Proponents Of course contraceptives should be more widely available and promoted; however, in the present state of contraceptive technology, and given the continuing possibility of human error in the use of even the best methods, abortion is needed as a backstop; its use is not preferable to contraception, but once a pregnancy occurs, it is the only means of birth prevention. While states which have liberalized abortion laws may have experienced initial pressure on personnel and facilities, this does not appear to have remained a continuing problem. As deliveries decrease in number and as bungled illegal abortions require less hospital time and space, the legal abortion demand will probably turn out to be less on balance. Some may initially find participation repugnant; some may continue to do so; their right to refuse should be granted, but in most situations to date, there have been sufficient personnel to fill in. Proponents 1. The physician often believes that it is in the best interests of the mother to perform an abortion; good medical practice is deterred by restrictive laws. 2. Consider the tremendous costs in hospital staff and facilities and impersonal danger and suffering of the public health aspects of illegal abortions poorly performed; women will abort, one way or another, whatever the law says. 3. 4. Substitute measures will not alleviate the mental and physical health problems associated with unwanted pregnancy, excessive childbearing or pregnancies occurring in rapid succession. The original reason for passing restrictive abortion laws was not for the protection of the fetus (there were no or few Catholics in the legislature at the time), nor for the protection of public morality, but for protection of the women from a then-dangerous surgical procedure, more dangerous than childbirth. Since the reverse is now true (childbirth is more risky than hospital abortion), the law ceases to be constitutional. "See Means, The Phoenix of Abortional Freedom: Is a Penumbral or Ninth-Amendment Right About to Arise From the Nineteenth-Century Legislative Ashes of a Fourteenth-Century Common-Law Liberty?, 17 N. Y.L.F. 335 (1971). SOCIAL ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Proponents This was the warning in Colorado (first state to modify) and each successive state; such has not proved the case. A look at abortion ratios in Hungary, Japan, and even Scandinavia, and a comparative look at ratios in the United States will suffice to set at rest the description of New York, or Baltimore, or Denver as "abortion capital of the world." Mere modification doesn't, in fact, eliminate illegal abortion; it only makes a dent. But farreaching liberalization (as in Japan and Hungary) does drastically curtail it (as reflected in decreased deaths and hospital admissions for "incompletes"), but the residual can be attributed to remaining restrictions and lack of privacy within the legal registration system. And possibly Hitler wouldn't have been born either. We do not miss the many persons not born because they were spontaneously aborted. If Beethoven's father had coughed at the critical moment, a being other than Ludwig would have been born instead. If the abortion "mecca" argument fails to prevent liberalization, then last-ditch efforts to curb the numbers of abortions performed takes the form of suggestions for residency requirements. Not only are they probably unconstitutional but the medical delivery system has been found adequate to handle the influx of non-residents wherever laws have so far been liberalized. Under restrictive laws, poor women suffer most, as reflected in their disproportionate mortality and underrepresentation in the few hospital abortions performed under restrictive laws. Legal abortion will be made available on a voluntary basis to those women who want to use it-there is no suggestion for coercive measures in a call for liberalization. Opponents Society would do better to make substitute provision for unwanted children with adequate institutions and benefits to enable each child to have a warm and loving home. Many women who do not want a child when they discover their pregnancy do change their minds and love the child when it is born-and vice versa. It cannot Opponents statistically be proven that children born to women denied legal abortion fare any worse than those presumably willingly conceived; irresponsible parenthood stems from many causes and should be dealt with accordingly, unwanted children can turn out to be creative genuises, contributing much to society. Although we are alarmed by the surging increase in illegitimacy, society must find alternate ways of preventing it sex education, adequate contraception or of dealing with it once it occurs adoption services, child care allow ance, jobs for unwed women. Deformed children have as much right to live as others; many deformed persons lead normal and constructive lives. If you sanction the disposal of deformed fetuses, you may soon also decide to do away with the elderly and the useless, or the non-productive adult. Tragic as these cases may be, that is not adequate justification for the destruction of human life. (Opponents do, however, sometimes find rape so abhorrent that they would make an exception.) That is a matter of discriminatory application of the law, not of its substance. Neither group should seek or obtain an abortion, safe or unsafe, legal or illegal. Many laws are difficult to enforce; that is not sufficient justification for their eradication. The United States is not experiencing a population explosion. Problems of pollution and environmental degradation are due more to other causes (increased affluence) than to population growth. Growth is good for business. If growth seems detrimental to our quality of life, then we should step up family planning programs utilizing contraception only, avoiding the necessity for including abortion. If you can use abortion to control the size of the population, then you will also justify eunthanasia and genocide. There you are-genocide, the elimination of "undesirables." Society must make adequate provision for its needy not merely ensure their non-birth. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Opponents The father should have some say, or equal 1. say, since it's his fetus too. Proponents He's not a "father" (any more than she's a "mother") until a child is born. He may contribute 50% of the genes, but he does not have to bear and care for the outcome. A husband's consent clause violates the woman's right to U.S. SENATE, Hon. BIRCH BAYH, Washington, D.C., March 5, 1974. Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing in behalf of the members of the Woodstock (Vermont) Right to Life Committee, who have sought my aid and assistance in the following matter. The membership of the Committee is most anxious to have their statement in support of the Helms Human Rights Amendment included in the transcript of the hearings you will be holding tomorrow and Thursday, March 6th and 7th. I would deeply appreciate your complying with this request. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. ROBERT T. STAFFORD, U.S. Senator. WOODSTOCK RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, We, the undersigned members of the Woodstock Right to Life Committee support the Helms Human Rights Amendment, or any Constitutional amendment which protects the right to life from conception to natural death. We base our support on the Declaration of Independence which endows us with the unalienable right to life. We know, as do all thinking persons, that life begins at conception. Since each of us was once a fertilized ovum, it is clear that the fertilized ovum is human life and, therefore, is entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States of America. FRANCES W. GILLETT BEATRICE GYRA JOAN R. JOHNSON THOMAS F. DUTTON TERRY DIETZ FRANCIS G. DIETZ SARAH M. DIETZ ABORTION: THE COURT DECISION AND SOME CONSEQUENCES OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (By Phillips Cutright, Department of Sociology and Karen B. Cutright, School of Law, Indiana University, Bloomington) INTRODUCTION Recent actions by anti-aobrtion Congressmen and Senators to by-pass normal legislative routines suggest a real possibility that the Supreme Court decision on abortion will be nullified by a Constitutional amendment. The purpose of this article is to lay some groundwork from which one may judge various claims of anti-abortionists and to assess the likely consequences of a successful effort to repeal the Court decision. It is not enough merely to say you support the Court decision-one should know what one is supporting. Similarly, it may help stiffen resistance to a proposed Constitutional amendment if its consequences are spelled out. After reviewing the facts in each of the cases heard by the Court we summarize the Court's reasons for finding in favor of the appellants. The probable consequences of the Court's decision are then described. Finally, some consequences of a reversal of the Court decision that would follow from a Constitutional amendment are given, and some suggestions for local activities that may help check the anti-abortion movement are offered. 57-782 O-76-30 |