ePub 版

Abortion is the taking of a life. Another quote: An abortion ... kills the life of a baby after it has begun. Another quote: Fertilization, then, has taken place: a baby has been conceived. Quote: The staff are now required to be involved in the induced abortion of a large fetus which neither resembles a “blob” ... or a “group of cells”—but very much resembles a baby.

And finally, quote:

Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because, while a new ethic is being accepted, the old one has not yet been rejected.

Every quote which I have read you so far comes from leaders, either groups or individuals, in the abortion movement who want abortion on demand and more.

So it appears that women's bodies are not only being used to promote population control, but they even lie to women about the unborn child, and about what abortion does. If there was ever a philosophy which was degrading to women, it is the philosophy that we must lie to women, cheat them, ant fool them in order to get their money and reduce population. Do women want to be instruments to perpetuate Hitler's progressive thinking? No, we do not.

Do we need abortion? The answer to that question is no. That is, if we are willing to care enough. There are many ways in which women can be helped without creating destruction. I will name a few. Enforcement of existing laws against discrimination, such as the fifth and 14th amendments, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1963, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1972, the Educational Amendments of 1972, and the Public Health Service Act as amended in 1971. The ratification and implementation of the equal rights amendment. The establishment of maternity communes where single women with children, born and unborn, can go and live and share resources. Hospices for the elderly. An effective natural birth control method, such as the ovulation method, which allows women to control their fertility before conception without drugs, devices or surgery, and is 98.5 percent effective. The recognition that consent to sex on the part of a man is an unspoken contract guaranteeing that he will support a woman and her unborn child until birth takes place. The creation of a society in which rape is unknown. Corporations who are willing to take the blame for the pollution they cause rather than blaming the future generation. An ecological movement that teaches individuals to respect the environment, starting with the elimination of litterbugs. A society dedicated to the proposition that we should

remove political barriers to food and fertilizer distribution instead of people.

A society which is not dedicated to planned obsolescence, which is dedicated to the proposition that the way to stabilize the population is to help the third world nations become fully developed technologically and educationally, that recognizes that each human crisis leads to progress, that recognizes technology as a servant and not the master of men and women, that does not direct itself against the bodies and minds of women. In other words, a society which respect each and everyone of us as a unique and irreplaceable individual entitled to life, liberty, and property.

A final comment about choice of language in the human life amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court decisions of January 22, 1973. Any reasonable amendment should do this.

However, it is our feeling that a good amendment would have the following characteristics: (1) It will specifically define human life as beginning at conception or fertilization, which is synonymous; (2) It would provide protection for all innocent life from conception till natural death, and include the aged, ill, incapacitated, and the physically and mentally handicapped; (3) It will prohibit both State and private action or inaction which will lead to the deliberate destruction of innocent life without due process of law; (4) It will not permit abortion for physical health or mental or social considerations, but will permit abortion when there is an immediate physical threat to the life of the mother, from the pregnancy; (5) It will not permit the States to allow abortion or positive euthanasia to be legal. We do not cry “States rights” in reference to sexual discrimination; we will not permit the cry “States' rights” for killing based on ageism.

At this time I would like to add a few comments not in my printed testimony:

I am submitting to you, personally, Senator Bayh, a letter requesting that our attorney, Donald L. Billman, be permitted to testify orally before this body. He will testify as our representative. We do not feel that our testimony as an organization is complete without you having had the opportunity to ask him questions. He is one of the foremost authorities in the field.

In a recent letter to you he made a couple of points worth repeating and I quote his letter:

