maintain that a commercial agency "successfuly obtained doctors' agreements to lower their medical charges to stay competitive," Dr. A. agrees. “They definitely drove prices down," he says. "There was tremendous competition."

The state attorney general's office is seeking to outlaw the commercial referral agencies, and a bill to that effect is pending before the legislature in Albany. But eliminating such agencies may not be so easy. It is understood that some plan to move their operations out of New York State.

As some doctors devote more time to abortions, medical schools and teaching hospitals in the city are finding it harder to fill certain positions on their faculties, particularly part-time posts that many young doctors used to take. And there is some feeling, according to Mount Sinai's Dr. Hausknecht, that the profit potential of abortions may cause a rise in the cost of other obstetrical procedures. Delivering a child, for instance, involves much more of a doctor's time than an abortion.

The growing trend in New York City's abortion business is toward the establishment of outpatient clinics. One new establishment, through its publicrelations firm, boasts of being "ultramodern" and claims to be "the first such outpatient medical facility to be located in a midtown Manhattan skyscraper." At least four of New York's private hospitals now specialize to some degree in abortion procedures, although their fees are considerably higher than those of outpatient clinics. Two of the hospitals are owned by Life Sciences Corp., a firm whose stock is traded over the counter. A spokesman says the company "would expect" the hospitals to be profitable. Comprehensive Education Systems Inc., another publicly held concern, has opened an abortion clinic that, it predicts, will net $300,000, or 60 cents a share, this year. A spokesman for the company speaks of plans to build seven more clinics-one every six monthswith a similar profit potential.

Despite that optimistic appraisal, the future of the abortion business in New York appears to rest to a larger degree on the success of liberal abortion proposals in other states and on competition. Estimates are that 50% of the women having abortions here are nonresidents. Thus, business would be seriously affected if many other states liberalize their laws. And, as outpatient clinics proliferate, it is expected that competition will drive down both fees and net income.

For the time being, however, the debate continues in an emotional context. Critics charge that the medical and business professions are "capitalizing on people's misery." But those involved in the business, like Dr. A., contend that an abortion is "like any other medical procedure" and subject to the same economics. A spokesman for one of the city's fashionable private hospitals puts it this way: "There's nothing wrong with being an 'abortion mill.' It's just like being an 'eye, ear, nose and throat mill.'"

OBSTETRICS

(By J. P. Greenhill, M.D., F.A.C.S., F.I.C.S. (Hon.))

I warn the physician against the removal of a small fetus piecemeal through a long, narrow cervical canal. It will tax the physician's skill to the utmost, especially if the body is torn off the head and the head bobs around in the uterine cavity. If a fetus is removed in pieces every bit of it should be inspected to account for all parts.

Senator BAYн. Thank you, Doctor.

Excuse me. Senator Thurmond is with us and has to go to another committee.

I yield to him to ask a question.

Senator Thurmond?

Senator THURMOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Doctor, I just wish to ask this question which is a very simple question.

Is it right and proper to take human life unless the health of the mother is involved to such an extent that she is in jeopardy and might lose her life?

Dr. COLLITION. No, sir.

Senator THURMOND. In other words, I presume you would agree that if the mother's life or her health depends upon an abortion, then it might be considered, but otherwise it would be improper.

Dr. COLLITION. That is right, Senator. I thought you had put in that particular exclusion, and I think there the life for life balance is an acceptable judgment.

Senator THURMOND. Now, there is some question on the part of some people that even, that some people feel that in the case of rape that maybe an abortion might be considered, but other than those exceptions, would it appear that we as humans would wish to just. intentionally and willfully and maliciously take human life, and that is what we are doing if we have abortions, unless thre is a real reason, as I mentioned.

Dr. COLLITION. Senator, I think that 100 percent, to the best of my knowledge, of my confreres, accept the deliberate termination of pregnancy prior to viability, which is the way we talk about abortion, in the instance of saving the mother's life. The classic examples are the pregnancy that is in the tube that is threatening her because of internal hemorrhage. The second possibility is when she has invasive cancer of the mouth of the womb, which is best treated by the ending of the pregnancy and other appropriate measures that one has no difficulty at all in seeing the propriety of this kind of conduct for society and for the profession and for all involved.

