equally repugnant. Can we then accept the idea that an egg, fertilized, is human from the moment of conception?

At which point then can we assume an embryo is more than just a piece of tissue? Embryologists suggest that it is not until the fifth month that the brain of the fetus has developed enough to resemble that of a human being.* It is also around that time when a fetus becomes something more than a tissue inside the mothers body. With intensive care, many babies born after the fifth month of pregnancy can survive.

What of the woman herself. Have you, or any legislator for that matter ever asked a woman that has had or needed an abortion, how she feels about it. Through all the emotional outcries from the "Right to Life" groups, one fact has been ignored. Most women in the United States never have advocated abortion as a form of birth control. Most women seeking abortions are those already with children, that cannot, for various reasons, face another pregnancy. The decision to have an abortion is never taken lightly. Probably no decision a woman makes is more important; no decision can affect her whole life so completely as having a baby.

The belief in fetal rights and the states' rights to regulate reproduction has resulted in much unnecessary anguish for many women and their families.

Antaibortion forces would give fetuses rights that living people don't enjoy. No humans rights to life include the use of another human beings body and life support systems against that individuals will.

Since the Ft. Wayne Chapter of Zero Population Growth was formed three years ago, we have received many calls from women and men with problems related to an unwanted pregnancy. They had no where to turn and hoped we could provide some alternatives. May I relate two of these to you?

A woman called, extremely upset about her sister. The sister already had five children, one right after another. The family was already living at poverty level. Due to a birth control failure she was pregnant again, according to here doctor, probably with twins. Her health was poor and the husband, furious with her for "getting pregnant," felt it was all her fault and left. Close to a breakdown, with five children to care for and now provide for; she was truly desperate. Could she obtain an abortion? At this time abortions were illegal and medically she was not a candidate for a therapeutic abortion. What could we tell her?

Then there was a call from a girl, unmarried, a student, who found herself pregnant. During the course of the conversation it became obvious that, although a college student, her knowledge of contraception was very limited and much was incorrect.

Can we truly expect her to change her plans for the future because of an unwanted pregnancy? The father could continue with his plans for his future. Is she less important; is she that much less than an equal human being, that a pregnancy should have precedence over her, and dictate her future?

Ideally prevention would be the answer. But, present conrtaceptive methods are not perfect and sex education is not wide spread, but rather left up to parents, and statistics show how effective that is. Ironically we have found those that are against abortion are the same ones that are against sex education in schools, are against contraceptive use, especially among the under age and single, and think sex is dirty and should be used only to reproduce. They do not recognize it as a perfectly human instinct and would have those that do be forced to accept the strict doctrine of sex only for reproduction purposes.

Possibly the true solution to this most perplexing situation is assuring the money is available for perfecting contraception and then making sure contraception and sex education are available to all, thus eliminating the need for abortion.

Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,

JULIE MCLEOD.

2 B. I. Balinsky, An Introduction to Embryology (Philadelphia: Saunders 196TM p. 370.

WISCONSIN CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR LIFE,
ORDINANCE CODIFICATION SERVICE,
Milwaukee, Wis., August 16, 1974.

Hon. BIRCH BAYH,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments,
Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR BAYH: As a member of the Board of Governors and Board of Directors of the Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Life and President of the Milwaukee Chapter, I present herewith a statement of the WCCL prepared for your committee with respect to the Right to Life Amendment on which you are conducting hearings.

While we would like to present this statement to your subcommittee orally, we realize how crowded the schedules of the Senators are, and so we submit this statement in writing and respectfully request that it be made a part of your hearings and that it be included in the printed hearings of your committee.

We believe we have provided new material to the subcommittee in that we have outlined the impact of the Roe vs. Wade decision of the Supreme Court on the Wisconsin Law.

If there is any further information you would like to have with respect to any matter covered in our statement we would be pleased to try to furnish it to you.

Sincerely yours,

DAVID KEYSER,

President.

STATEMENT OF WISCONSIN CITIZENS FOR LIFE RE HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT TO U.S. CONSTITUTION

The Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Life, 4945 West Fond du Lac Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has several thousand members and twenty-five local chapters in various communities in Wiconsin. We submit this statement in support of the Human Life Amendment which would protect human life from its biological beginning.

When the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, 93 S. Ct. 705, declared the Texas abortion statute unconstitutional it also stated that any state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type is unconstitutional.

The Court made much of the "fact" that the purpose of the Texas statute was to protect the mother and not the unborn child, and also that there was no penalty for the mother for destroying her own child by abortion.

The Wisconsin Statute, however, clearly states that its purpose is to protect the unborn child, and it does impose a penalty on the mother who destroys her unborn child.

However, we can take little encouragement from the fact that our statute differs from the Texas statute. The temper and tenor of the Court clearly indicates that it would engage in some other line of sophistry to find Wisconsin's statute unconstitutional. For the Court was hell-bent in its exercise of social engineering to pave the way for abortions, even if it had to rupture the U.S. Constitution to do it.

