Dr. BARNO. These were the suicides in pregnancy and in the 3 months post-partum state of every woman in Minnesota that we could find.

Senator BAYH. The argument as I try to envision it now, is if you are forced to have a child you do not want, you are liable to commit suicide. Now, it seems to me for that to be relevant we have to confine the suicide rate to that group who are then forced to go ahead and have an unwanted child and not commingle all of those mothers in the whole State, most of whom have wanted children. Dr. BARNO. Yes, sir. Of those 22 suicide deaths, 20 of those people were married, only 2 were out-of-wedlock pregnancies where you could suppose that maybe they wanted to commit suicide because they could not get an abortion. But from all of the details that we could get from all of our careful analysis, not a single one of those women asked for an abortion.

Senator BAYH. Doctor, with your expertise, could you help us in our search to find the answer to the problem of when a life specifically is created, when a human being first starts to become a human being.

What is your definition of that moment?

Dr. BARNO. Yes, sir. I think that life begins at the beginning and it ends at the end.

Senator BAYH. I cannot argue with you on that.

Dr. BARNO. It begins with the fertilization when the sperm unites with the egg and a whole new human life is created, and then it is a continuum. It goes all the way on through; the embryologists have all documented this, and then it comes out in a nice little pack

age.

It is called a human being.

Senator BAYH. And you feel that the moment that you would describe as the beginning would be the fertilization process, the joining of the egg and the sperm?

Dr. BARNO. Yes, sir.

Senator BAYH. Would you care to give us you thoughts as to how you believe an intrauterine device operates to prevent pregnancy. Dr. BARNO. Senator, there has been quite a bit written about this. Margulies, the man who reincarnated or brought forth the IUD that was used in Europe long before it was popularized here, states he does not know the mechanism.

There is a tremendous monograph by Dr. Moyer who is professor of obstetrics and gynecology and experimental pathology at the University of Southern California. He gives all sorts of theories. The theories vary from destruction of the sperm, incapacitation of variability with regard to tubal motility, even inhibition

the sperm,

of ovulation.

There are all sorts of theories, and I can only say to you, Senator, that it is unknown, the mechanism as we know it now is unknown. The great Dr. Allan Barnes, former professor at Johns Hopkins has written a nice treatise on the IUD's, and he himself says it is not an abortifacient. I myself am convinced it is not an abortifacient, if it were, I would not use it.

Senator BAYH. What about what is commonly known as a morning after pill? How does that function?

Dr. BARNO. Well, here again, the man who popularized the morning after pill is Dr. Morris at Yale who did his preliminary work in monkeys and followed through in human beings. Again, he states he does not know the mechanism of the morning after pill. It is pregnancy prevention.

So all I can say is that we do not know the answer to that. We do not know the full mechanism.

Senator BAYH. Do you have any personal thoughts on that? You say you do not know how it works?

Dr. BARNO. No, sir; I do not know how it works.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Doctor, I think we have inconvenienced you enough. We appreciate your adding to our efforts here.

Dr. BARNO. I thank you for the opportunity for being here, Senator.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much.

Our next hearings will be May 7 at 2 p.m. and we will recess

until that time.

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the hearings were recessed to reconvene Tuesday, May 7, 1974, at 2 p.m.]

ABORTION: PART II

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1974

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 2:15 o'clock p.m., in room 1202, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bayh (presiding), Burdick, Fong, and Cook. Also present: J. William Heckman, Jr., chief counsel; and Abby Brezina, chief clerk.

Senator BAYH. May we come to order, please?

Our first witnesses today, we could say, comprise an international panel. I ask that they consent to appear together to give us a comprehensive discussion of their point of view on this issue: Dr. Albert W. Liley, Post Graduate School of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the University of Auckland, National Women's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand; and Prof. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics, Medical College of Paris, in Paris, France.

The witnesses will be introduced by Dr. Watson A. Bowes, the Division of Perinatal Medicine, the University of Colorado. Dr. Bowes, would you please proceed?

STATEMENT OF DR. WATSON A. BOWES, DIVISION OF PERINATAL MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER, COLO.

Dr. Bowes. Thank you, Senator Bayh.

Distinguished members of the committee, as an American physician deeply concerned about the abortion issue and its effect on the lives of the unborn, it is a great privilege to welcome to this country and to introduce to this committee two of the most prominent scientists in the field of reproductive medicine.

Early in my training as an obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Colorado Medical Center, I was called upon to perform a number of abortions on women suspected of having rubella in early pregnancy. It was in the performance of these abortions that I was faced with the realization that as a physician I was treating a disease by killing the patient with the disease.

