I thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommitte and I pray that these hearings will prove to be the first step in a suc cessful effort to reextend the protection of law to the unborn. Senator BAYH. Thank you, Your Eminence.

Cardinal Manning, are you the next participant?
Cardinal MANNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Cardinal Timothy Manning, an Archbishop of Los Angele in California. I fully associate myself with the remarks of Cardina Krol. I wish to touch briefly on certain objectionable aspects of the Supreme Court's abortion decisions as well as on the appropriate posi tion of the law with regard to human rights.

No responsible American wishes to suggest disrespect for the Supreme Court of the United States. But honest disagreement is not disrespect. Recognition of the crucial role played by the Supreme Court in our system of government should not blind us to the fac that the Court can err, as our history indicates. In this case we believe it has done so, and its error is a national tragedy.

It is important to make this point because Supreme Court decisions tend to be invested with an aura which places them almost beyond criticism. When the Supreme Court speaks, it is presumed to be the authentic interpreter of the Constitution of the United States. But its interpretation can be mistaken. In the case of the abortion decisions the Court created constitutional doctrine out of opinions which appear arbitrary at best.

Mr. Justice White spoke to this point in his dissent from the majority. "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment," he wrote. "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right***with scarcely any reason or authority for its action ***"

The fact is, nevertheless, that the Court has spoken and its novel doctrine of virtual abortion on request will stand until concerned Americans avail themselves of the means of redress which the Constitution itself provides. I refer of course to a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional amendment is necessary first of all to protect the lives of the unborn children who can be killed-indeed, are being killed at this very moment-in the wake of the Supreme Court's decisions. But the amendment is needed to restore integrity to the law itself, to make the American legal system once more the guarantor and protector of all human rights and the human rights of all.

Human rights stand always in need of vindication and protection. One of the distinguishing characteristics of a civilized society, and a particular concern of the church, is the special care required to provide protection for those of its members who are least able to protect themselves. Conversely, it is a sign of sickness in a society when it becomes callous to the rights of the defenseless and deaf to the pleas of the weak.

I hesitate to say that the United States as a whole has arrived at such a condition. Yet the stark fact is that the unborn are being destroyed in our country at an unprecedented rate, and the destruction goes on be cause there is no adequate protection in the law. No one who cherishes this Nation's historic commitment to human rights can contemplate this situation with complacency.

As Cardinal Krol has remarked, amending our Constitution is not a matter to be undertaken lightly. Yet amending the Constitution is now essential if the American system of law itself is to remain true to its role as protector of the rights of all. It would be impossible to improve on the statement of principle articulated by our Founding Fathers:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

An amendment to protect the unborn is needed now in order that these words may continue to express the reality of American belief and practice.

Thank you.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Cardinal Manning.
Cardinal Medeiros.

Cardinal MEDEIROS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Cardinal Humberto S. Medeiros. Like my colleagues, I wish to express my gratitude for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. With your permission, the United States Catholic Conference will also submit a more detailed legal memorandum at a later date.

Senator BAYH. We will be glad to have that information. Without objection, it will be submitted for the record.

Cardinal MEDEIROS. Thank you.

My colleagues and I are aware that many Members of Congress have sponsored or cosponsored proposals intended to correct the situation created by the Supreme Court's abortion decisions of January 22, 1973. This is an extremely significant expression of congressional sentiment. The Senators and Representatives who have taken such action deserve the thanks of concerned Americans who perceive the injustices created by the Court's ruling in denying to unborn babies their inalienable and constitutionally defensible right to life and to birth and in denying to unborn persons "equal protection of the law" and the right of "due process."

A "States rights" amendment, which would simply return jurisdiction over the abortion law to the States, does not seem to be a satisfactory solution to the existing situation. Protection of human. life should not depend on geographical boundaries. The Supreme Court's action itself has made abortion a Federal question.