Thus in its august wisdom, the Court set aside the will of the citizens of Wisconsin as constantly expressed through their legislators ever since the founding ofthe state in 1848. Somehow we are supposed to draw the conclusion that seven judges in Washington in 1973 are smarter than the people of Wisconsin and the thousands of Wisconsin legislators and judges over the past 125 years who also took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

A review of the Wisconsin law on abortion over the years will show the attitude and intent of the Wisconsin legislators with respect to abortion: an attitude and intent either ignored or unrecognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade case.

The Wisconsin Constitution adopted in 1848 provides in Article 1, section 9: "Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries, or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character; . . ."

57-782 O-76-28

The first publication of the Wisconsin laws after the adoption of the Constitution, the 1849 Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, clearly indicates the will and intent of the legislative to include the unborn child within the class of persons who are to be protected by the law.

Chapter 133, of the 1849 Revised Statutes of Wisconsin is entitled: “Offences Against the Lives and Persons of Individuals" and deals with murder, homicide and manslaughter. Sec. 10 of Chapter 133 reads:

"The willful killing of an unborn quick child, by an injury to the mother of such child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of such mother shall be deemed manslaughter in the first degree."

Section 11 reads:

"Every person who shall administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or other means, with intent thereby to destroy such child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purposes, shall in case the death of such child or of such mother, be thereby produced, be deemed guilty of manslaughter in the second degree."

In 1858 these two sections were revised only a striking the word “quick.” Thereafter the text of these two sections remained the same until 1947 except for numbering. (Sec. 10 became par. 4347 of 1878 R.S. and Sec. 340.11 of 1925 Wis. Stats. Sec. 11 became par. 4352 of 1878 R.S. and Sec. 340.16 of 1925 Wis. Stats.)

In 1947 Sec. 340.16 (old Sec. 11) was renumbered 340.095 and amended to read at end:

. . . be deemed guilty of murder in the third degree. In case the death of the mother is thereby produced it is unnecessary to prove that the fetus was alive when the act so causing her death was committed."

In 1955 the criminal code revision rewrote the abortion statutes into present Wisconsin Statute Section 940.04 which provides as follows:

"940.04 Abortion. (1) Any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child may be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 3 years or both.

(2) Any person, other than the mother, who does either of the following may be imprisoned not more than 15 years: (a) Intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child; or (b) Causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an unborn child. It is unnecessary to prove that the fetus was alive when the act so causing the mother's death was committed.

(3) Any pregnant woman who intentionally destroys the life of her unborn child or who consents to such destruction by another may be fined not more than $200 or imprisoned not more than 6 months or both.

(4) Any pregnant woman who intentionally destroys the life of her unborn quick child or who consents to such destruction by another may be imprisoned not more than 2 years.

(5) This section does not apply to therapeutic abortion which: (a) Is performed by a physician; and

(b) Is necessary, or is advised by 2 other physicians as necessary, to save the life of the mother; and

(c) Unless an emergency prevents, it is performed in a licensed maternity hospital.

(6) In this section "unborn child" means a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive."

The statutes defined abortion as manslaughter in the second degree from 1849 to 1947, and as murder in the third degree from 1947 to 1955. Since 1955 the statute does not define it, but it still appears in statutes after murder and ahead of manslaughter.

And the statute continually refers to "destroy the life of an unborn child." Clearly the aim was to protect the unborn child.

The Court in the Wade case said,

"The few state courts called upon to interpret their laws in the late 19th and 20th centuries did focus on the States interest in protecting the woman's health rather than in preserving the embryo and fetus."

The Court in this statement obviously could no tbe referring to the Wisconsin law since it is self-evident that its purpose was to protect the embryo and fetus.

The Court also stated:

"... The word 'person' as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn."

We contend this is a gratuitous statement with only specious reasoning to back it up. It should have said, "The word person as we use it does not include the unborn."

The only logical conclusion one can draw from the court's statement is that the House and Senate and the legislatures of the several states intended by the adoption and ratification of the 14th Amendment to abolish the abortion laws of the various states. This inconsistency in the court's decision was clearly shown by Justice Rehnquist in his dissent in the Wade case.

There can be no question that the Wisconsin legislature with a law on the books declaring the destruction of an unborn child to be manslaughter in the second degree had no intention of revoking that law when it ratified the 14th Amendment.

Independent of the abortion laws Wisconsin has also shown its concern for the unborn child in its welfare laws. Sec. 46.03 (7) of the Wisconsin Statutes on Children and Youth imposes on the State Department of Health and Social Services the following duty:

"(b) When notified of the birth or expected birth of a child born or likely to be born out of wedlock, see to it (through advice and assistance to the mother or independently) that the interests of the child are safeguarded, that steps are taken to establish its paternity and that there is secured for the child (as near as possible) the care, support and education that would be given if legitimate." (italics supplied)

This statute indicates a clear obligation of the state to safeguard the life of an unborn illegitimate child, and not aid or abet the extermination of the child. And that duty is not any recent innovation, but is traceable all the way back to the time Wisconsin was a part of Michigan territory (See Laws of Michigan, 1833, "Support and Maintenance of Illegitimate Children", Sec. 1, pp. 335, 336).

