« 上一頁繼續 »
Ms. ENGEL. My personal views on family planning is that in terms of preconceptive situations, an individual has a right to use contraceptives or to avail themselves of natural methods. That is not what I am discussing.
Senator Bayh. Well, that is what I asked. I know what you have been discussing. You have had quite a bit of time to discuss it and you have done it very well. I just wanted to get the answer to that question.
Ms. ENGEL. All right, but you see, the point that this has brought up is someone will say, well--all right, let me rephrase that question and it might help, I think it might help you, it might help the members of the audience, in saying that our agency has no qualms with contraceptives being available, and we would want no restrictions on this except those required to protect minors, but what we are talking about is the role of the Federal Government, whether it is promoting abortion or whether it is promoting other means of fertility control because the basis of our research and so forth has shown that the reason why the Supreme Court decision came to its particular decision was based to a great part on the fact that the Federal Government had made abortion respectable, and it seems to me that until Congressmen could accept in their own minds their part in permitting the state of affairs to come about, that they would really feel no responsibility in coming to grips with the human life amendment.
Senator Bays. Thank you very much.
Senator BayH. Mr. Warren Shaller, the president and executive director of American Citizens Concerned for Life.
Ms. ENGEL. Excuse me. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Pat Goltz permitted me to go ahead, and I believe she was next.
Senator Bayh. I thought she changed places.
Ms. ENGEL. I believe she has an earlier flight, but I do not believe Reverend Shaller does.
Senator BAYH. How about Mr. Shaller. Does he have an earlier flight?
Mr. SHALLER. I have one about 4 o'clock this afternoon.
Senator Bays. All right. Let us hope we will be pretty close to finishing by then, because this is only being included as one meeting by Ms. Engel's definition.
All right, let us have Pat Goltz. Is that all right?
STATEMENT OF MS. PAT GOLTZ, FEMINISTS FOR LIFE Ms. Goltz. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Pat Goltz, the international president of Feminists for Life, Inc. We have members in 40 States, Canada, Britain, and Mexico. We have an international information network, and I come before you today to share with you some of the information we have gathered on the questions of abortion.
At this time I would like to request my full testimony and attachments be entered into the record.
Senator BAYH. We will be glad to do that.
57-782 0 - 76 - 8
Ms. Goitz. I want to be a little bit detailed about this. In the issue of Child and Family, I would like to have you enter the article on Nazi medicine and the one immediately following on the Ohio supreme court decision on abortion. The “Uncertified Human," if I could, I would like to have the article on Michael Lichfield entered, and on the ovulation method, I would like to have just the side with the ovulation method on it, not the description of how to select the sex of your child to be entered.
Senator Bayh. All right.
May I ask you, does the statement which you put in the record or what you are going to tell us here describe what Feminists for Life is? How does one describe herself as a Feminist for Life ?
Ms. Goltz. Yes, I am going to do that. Senator BAYH. Good. Ms. Goutz. I am going to actually excerpt my testimony because of its length.
Senator Bays. That is fine. Thank you.
Ms. Goltz. We are for the legal and social equality of women and men. We are here in support of the human life amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which would protect human life from conception until natural death.
Our primary reason is a feminist one. The only consistent philosophy a feminist can have about other instances of human life is one of granting dignity to all of them. We are demanding an end to class stereotyping for women; we cannot and dare not introduce a new class stereotype based on age, mental and physical condition, or degree of unwantedness. We who were once defined as less than human cannot, in claiming our rights, deny rights to others based on a subjective judgment that they are less than human.
Our Government and our society exists to protect the rights of each individual, and the most basic right is that of life itself.
Abortion has been presented as the solution to the problems faced by women with untimely pregnancies. The vast majority of these problems can be put into one category: discrimination. We are unilaterally opposed to discrimination based on either sex or maternal status. We reserve the right to be treated as equals and to be mothers at the same time.
