all of the views that you expressed here? How large is the U.S. Coalition for Life? Do you have State chapters? I am just wondering how many people there are.
Ms. ENGEL. I am very glad you asked the question. It gives me an opportunity to say a little bit more about Coalition. The U.S. Coalition for Life is as I said before, is an international and nationally based research agency. We have a distinguished international board which includes as I mentioned before men like Sir William Liley, Dr. Billings of Australia. The Board is selected for its expertise in a wide variety of areas, from fetology to economic development, to population to natural family planning and so forth. Our agency operates through this advisory system. Senator Bayu. Could you submit us a list of who the Board is? How many members do you have?
Ms. ENGEL. Yes. We have 33 international and national advisors, and one of our national advisors is Senator Jesse Helms. We have also-excuse me, Professor E. Rice. Professor Rice is the author of the Roncallo amendment. He is also on our legal advisory board.
Now, the way we work is this. Our agency's function is primarily research. We have a research staff. We service prolife groups in this United States and abroad. We service approximately 1,200 groups. Some of the groups are small. Some of the groups are very large, consisting of 60,000 members and so forth. We are not a membership group, but I think the feelings that are reflected here today are a reflection of the prolife attitudes because being prolife is more than being antiabortion. Being prolife is rejoicing in new life, in welcoming new life, in creating a home where new life is always welcomed when it sometimes is not quite planned. [The material referred to follows:]
U.S. COALITION FOR LIFE,
Export, Pa., September 26, 1974.
(By Randy Engel) For the Record-Complete list of national and international board members.
Number of subscribers : 1,200 groups in the United States and abroad in approx. 17 countries. Groups range in size from 12 members to 60,000 members to national groups such at the New Zealand Society for Unborn Children.
Government subscribers include government agencies incl. the Agency for International Development and the Ohio Department of Health and similar agencies.
The Coalition recently sent a 12 member team to the Bucharest World Conference composed of 6 Americans and 6 members from New Zealand, England, Canada, South America, Haiti and Japan.
INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD FORMS NUCLEUS
OF WORLD WIDE PRO-LIFE
The formation of an International and National Advisory Board to the U.S. Coalition for Life, of world reknown specialists in a broad range pro-life interests was announced today by Randy Engel, the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania-based agency, as the first step toward developing an International Coalition for Life.
Heading the International Board are pro-life leaders from Europe, Asia, Africa, Central and South America, Canada and Australia, including Sir Wil. liam Liley, the Father of Fetology, from New Zealand; economics and agricultural expert, Dr. Colin Clark of Australia ; Dr. Antonio de Soroa y Pineda, of Madrid, pro-life author and physician for more than 25 years; Dr. E. Tremblay, Secretary General of the French Pro-Life Movement Laissez Les Vivre, Paris;
Dr. Siegfried Ernst of West Germany, one of Europe's foremost authorities on human sexuality, married love and pro-life issues, and Phyllis Bowman, Secre. tary of the English Pro-Life Movement, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, based in London.
Also, Dr. John Billings of Australia, pioneer in natural family planning; Demographer, Anthony Zimmerman of Japan; International journalist Victor J. F. Kulanday of New Delhi; Rev. Pedro Richards of Uruguay, founder of the Christian Family Movement in Latin America, and British scholar and critic, Christopher Derrick. Other Advisory Members include Rev. Michel Welters of Haiti; John Harrington of Canada; Jose Lucio de Araupo Correa of Brazil; Nora Leach of Ireland; Right Reverend John Njenga of Kenya ; John Bergin, M.D. of New Zealand; Rev. Joseph Fidelis of Karhataka India; Rev. Rufus Benedict of Ceylon and Hamish Fraser of Scotland.
Specialists from the United States serving on the USCL Advisory Board include Constitutional lawyer Charles E. Rice of Notre Dame; Dr. Paul Marx author of The Death Peddlers—War on the Unborn of St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota; United States Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms; Herbert Ratner, M.D., editor of Child and Family of Oak Park, Illinois; Reporter and critic George Gent of New York; Frances Frech author and lecturer on population; and Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. of the Department of Preventitive Medicine, University of Chicago College of Medicine and Dr. Nathan Wright, Jr. writer, sociologist and advocate of strong Black support for the Pro-Life Movement. USCL-NGO Representatives to the United Nations are Lillian Koegler of White Plains and Bill Devlin of Life Lobby, Inc., L.I., N.Y.