I would like to put a disclaimer in, though, on the matter of rape, because I see and this is my view-an inconsistency here in our behavior, particularly today. First off, I am sure you understand already that rape is a rare consequence-pardon me-pregnancy is a rare consequence of rape. There was a study in Czechoslovakia of 86,000 plus abortions, and the incidence of rape being the indication was 0.0002 percent. The need on that basis is indeed unfortunate. The difficulty that I have is that today as a society we are trying to spare the rapist's life and confine him to the appropriate institution to try to rehabilitate him, try to make him a useful member of society, and yet we would quickly kill without much thought about it the totally innocent intrauterine individual boy or girl who had nothing at all to do with this most unhappy experience.

I think that the alternative is for society to move forward in positive ways to support this woman, to bring to her all of the psychological and medical and material help that she needs, just as we are doing for the rapist who has committeed a heinous crime.

Senator THURMOND. I was a little surprised that the Supreme Court took jurisdiction of that case. I am a great believer in the rights of the States and in our Federal system in which the Constitution which distinguishes jurisdiction of the central Government as compared with the States. I know of no authority really that the Federal Government had to go into this field, but the Supreme Court did that.

The word abortion as I conceive it-I have never found it in the Constitution. It is just like the word divorce. Each State has its own laws for divorce. It can have its own laws for abortion. But to bring this question to the Federal Government to me was an improper procedure because the Federal Government can only go into

57-676 76-31

the fields of jurisdiction where it has specific authority to do so, and there is no specific authority in the Constitution to go into the field. And I think it is a matter for each State. But aside from that, since it has gone into it by the Supreme Court decision, well then, those of us in Congress would not just have to go vote on the merits as we see it. But it seems to me that to destroy life, a little child that is unborn, is inexcusable unless it is one of the instances that I mentioned there, and I just wanted to be on the record to that effect. [Genreal applause.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAYH. I do not think it makes much difference whether it is the statement of a colleague or a witness. We are going to follow the rule set down rather arbitrarily from the standpoint of functioning. Please keep your feelings to yourself.

I have found, after the first day's hearings, that if we get into a cheering section approach, each side is going to outdo the other I do not think that spirit is the one with which we want to address ourselves to this very sober problem.

Dr. Godfrey?

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM J. GODFREY, SPECIALIST IN INTERNAL MEDICINE, ELIZABETHTOWN, KY.

Dr. GODFREY. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I do not have the credentials of Dr. Chamblee. However, I did have the privilege of doing an internship in South Bend, Ind., through which I got to know him quite well. He is my ideal of the true physician.

My comments today will be to add further information and support to Senator James Buckley's proposed constitutional amendment which will protect the right of unborn children and all other persons. Being a medical doctor and a specialist in internal medicine, it behooves me to begin my speech with philosophical principles. However, all argumentation should begin here. Having my college major in philosophy, such an approach fits my personal background.

What is abortion? According to the medical dictionary, it is "the expulsion of the product of conception before the child is viable." It is to be noted that the word "child" is used.

Senator BAYH. Doctor, is that always accurate, "before the child is viable?"

Do we not also include taking children that are past the recognized point of viability? Is that not also a part of the abortion definition? Dr. GODFREY. The medical definition was taken from Norland's Medical Dictionary, and in medical terms abortion was before the time of viability. In lay terms, abortion has come to be, it has had the connotation of anytime during the pregnancy now.

Senator BAYH. Thank you.

Dr. GODFREY. It used to be after the viability it was called "miscarriage" or "premature labor."

It used to be noted that the word child is used, and by medical definition again, a child is a person who has not yet reached the age of puberty. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that an abortion of the product of conception before the person is viable. If only our

Supreme Court had used such logic in looking up a few definitions in the dictionary, then the seven Justices would not have been able to draw their erroneous conclusions without negating their original premises. Such sloppy and illogical opinions are not only shocking for such supposedly intelligent men, but must not be allowed to stand without correction. In their 1973 decision the Justices kept using the term "potential life." I wonder how again they understood their terms. What is potential human life? What is life? According to Webster's dicitionary, a life is that which has essence or existence; something you can touch or see, such as a building, a tree, a dog or a man. What is human life? It is that which distinguishes you and me from this building, or from the trees outside, or from your dog at home. They are object and animal beings, but we are human beings. What is potential? Again according to Websters dictionary, potential is that which is not real and has only the possibility of coming into existence. If fetuses were only "potential human beings" as seven Supreme Court Justices have erroneously assumed, then there would be no need for a law regulating abortions. One obviously cannot abort a potential human being, but only real ones. If only the seven Justices had taken the advice of my fifth grade teacher who always advised our class to use our dictionary to know the meaning of our words before writing or speaking about them.