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has also protected the unborn child.

In Kwaterski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 34 Wis. 2d 14, (1966) the court held that "a viable infant who receives an injury and by reason thereof is stillborn is a "person" within the meaning of sec. 331.03 of the Wisconsin Statutes (later 895.03 of Stats), so as to give rise to a wrongful-death action by the parents of the stillborn infant." The court further stated in that same case that it did not decide what the law would be in the case of a non-viable unborn child, but its language indicated that it would probably hold the same in such a case because the court quoted favorably in its decision from Puhl vs. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co., 8 Wis 2d 343 (1959).

In the Puhl case the Court stated:

"The viability theory has been challenged as unrealistic in that it draws an arbitrary line between viability and nonviability, and fails to recognize the biological fact there is a living human being before viability. A child is no more a part of its mother before it becomes viable than it is after viability. It would be more accurate to say that the fetus from conception lives within its mother rather than as a part of her. The claim of a child injured before viability is just as meritorious as that of a child injured during the viable stage. The proof of such injury, of course, may be more difficult."

The Supreme Court decision in changing abortion from a crime to a constitutional right leaves Wisconsin and the other states in a helpless position to cope with this heinous offense. Even the infamous Dred Scott decision did not deprive the states of their right to regard slavery as a serious wrong and to ban it from their jurisdictions.

The Wisconsin Constitution from its beginning banned slavery in Wisconsin (Art. 1. Sec. 2) Nine years after Wisconsin became a state with this provision in its constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court in Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) declared that a slave was not a legal person under the U.S. Constitution and had no standing in court; and held that the United States could not even prohibit slavery in the territories. Yet this decision did not render void our Wisconsin constitutional provision banning slavery. It was still not legal to own a slave in Wisconsin despite the Supreme Court decision that a slave was not a person under the U.S. Constitution.

In fact, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had declared in 1854, prior to the Scott decision in In re Sherman M. Booth, 3 Wis. 13 (*1), 113:

"In Virginia he may indeed be a chattel, but in Wisconsin he is a MAN." So however abhorrent the Dred Scott decision may have been, it did not trample on the Wisconsin law and the human rights protected by it, as the Wade case has done.

The fundamental purpose of government is set forth in our Declaration of Independence:

"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.-That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men . . .

The only way the Supreme Court can square this clear statement of our founding fathers with their interpretation of the Constitution in the Wade case is to say that a man is not created until he is born; which is obvious nonsense. Is a person created weighing 81⁄2 pounds?

We submit the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is not merely an erroneous interpretation of the U.S. Constitution but is in itself a massive assault on and rupture of the constitution.

For long before the United States existed, and should it ever depart the scene of world history, it was and will be the primary function of any government to secure Man's unalienable Right to Life.

The Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Life petition and entreat the U.S. Senate to overcome the Supreme Court decision by proposing a Constitutional Amendment which will protect the Right to Life from its biological beginning. There is no way to change the nature of the act of abortion, no matter when it is performed. The euphemism "terminate a pregnancy" glosses over the essence of the act of abortion which is deliberately to destroy a human life precisely because it is a human life. If this were not a human life there would be no clamor for the right of abortion.

What is life but a story of man's growth, physically, mentally and morally; to learn, to grow, to achieve, to mature, to love, to understand, and then to shed our earthly straight-jacket for an immortal life? Is any part of this life cycle less important than any other part? Who can make this determination?

Humanitarian feelings cause some people to advocate abortion, not on demand, but in cases of rape, incest or possible deformities of the child. The sentiment is understandable, but even here the right to life is still such a basic, inalienable right that no such exception can legally be made. The circumstances of conception do not change the essence of life as far as the embryo is concerned. He is still a human being and deserves his right to make his mark in the world even as all of us. With respect to deformities. we do not destroy deformed or incurable people living amongst us. The number of amputees, blind, deaf and paraplegic people in the world who cherish their own lives testifies to the fact that "life is more than the rainment." We are reminded that John Keats was "doubly dead in that he died so young" at the age of 26. What shall we say of all the children who never had a chance to see the light of day?

The outlook is bleak for a reconciliation of the abortion issue. This is not like the usual legal matter where some degree of accommodation by opposing factions can be made. There is a basic philosophical question whether the courts or legislatures like to face it or not. It has been reiterated that we live in a pluralistic society; each person may have his own beliefs and customs; and each may go his own way. But this is only a limited truism. It can be applied to the accidentals of life, but it cannot be applied to fundamentals. We still would not permit cannibals to pitch their tents in town and practice their trade. Can a society continue to exist which does not have some basic consensus of fundamental beliefs?

We are still living on the residuals of a civilization based on the teachings of Christ and the prophets. These still influence the behavior and conduct even of nonbelievers, culturally if not by conviction. But how long can our civilization live off the residuals of a previous civilization? Our laws will inevitably reflect our mores. Abortion on demand reflects a distinct deterioration in the regard for human life, caused by an erosion of religious and moral beliefs. This is not inevitable. People who believe in the right to life of an