Abortion is a nonsolution. Each time a woman resorts to abortion, she entrenches discrimination. She allows some part of the male power structure to force her into a destructive act, in order to be treated with the dignity which is inherent in her.
Many women who promote abortion do not do so out of zeal. They are driven to it. They have allowed their bodies to be raped by the abortionists knife and like the victim of sexual assault it is a traumatic experience. It interrupts physical, hormonal, and physical life streams. It is no wonder that in every poll, more men favor abortion than women. It is no wonder that women who have been subjected the longest to the male education establishment are most likely to support abortion.
Women are in tune with the earth, the ecology. We do not destroy; we create. Women recognize that human personhood begins biologically at conception. We insist on the right to exist in our full sexuality which includes the reproductive function as an intimate
part of our psyche. We do not have to sacrifice our sexuality in order to be equal. We will possess our full sexuality and we will be equal. We insist that society provide for us and our children, all of them, not just the ones the men want.
One technique which antilife people use, of which you should be aware in order to watch for it, is the hard-case technique.
In this technique, the most difficult case is chosen for presentation to the public, no matter how infrequently it occurs, and that case is used as justification for full permissiveness in the abortion laws or euthanasia practices. The hard case for the abortion question is a case of rape. The hard case for the euthanasia question is the person suffering from painful terminal cancer who is being kept alive by heroic methods employed by an allegedly sadistic doctor.
We will comment on the rape-incest case.
Senator BAYh. How about the euthanasia case? The sadistic doctor which is keeping that patient alive.
Ms. Goltz. This is the way the case is presented by the people.
Senator Bays. Is that euthanasia or is euthanasia a positive effort to stop it?
Ms. Goltz. This is a hard case which is cited as a justification for positive euthanasia. In other words, this is a situation that euthanasia is supposed to correct. Just the same as, you know, we are not here to recommend rape, and rape is the hard case for the abortion question.
Incest is against the law primarily because children of incestuous unions are more subject to genetic deformity than average. As such, incest belongs with fetal deformity, not rape, and should be treated as such.
Rape is the only case in which a women does not willingly consent to intercourse. The solution to the rape problem is not abortion, but the creation of a society in which rape is unknown.
The immediate solution is to teach women to report their rapes immediately so that pregnancy can be prevented. Failure to do so is implied consent to provide life support to the unborn child who may result. The immediate solution also consists of forcing changes in attitude toward raped women so that they are not treated as common criminals if they report their rapes.
In rape with pregnancy resulting there are actually two victims: the mother and her baby. It is not just, to kill one of the victims for the father's crime.
A comment must also be made about the term "compulsory pregnancy” which the other side uses. It is an emotion-laden term, and its purpose is emotional. Its result is to take the discussion out of the realm of the rational. In actual fact, even accidental pregnancies cannot be called compulsory since the woman consented to intercourse. Completing a pregnancy does not, however, require a woman to raise a child. The "compulsory pregnancy” crowd claims adoption is inhumane. They further deny that there is any implied agreement on the part of the woman to supply life support systems to a child who otherwise would not live. But many of them get violently angry if it is suggested that the father has not given implied agreement by his intercourse, to support the mother financially, even though anybody or any group could substitute.
In other words, the father, whose role is not unique and irreplaceable, is to be held responsible for his actions, but the mother, whose role is irreplaceable, is not to be held responsible for hers.
A word about unwantedness is also necessary. The concept of unwantedness creates classes of people. Among the people who fit in the second class thus created are adopted children, children of single mothers, biracial and other nonwhite children, and females.
Concerning girls, Caroline Bird, in "Born Female," tells us that more couples hope that their unborn children will turn out to be male than female. If completely successful sex selection were practiced, there would be 125 boys born for every 100 girls. This quote, by Orlando J. Miller, M.D., illustrates the resultant view when combined with an abortion mentality:
“In a social climate in which unwanted pregnancy is sufficient indication for abortion, criteria for selective abortion might be broadened considerably, for example, eliminating carriers of a sickle cell or cystic fibrosis gene or even of two X chromosomes at the request of the parents.” I might add that the possessor of two X chromosomes is commonly known as a woman.