Obviously, the basic question in the whole discussion on abortion is the answer to the following questions: When does life begin and what is the value of human life? The answer to the first, when does human life begin, is easy and simple. It begins at conception, when the sperm impregnates the egg and the cells begin dividing. There should be no debate here since all, and I emphasize all, medical knowledge including genetic, embryonic and biologic data prove this beyond doubt. To deny this would be to deny the basic scientific data on which these three fields are based. Those who deny this fact are either unknowledgeable of this scientific data or refuse to accept. proven medical facts due to thir own biased viewpoint. To argue the abortion issue with one who follows this latter viewpoint would be fruitless, since he refuses to accept scientific data as a premise for his conclusions. To say that one is unknowledgeable of medical data is, at least, intellectually honest. For the general public, this would be medically excusable; but for the medical doctor, it would be highly inexcusable. In other words, no medical doctor can reasonably stand before you today and conclude that human life does not begin with conception without realizing that he has no scientific data to back up his statement.

To prove that unborn human beings are real, and not just potential; are alive and not dead; is not a difficult task with today's medical knowledge. Following conception, we can now prove that the new human being has cell division and has the same full complement of 46 chromosomes like you and I. At 8 days of life, the heart begins beating. At 6 weeks, the baby begins moving about in the womb. and brain waves are recordable on EEG's. The mother, who is carrying her baby, may still be uncertain at this time whether or not she is pregnant, for she has yet to miss her second menstrual period. And a pregnancy test may still be negative. At 8 weeks old, the heart

beats can be heard with fetal electrocardiogram. The baby will grasp and hold onto objects placed into his hand. He will swim about freely in his mother's amniotic fluid. At 12 weeks, he has all organ systems functional like yours and mine. He can breathe, cry, swallow, digest, urinate, sleep and wake, suck his thumb and recoil from pinpricks and other painful stimuli, such as the obstetrician's knife. At this time the woman is still in her first trimester of pregnancy and can have her baby killed without question. Unless, of course, you still believe our seven Supreme Court Justices who still affirm the baby is only a potential, and thus there is nothing there to kill.

As for aborting a baby in the second and third trimesters, only one point needs to be brought out. Has anyone ever seen a baby aborted by the saline method, which is the usual means employed during these trimesters? Well, let me describe it. It's called salt poisoning. Upon injection of the salt, that is, saline, into the woman's amniotic fluid, the baby swallows and breathes it in. He usually struggles for life for about 45 to 60 minutes with repeated convulsions, for the salt water swells his brain cells. The woman feels her baby convulsing again and again until he finally dies. The corrosive salt water burns the outer layer of skin from his body and he develops the red appearance of inffammation. And thus these babies have been called the "candy apple babies".

There are other methods of aborting babies also. The prostaglandins, a hormal abortive drug produces and promoted by Upjohn Drug Company, and hysterotomy, Caesarian section, abortions are two methods which most often produce live babies. When aborted, such babies move their arms and legs and try to breathe but, due to their immaturity, they finally die on the table with the help of the willful neglect of the medical personnel. And if the baby is still alive when the obstetrician is finished caring for the mother, in order that the next case may come into the delivery room, the baby may even be put to death by suffocation. And to put further bloody icing onto the cake, these are the very live babies some proabortionists are advocating that we turn over for experimentation with the false pretentions of helping mankind. A good pragmatic example of the end justifying the means.

Once again, proving a fetus is a human being is an easy task. However, what is difficult is to get other rational human beings to come to this same logical conclusion. The abortionist will not deny my premises, namely, of when human life begins, for they cannot do so logically. What the abortionist does do however, is skip the premises. This is the old begging the question routine. They assume, without proof, the premise that the fetus is not a human being, that the fetus is only a potential human being. Then they begin their argumentation on subjects like population explosion, malformed fetuses, unwanted pregnancies, rape, woman's right to her own body, etc. Such arguments are definite social and economic problems well worth the time and debate, but at another time and place. They not only evade the question of abortion, but are only indirectly related in that abortion is proposed as one of the many solutions to these complex social problems.

Now that I have explained what is begging the question, let me do that very thing so I can get on the same footing with my abortionist