It required only minimal reflection to be reminded of the enormous accumulation of unassailable scientific evidence that testifies to the humanity of the fetus in utero. For at precisely the same time

we were called upon to perform abortions, we were also performing the first intrauterine fetal transfusions in Colorado for Rhesus disease, a procedure developed by Dr. Liley, who is with us today. How was I to rationalize vigorous efforts to treat and save one human fetus with a congenital disorder on one day and on the next kill the fetus with a congenital disorder that I could not correct? The scientific evidence for the growth and development of human life before birth is incontrovertible. Today you will hear that evidence presented by two outstanding scientists with international reputations in their fields.

Dr. Jerome Lejeune is professor of fundamental genetics, faculty of medicine, at the Universite Rene Descartes in Paris. His many contributions to fundamental human genetics are recognized throughout the world. His descriptions of the chromosome abnormalities in Down's Syndrome, Mongolism, were instrumental in our understanding of chromosomal disorders. He is the author of a widely acclaimed textbook of human chromosomes, as well as innumerable contributions to scientific journals. His accomplishments have been acknowledged by awards from prestigious societies, both in our country and his own, including the Kennedy Award and the William Allen Memorial Medal from the American Society of Human Genetics.

I have known Sir William Liley since 1965 because of our mutual interest in fetal transfusion for the treatment of Rhesus affected infants. Dr. Liley has degrees in both medicine and neurophysiology. He is perhaps most widely known for having first successfully performed a transfusion for the fetus in utero. But his numerous contributions in the field of human fetal physiology have enormously broadened our understanding of intrauterine life. Dr. Liley's research has been conducted at the Postgraduate School of Medicine in Auckland, New Zealand, from which have come his extensive contributions to the scientific literature.

It is a great pleasure to present to the committee Dr. Jerome Lejeune and Dr. William Liley.

Šenator BAYH. Gentlemen, have you decided how you are going to proceed?

Is there some seniority system in international expertise such as is represented here?

Dr. Bowes. Senator Bayh, in the development of a human being, Dr. Lejeune comes first.

Senator BAYH. All right.

STATEMENT OF DR. JEROME LEJEUNE, PROFESSOR OF FUNDAMENTAL GENETICS, MEDICAL COLLEGE OF PARIS, PARIS, FRANCE

Dr. LEJEUNE. Mr. Chairman and members, please excuse my poor English.

I am a doctor of medicine, and I take care of disabled children in the Sick Children's Hospital in Paris. After 10 years of pure scientific research, I became professor of fundamental genetics.

I am a human geneticist, and that is the reason why I try to remain human when I am dealing with genetics. Having found with

my coworkers that there was an extra chromosome which was producing a disease called mongolism, I had the great honor to receive the Kennedy Award here in this country from the late President. And also I had the great honor of having the William Allen Memorial Medal from the Society of Genetics of America. That is one of the reasons why I feel that I am here trying to give back to the United States some scientific data. I owe so much to your country for our scientific research.

The point which is the main point for geneticists is that the transmission of life is a very paradoxical phenomenon. We are entirely sure that the link between the parents and the children is at every moment material, because it is from the ovum fertilized by the sprmatazoa from the father that the new human being will emerge. But we know with exactly the same degree of certainty that no molecule, no particle of matter, which was in the first cell will be transmitted to the next generation. Then, obviously, what is transmitted is not matter by itself, but is something which is supported by the matter, that is, bits of information.

I do not think it is necessary that we review the whole machinery of the coded molecule, DNA, RNA, protein, and so on, to understand that this paradox of reproduction is found, not only in living things but in every system of reproduction. To take an example, when you want to reproduce a statue, during the process of casting, there is always a contiguity of molecules, or particles of matter, between first the statue and the cast, and secondarily between the cast and the replica. But what is replicated? It is not the matter, because the statue was, for example, of marble and the replica will be of plastic. What is replicated is a form that the genius of the sculptor had imprinted on the matter.

Another, maybe more familiar example, would be to look at what happens when we record a symphony on a magnetic tape. Let us suppose that you record the Little Night Music of Mozart on a tape. If you put the tape on the machine, then the machine will play the Little Night Music. But what is important is that which is on the tape; there are no musicians and there are even no notes of music. What is there is just a minute change of magnetism making a code which is read by the machine.

And it is exactly in that same way that the human existence is played. That is, once the full information is in the system, then the system is triggered, and the human is formed in perfect conformity to its own program. But here, this analogy vanished, because the tape which dictates all our specifications is incredibly small, because it is reduced to a molecule of DNA. To give an idea of this minuteness, we should remember that this thread is 1 yard long but is coiled so tightly that it would fit very neatly on the point of a needle.

Nevertheless, in this tape is written all our characteristics. If we could read it directly, we would see, for example, that it is written: Thou shalt be blond; thou shalt have hazel eyes; and thou shall live, say, 80 years, if no road accidents end it; and so on. All these instructions give the full description of a human being.

To give you a physical impression of this minuteness, I could take another example. If we had all the threads which will deter