The basis for all individual rights is the Bill of Rights—The first ten Amendments—however, it is the Fourteenth Amendment which championed the cause of civil liberties for all persons and assured the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law, justice and reason over the fickle nature of the human race. After ten years of studying, it is my opinion that this Amendment, the Fourteenth, applies to the unborn child as well as the black, the Indian and the woman. It is my belief that the Amendment is clear that "no life shall be taken without due process of law” and that “no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws”! The survival of all civil rights and liberties is now in peril! It was no mere accident that the attack was initiated by an assault upon the Little Unborn Baby, for he is the most helpless member of our society. The Unborn Child was chosen with care, for he is the epitome of the "unpopular client,” and it was felt-possibly not incorrectly--that he would find few defenders. He is a client who can neither pay us, vote for us, thank us or organize a riot. The implications of "abortion on demand" are apparent. If this inroad upon the vitality of the Constitution goes unchecked and reversed a

most powerful precedent will have been established for the proposition that an individual's life can be snuffed out at the whim of “Big Brother.” If we who believe in the Bill of Rights and true civil liberties do not rush to the defense of the Unborn Child, we will one day soon find ourselves with a handful of “rights" as difficult to retain as a handful of sand.

And I end that quote.

I might add that in the book Treblinka which describes why Jews did not revolt against Nazi extermination a very successful technique was used. The population was divided into two groups and only the lives of those in the unfortunate group were taken.

The rest felt safe and so did not rebel. The safe group was divided again and again until all were exterminated.

Gentle people, we have been divided. The unsafe group is the unborn. How long will it be before we are in the unsafe group? The handwriting is on the wall for those who can see it.

I am open to questions.
[The full statement of Ms. Goltz follows:]


Senator Bayh, members of the committee, and members of the audience:

I am Pat Goltz, international president of Feminists for Life, Inc. We are based at Box 5631, Columbus, OH 43221. 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 and euthanasia. We are for the legal and social equality of women and men. We are her in support of a 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. We are all interdependent, the independent woman no less than the unborn child; the child no more than the most independent of us. Without each other's help, we would all perish. Our government and our society exists to protect the rights of each individual, and the most basic right is that of life itself; no other right can be exercised where that right is not guaranteed.

Throughout this talk I shall refer to the unborn child primarily in the masculine. My reasons are several : 1. We do not expect to wait on our rights until the language changes to accommodate us. 2. This is a convention of the English language, and the masculine refers to both genders where the gender is not known, and 3. It will be less confusing. We do not depend for our dignity on using the feminine gender in certain contexts; our dignity is inherent.

Abortion has been presented as a 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. We will not accept the current either/or choice. Abortion is a non-solution. Each time a woman resorts to abortion, she entrenches discrimination. Each time she resorts to abortion, she removes her voice from the arena in which equality for women is being demanded and won. 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. She may do serious damage to her own spirit. Many women who promote abortion do not do so out of zeal; they are driven to it. It is the only way they can live with their consciences. This is the reason why their movement has the characteristics it does. They are not vocal until they find another person or institution to attack. They have allowed their bodies to be raped by the abortionist's knife, and like the victim of sexual assault, it is a traumatic experience.

It interrupts physical, hormonal, and psychical life streams. It is no wonder that in every poll, more men favored abortion than women. It is no wonder that women who have been subjected the longest to the male education establishment (the college educated) 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 our 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, no just the ones the men want.

Some who call themselves feminists claim that men are making the decisions for their lives. And so it is. They talk about all the men who testified here, and the few women who did. They talk about this committee being made up solely of men. And they conveniently forget that the abortion decision in the Supreme court was made by seven old men! It is convenient to claim that pregnancies being forced on women, by men, but that abortion isn't. They simply ignore the facts. They ignore that the Playboy Foundation, whose motto is sexual exploitation of women, promotes abortion with its money. They ignore the fact that Rockefeller money teams up with government money (voted by men) to promote abortion. They ignore the fact that Rockefeller is a male chauvinist, who remarked to a young woman carrying a pro-life picket sign, "Don't knock it, girl. You might need one someday.” They ignore the fact that abortion makes women more subject to sexual exploitation. If one does not have the truth, one ignores the facts. One selects the rhetoric that pleases one. Let us see who are the prominent people in the abortion movement. With a few exceptions out of the feminist movement itself, they are all male: Hefner, Rockefeller, Guttmacher, Packwood, Lamm, Edwards, Tietze, Ehrlich, Israel, Hall. If your choice is based on who is promoting it, abortion loses.

Pro-abortion feminists also conveniently forget that at major conferences on abortion, the attending feminists have been treated shoddily. A movement which is really aimed at the liberation of women would welcome the feminists.