Also George Barmann of MAP, Inc., Dayton, Ohio; K.D. Whitehead, author and lecturer of New York; Public Relations Consultant John V. Hinkel of Washington, D.C.; economist-demographer Albert Kapusinski of Caldwell College, N.J.; William and Connaught Marshner of D.C.; attorney Paul Haring of Washington, D.C.; Obstetrician-Gynecologist William Lynch of Brookline, Mass.; Daniel and Constance Torisky, national leaders in the field of mental retardation from Monroeville, Pennsylvania ; Onalee McGraw of the National Coalition for Children, Chevy Chase, Maryland; James Ford, M.D. of Lynwood, California ; pro-life attorney and writer, Robert L. Mauro of Long Branch, N.J. and James J. McGuire, public relations consultant of Harrisburg.
The immediate objective of the International and National Advisory Boards according to USCL Director, Randy Engel, is to improve communications in the U.S. and abroad with specialists in areas of pro-life interest and share common problems and solutions of the Pro-Life Movement. Many of the advisory members are expected to attend the World Population Conference in Bucharest, Rumania this coming August, she said.
The long term objective, however, Mrs. Engel concluded, is to lay the foundation for an International Pro-Life Coalition. The U.S. Coalition for Life is expected to serve as a temporary headquarters for information and research materials for Pro-Life groups around the world until permanent headquarters are established, probably in England, she said.
"In the meantime we can help share our common burdens and our successes against the Anti-Life Establishment manifested by such agencies as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Humanist Society," she said.
Senator Bayh. I appreciate your being here. I appreciate your frank criticism of the Chairman and his conduct of the hearings, although I do not come to the same conclusions you do. It is important that we protect the rights of others to differ.
You might go back and look at the way some other hearings are conducted. I do not know whether you have been here or not
Ms. ENGEL. Yes, I have. Senator Bayh. You know that a lot of these hearings we start at 10 o'clock and we are still going at 6 o'clock. I do not think there are very many Senators that have what amount to 4 days of hearings in 1 day to pursue the solutions, but I do not offer that as an apology. I do not think that is necessary.
I would like to ask one or two questions to define your thinking here.
You mentioned the multicolored packets of condoms that have been discussed. Do you believe there is a place for using any of these in any color? Is that the same as abortion?
Ms. ENGEL. Well, you noticed earlier in my statement I tried to state what my statement was about. My statement is regarding public policy on these basic issues.
Senator Bayh. Well, we are having a hearing to try to determine whether for the 28th time, 27th time we are going to amend the Constitution.
Ms. ENGEL. That is correct.
Senator Bayh. And I must say very frankly, if you will permit me to be equally critical of you as you have been to me, you have brought in a lot of thoughts and philosophies, which you have every right to share, but in my judgment have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Since you have been very critical of some groups and some individuals, I wonder whether you feel that any effort to try to prevent conception is the same as abortion. The use of a condom is one example that you brought out.
Now, is that the same as abortion? Is that something that we should frown upon, that we should not use, that we should have a national policy against ?
Ms. ENGEL. You notice that the context in which I used the condom, it was not that the condoms existed--I have no qualms about an enterprising condom field who feels that by making a product more attractive they are going to sell more.
Senator Bayh. Take the color out of it. I am talking about-we are talking about policy. Is it a bad policy? Does a family that uses this kind of thing, is that the same as abortion?
Ms. Excel. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about Federal policies with regard to abortion. Now, the point of my testimony
Senator Bayh. That is precisely what I am saying. We are talking about that, and I wanted to know whether the use of a condom or a policy of using a condom, is the same?
Ms. ENGEL. The point is, I feel and our agency feels that we are at this present level. In other words, we are at the level where the Federal Government is intimately involved in abortion, both funding abortion, the development of abortion research.
Now, how did one get from a situation whereby as I said before, 10 years ago abortion was not heard in the halls of Congress, rarely was sterilization, sometimes family planning was. How does one get in 10 years from this position of almost a nonentity to the position where the Federal Government has permitted Planned Parenthood, an agent of abortion, to become a Federal Agency.
Senator BAYH. Excuse me, Ms. Engel. There are other people that are waiting to testify.
Ms. ENGEL. I understand that.
Senator BAYH. I know all of these things that you have said. I am trying to get a little personal insight to what you really believe. I wonder if you believe personally that the use of this type of contraception device is the same as abortion?