I am not a legal scholar and I shall not therefore attempt here either to formulate a proposed amendment to the Constitution or to provide the language of such an amendment. Rather, I shall attempt to set before this subcommittee basic and necessary considerations which should become the foundation upon which a constitutional amendment should rest.

1. The constitutional amendment should clearly establish that, from conception onward, the unborn child is a human person in the terms. of the Constitution.

2. The Constitution should express a commitment to the preservation of all human life. Therefore, the prohibition against the direct and intentional taking of innocent human life should be universal and without exceptions.

3. The right to life is described in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable" and as a right with which all men are endowed by the Creator. The constitutional amendment should restore the basi protection for this human right to the unborn, just as it is provided to all other persons in the United States.

As for an amendment which would generally prohibit abortion but permit it in certain exceptional circumstances, such as when a woman's life is considered to be threatened, the Catholic Conference does not endorse such an approach in principle and could not conscientiously support it.

This teaching has been recently repeated by the National Confer ence of Catholic Bishops of the United States in their resolution of November 13, 1973. They stated: "Finally, we wish to make it clear beyond doubt to our fellow citizens that we consider the passage of a prolife constitutional amendment a priority of the highest order, one to which we are committed by our determination to uphold the dignity of the human being and by our conviction that this Nation must provide protection for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all human beings, before as well as after birth.”

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAYI. Thank you, Cardinal Medeiros.
Cardinal Cody.

Cardinal CODY. Mr. Chairman, I am Cardinal John Cody, the Archbishop of Chicago. Some of the technical and legal aspects of the abortion issue have been covered by my colleagues. In concluding our joint presentation, I wish to touch on certain long-rang implications of the Supreme Court's decision and of the current practice of abortion in this country.

One aspect of the Supreme Court's action which have received relatively little attention, and yet deserves the most serious and profound reflection, is the criterion it adopted in evaluating unborn human life. The unborn child, according to the court majority, is to be considered viable when he or she is "capable of meaningful life" outside of the mother's womb. Furthermore, even the viable child prior to birth is, in the eyes of the Court, not a person "in the whole sense." What precisely does this mean? The very vagueness of the language. as of the thinking, makes it difficult to say with certainty. And it is exactly its subjective vagueness which makes this line of thought so dangerous. At the very least it appears that the Supreme Court has taken the position that there are no clear and objective criteria to guide our approach to human life. Instead, human life is to be respected only to the extent that it meets shifting interpretations of "meaningfulness" which government, society, or an individual may choose to apply.

This represents a radical threat to the dignity and sanctity of all human life. I do not suggest a moral "domino theory," as if abuses against the value of human life is one area lead inevitably to abuses in others. But readiness to destroy some human lives because they fail to measure up to ill-defined, subjective standards of "meaningfulness" can infect society's attitude toward life in general and lead to abuses which were originally unforeseen.

This has begun to happen in our country. I will not recount in detail the incidents which have already come to light in recent months-of

sterilization of public welfare recipients and of handicapped infants allowed to die. Apparently, this cruel standard of "meaningfulness" has already begun to take its toll on other lives besides those of the unborn. Where does his process end? Who among us feels confident that he or she knows?

My point is this: Unless America is prepared to protect unborn human lives, it cannot with confidence guarantee protection to any life. A threat to any innocent life is implicity a threat to all.

Society is obliged to protect and enhance human lives-all human lives. Our concern should not be limited to the unborn but should extend to women experiencing problems in pregnancy and to their families. A wide range of medical and social services must be available to all who need them. A truly humane and compassionate approach will employ such measures as these, not abortion.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you and the other members of this subcommittee have heard a great deal from concerned Americans who wish the speedy enactment of a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. So have we. The public demonstrations which occurred on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol and in many communities around the country on the first anniversary of the abortion decisions were visible testimony to the deeply held desire of millions of Americans for action to protect the unborn. These are Americans of many different creeds and races. A Jewish doctor, writing in the letters column of the February 23 issue of Time, had this to say:

As a Jew, I hold the right to life of an innocent just as sacred as any Catholic may. It is true that Catholics are particularly mobilized against abortion. Why shouldn't they be? Are not Jews particularly mobilized against genocide-or is that wrong? How is it possible that a line of distinction can be drawn between different kinds of human life?