One technique which anti-life 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 the 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. Most legislators who are basically pro-life find this the hardest to deny. However, Feminists for Life denies it. Let us take incest first. Incest is against the law primarily because children of incestuous unions are much more subject to genetic deformity than average. As such, incest belongs with “fetal defgrmity", not rape, and should be treated as such. Incest is used only as an excuse for abortion, because no person willingly reports incest under other circumstances; it is too hard on the reputation of the people involved. Rape is the only case in which a woman does not willingly consent to intercourse. It is felt that since she did not consent, she should not be penalized by having to continue to carry the child. However, abortion is also traumatic. 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 the child. The "compulsory pregnancy" rhetorictitians deny adoption because it weakens their case. They claim adoption is inhuman!! 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 an 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. This very position contradicts the claim by the same group that we should not have equal rights without equal responsibilities and therefore should submit to the draft if the Equal Rights Amendment is ratified.

A word about unwantedness is also necessary. The concept of unwantedness creates classes of people. Among the people included in the second class thus created are adopted children, children of single mothers, biracial and other nonwhite children, and females. A short example of each: regarding adopted children, this comment by Abigail Van Buren: "I think all children should be wanted by their natural mothers, don't you?” Regarding children of single mothers : some abortion authorities consider illegitimacy as practically synonymous to unwantedness every time they cite how abortion will cut down on illegitimacy. If necessary they are prepared to use coercion to make the statistics even better. Concerning the nonwhite, a Columbus woman who is active in the black community once remarked to me that abortion should be allowed for biracial children because neither the black nor the white community accepts them readily and they meet more discrimination than most nonwhites. As the mother of an adopted biracial child, I felt like telling her, “as long as being biracial is considered a sufficient excuse for abortion, biracial people will not be fully accepted by either community.” 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. The quote by Orlando J. Miller, MD, illustrates the resultant view when combined with the abortion mentality:

“In a social climate in which unwanted pregnancy is sufficient indication for abortion, criteria for selective abortion might be broadened considerably, eg eliminating carriers of a sickle cell or cystic fibrosis gene or even of two X chromosomes at the request of the parents, who have their own ideas of what constitutes the optimal brood of offspring for them, qualitatively as well as quantitatively.”

It may come as a surprise to some that a very widespread and viable feminist movement dedicated to the preservation of unborn life, and the life of the elderly and defective, exists. The reason for this is quite simple : suppression. In a movement supposedly geared to the destruction of stereotypes, a movement which is supposed to guarantee our right to be free to be ourselves, namely the pro-abortion feminist movement, we find the strangest of fascist tendencies. Women are socially ostracized in feminism for speaking in favor of life. Thus, pro-life feminists surfaced like the steam from an overheated boiler; it built up until the boiler could no longer hold it and then it exploded. We receive numerous stories of suppression. The National Organization for Women suppresses any woman who is pro-life. It does not matter how sincere her feminism on the basic issues. I will give a few examples : California, 25 women excluded from the local Now chapter—the rescheduled their meeting place and informed only the pro-abortion women. Oregon: the Now newsletter denounces us as pretending to be feminists. Chicago, Pittsburgh, New York City: Now members actively kick out pro-life members. Houston: Now women who are prolife successfully suppressed and isolated, from all over the country, not daring to speak out on abortion at all. Ohiɔ: a pro-life Now member denounced in public in the rotunda of the State House; the president of the chapter orders her not to discuss abortion with any Now member at any time or place. The Now chapter refuses to sell advertising space to Feminists for Life, although the revenue is needed badly. Other feminists groups act likewise : Massachusetts women's liberation group, all 300 of them, kick out on pro-life member. Birthright chapters hassled all over the country by feminists. The League of Women Voters in some New England states orders their members to drop out of Right to Life. Altoona, Pennsylvania : the local Now chapter tries to threaten any radio station which plays Seals and Crofts' Unborn Child; and succeeds. Other places where the song is suppressed include Boston. New York City.

Another reason why strong feminist support for unborn and other unwanted life has been obscured is the nature of the treatment in the media. As one

« 上一頁繼續 »