Abortion is bad for society. Other persons testifying before me have claimed that abortion reduces welfare costs. What they are doing is citing the obvious and ignoring the possibility of new factors. I am giving you a copy of the Wynn report from England, that is the blue booklet, which cites the damage caused to subsequent children by abortion.
The abortion leaders here in the United States have admitted they simply do not know anything about the effects of abortion beyond a few weeks. One instance of damage to subsequent children alone will suffice to show the true cost to society of abortion. A common result of first trimester abortion is prematurity in subsequent children. Prematurity is a major cause of cerebral palsy. Where abortion equals live births, prematurity for the population as a whole nearly doubles. I called the United Cerebral Palsy and asked them the cost to society of cerebral palsy. I was told, billions of dollars in lost productivity alone, not to mention the cost of special equipment and training.
In Communist countries the abortion laws have been tightened because of the cost to society and to women. Will we learn from their experiences or must we subject millions of women to abortion to make our own statistics? As Santayana said, “those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." Abortion is bad for women. It is bad whether legal or illegal. Legal abortionists have compromised the basis of their medical ethics. They have compromised away their healing art and have become the technocrats of death. Why should they support the right to life and the health of the women? The statistics prove they do not.
Legal abortion results in an overall complication rate to women which is horrendous: 35 percent of all women aborted in Germany suffer long-term ill effects. In Japan the figure is 29 percent. In Canada, 39 percent among teenagers. In Czechoslovakia, 20 to 30 percent. In Australia, two studies show figures of 20 percent and 70 percent, the latter in a public hospital.
Logic alone should verify this point. Which is more dangerous for women, a natural process, or the abrupt interruption of it?
Are doctors interested in the health of women? Not when 7 out of 9 male urine samples tested in abortion clinics in London were reported as positive for pregnancy. Not when results are similarly falsified in major cities in the United States. Not when the most notorious abortionist in Canada, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, is known to be aborting women 20 percent of whom are not pregnant.
The abortionists are candid: They are not for women's rights; they are for their own financial gain; their own self-interest.
A number of quotations will bear this out:
The great thing about the Abortion Act is that is has given us the opportunity to perpetuate Hitler's progressive thinking.
Financially, after years of struggle, I can't help feeling a little like the Texan who drilled for water and struck oil.
Another quote: A syndicate invited me to be its medical director for up to $250,000 a year. Another quote: But if the courts declare abortion laws unconstitutional, the doctors will say, “Now it is against the law not to do abortions”-and then they will do them, for in some cases they may be sued if they don't.
Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion. At present, the means available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion.
This quote was from Dr. Alan Guttmacher:
In 1967, women coming in to see us about terminating pregnancy had to justify that. Now I feel about any pregnancy if a woman can justify keeping a pregnancy, that is okay. But if she can't, get rid of it.
The abortionists are using women's bodies to promote the Government ideal of population control: They are gaining financially from using women's bodies to perpetuate the Government's population policy.
They have indicated to each other that the tactic is to obscure the humanity of the unborn child, and the fact that abortion kills a baby. They instruct each other never to call the unborn children babies but always to call them fetuses. Thus they have used a scientific term of somewhat obscure meaning to the general public as a niggerizing term much like the term broad as applied to women. The purpose: to dehumanize. Do they honestly believe that this child is only a blob of tissue? Well, as one satirical author from Canada would have it, everyone knows that the baby's body is instantaneously formed at the moment of birth !
Feminists who hold that unborn babies are only blobs of tissue are known in prolife feminist circles as "blob feminists".
But what do proabortionists really think about the humanity of the unborn and about the nature of abortion? I have some further quotes :