That is a question which all Americans might ponder as we confront the tragedy of abortion in our country today. I quote from the Jewish doctor's testimony: "How is it possible that a line of distinction can be drawn between kinds of human life?"

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Cardinal Cody.

I would like, and I imagine some of the members of the committee would also like to ask some questions of the panel. I find myself in an unusual position as a junior Senator addressing questions to a panel of such distinction.

Before doing so I would like to make one observation for the record. This whole question of abortion is a very controversial one, as I am Sure you gentlemen know. I am not addressing these remarks to you, but to some who may be present and for the record.

This is a very difficult, tough question, and there are some people who have disclosed rather serious complaints and criticisms to the chairman of this subcommittee for having hearings. It seems to me one of the problems we have in America today is that too many politicians have tried to sweep the tough controversial questions under rug. For that reason, if for no other, it seems to me we have a moral obligation on this subcommittee not to dispose of this particular issue by silence. I would like to think that one of the basic strengths of our country is our right to respectfully disagree and yet to pursue the

the

truth. It is the pursuit of the truth that causes the chairman of this subcommittee to have these hearings.

With that in mind, I feel an obligation to explore the truth with all of our witnesses to the best of my ability, and I am sure that the other members of this committee do as well. This may at times make it appear to all of our witnesses that the chairman of the committee is being a bit harsh. I hope that all of our witnesses will understand that the questions that I ask are not meant to be tough, but are asked because I don't know the answers to some of them. I wish I did.

I would like to direct some questions in a rather broad manner in an effort to try to find out things in a bit more detail your thinking about some of the things that you did mention as well as some other things that have been said that I think it is important to have your opinions upon.

One of the facts that has been brought to the subcommittee's attention is that prior to the Supreme Court decision, there were in excess of 800,000 illegal abortions performed. In addition, there has been a great deal of attention given to the fact, and I think these are roughly accurate facts, that the ability to get safe abortions is dependent to a very great degree on the financial status of the woman involved, that many of the poor women who sought to abort a yet unborn child were forced to seek out quacks or use some of the home efforts that either left a mutilated child or a dead mother, sometimes both.

Could you gentlemen please address yourselves to these thoughts. If we amend the Constitution, I would assume that there would still be those who would seek out or provide illegal abortions. Could you address yourself to that question and the statistics I quoted above, either from a right-to-life standpoint, or from a moral standpoint, however you care to begin.

Cardinal KROL. Mr. Chairman, I will try to submit some reflections on this.

As I indicated in my presentation, we will be happy to respond to the questions of the subcommittee to our best ability because we are engaged in pursuit of the truth, and while we make no pretense of expertise in the medical and legal areas, nevertheless, this is a matter of very serious importance.

You mention, Mr. Chairman, the question that there were an estimated 800,000 illegal abortions before the January 22, 1973, decision. You follow up with the reference that this is available to the moneyed people and not the poor people. May I submit that the question is not the availability of abortion but the rightness of it. Is it right or is it not right? Is it correct or is it not correct? Is it a violation of human rights? If it is a violation of human rights, then it is not and should not be available to anyone, with or without money.

Second, the argument has been presented that there were 800.000 illegal abortions before and so the logical thing to do is to make it permissible. I am sure that this kind of logic applies, let us say, to the whole area of rape, that it is being done outside the law, so, therefore let's remove the law and make it legal. I don't think anybody could agree to that type of logic.

Senator BAYH. Is that a fair comparison?

Excuse me for interrupting your answer, but the argument is directed at steps taken by a human being to control certain aspects

of