lation to a frenzy of sexual activity. Making legal abortion available can hardly increase promiscuity among those already married, and about half of all legal abortion cases are married women. The usual indicator of sexual promiscuity among the unmarried-the illegitimacy rate-cannot be used to show the stimulus that abortion allegedly gives to promiscuity because illegitimacy rates in foreign as well as the New York population all declined after the introduction of legal abortion on request. We also know that fear of an out-of-wedlock birth is rarely mentioned by unmarried persons still virginal as a cause of their sexual inexperience. People do not avoid illicit sex because of a fear of pregnancy, but for other reasons. Finally, the stigma and indignities suffered by women seeking illegal abortion are removed by legalization. In short, the consequences of legalization of abortion seem favorable. Costs and stigma decline while dignity increases. Illegal and risky abortions are converted to safe legal abortions, and the health of women and children benefit. Contraceptive use does not deteriorate and may increase, while illicit sexual activity is unaffected. The small increase in the total number of induced abortions under legal-on-request conditions goes primarily to the poor and the unmarried, with the effect of depressing illegitimate births and welfare dependency. CONSEQUENCES OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT We now consider the changes that would occur if efforts to pass a Constitutional amendment succeed. The amendment considered here is a "life begins at the moment of conception" type similar to what has already been proposed in the U.S. Congress, the legislatures of Indiana and other states. An alternative amendment returning to the states the power to legislate on abortion could have similar effects to those listed below, if the state then passed (as seems likely in many areas of the nation) its own "moment of conception" law under the influence of the anti-abortion lobby. At best the second type of amendment would take us back to the legal situation prevailing before the Court decision of January 22, 1973. If a moment-of-conception amendment passes, all the benefits from legal abortion on request will be lost, perhaps for the next century. Abortions will not cease they will revert back to their former hidden, illegal and hence uncounted status. As illegal abortions increase, we will once again have hospitals treating botched abortions, with the associated declines in maternal health. As the costs of abortions rise, and access becomes more difficult, the poor and the unmarried will, more than the middle-income and the married, be unable to have abortions-thus increasing the numbers of their children. The right to abortion, now defined as legitimate and proper, will be lost, and the indignity of seeking an illegal abortion will be with us once again. However, if the proposed amendment were adopted and enforced the consequences could be even more severe. When the law, which is to say the government, decrees the point at which life begins, then it must extend protections from that moment on. Until now, for most purposes the law extends protections to post-natal life only, and defines life in those terms. If we ask the government to decree that life begins at conception we ask the government to guarantee maximum protection to one form of life at the expense of another. The government would become the arbiter of the care the woman takes of herself perhaps before, and certainly during pregnancy. Just as the state acts in loco parentis for post-natal children, it would be forced to assume that role in areas where the fetus is dependent on its mother for the rights given it by a Constitutional amendment. The area of negligence law could be greatly expanded, for the fetus as to human with rights from the moment of conception would be able to sue for acts of negligence committed by its mother or third parties. (The government would sue on behalf of the fetus.) This would run contrary to a long tradition of not permitting family members to sue each other for acts of negligence in that such suits tend to destroy familial relationships. The most extraordinary effect such an amendment could have would be in the determination of pregnancy itself. In order to guarantee Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment rights the government must know the person to be protected actually exists. The only way to be sure that all fetuses are being properly cared for by their mothers and not being aborted is to see who is pregnant. That would require that every female who is unable to prove her sterility submit to a compulsory monthly pregnancy test from the onset of her first menses. One pregnancy is determined, the burden would be on the woman to show, in the event of fetal loss, that such loss was not due to an act or omission on her part. Similarly, if a woman needed to have an abortion to save her own life (for example in the case of ectopic pregnancy) the fetus would have to have its arguments represented since the consequences of a finding for the woman would deprive the fetus of its life. Any deprivation of life under the proposed amendment cannot be made without due process which means a trial with representation by counsel in front of a jury. It should be obvious that a Constitutional amendment that would convert fetuses into legal persons entitled to due process and equal protection could not and would not be enforced. Even the old laws aimed only at eliminating induced abortion were not seriously enforced over extended periods of time. If the original prohibition of abortion in the past could not reduce by more than 20-30 percent the total number of induced abortions, why would one suspect an amendment aimed at controlling spontaneous as well as induced fetal loss could work in tomorrow's world? How would the pregnancy status of the population be determined each month? Does anyone actually believe that American women would submit to compulsory monthly pregnancy testing? How would the legal system add more than one million jury trials a year to its calendar? Would physicians be able to do anything other than sit in courts day after day offering testimony on the probable cause of fetal loss? The legal and health system would grind to a halt if a serious effort were made to implement the amendment. If the amendment were merely ignored then what purpose would it serve? It would stand only as a symbolic victory for the anti-abortion crusade. The passage of the amendment would probably have three main consequences. First, all the benefits of legal abortion on request would be lost. Second, the majority of Americans who do not share the moral views of the anti-abortion lobby would be subjected to a tyranny of the minority, and their continued faith in the American political and legal system would be jeopardized by the passage of an amendment which is to them hypocritical on its face, unjust and brutalizing in its consequences. Third, induced abortions would continue under illegal conditions at about 70 to 80 percent of the number under legal conditions-with the reduction in numbers occurring disproportionately among the poor and the unmarried. LOCAL COMMUNITY WORK Meeting with Other Organized Groups At the national level the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Association of University Women, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization of Women, the Izaac Walton League as well as other conservation, women's medical and legal groups have supported abortion on request. All major organizations concerned with human fertility (Planned Parenthood-World Population, the Population Association of America, National Organization for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, ZPG, the Association for Voluntary Sterilization) and other similar groups support abortion on request. A variety of national religious organizations representing Protestant and Jewish organizations, humanistic and ethical associations are also on the record. In theory all these groups provide a basis for organized opposition to proposed Constitutional amendments originating in Washington, or in the States. The fact that no established secular national organization dealing with medical, legal and the human problems of childbearing opposes the Court's decision should be brought to the attention of legislators and the public. Direct contact at the state and local levels between leaders of these organizations should be encouraged. There is no reason for Planned Parenthood to "go it alone," when all these other groups share views similar to ours. Public Opinion All public opinion polls in the year or so before the Court decision showed a large majority (around two-thirds) in all areas of the nation favoring a change in laws so abortion would be a matter between the woman and her physician. All polls showed an overwhelming majority of adults approving of abortion in the case of risk to the mother's health, in cases of rape and incest, and in the instance of fetal deformity. Some 30-40 percent also said they approved abortion in the case of the unmarried, or when a married couple did not want another child. Thus, the public responds in different ways according to the question asked. The flexibility and inconsistency of attitudes makes the public vulnerable to propaganda campaigns which redefine the abortion issue. Thus in Michigan the issue was redefined from a referendum question asking whether the voter approved of changing the law, to the issue (defined by the "right to life" groups) of whether the voter was in favor of murdering fetuses. Although the legislators and the public are ill-informed about abortion and thus vulnerable to emotional appeals, we assume both are educable. Also, it seems likely that while the public and their representatives are loath to favor abortion under all circumstances, they will be dead set against the consequences associated with a Constitutional amendment. We doubt that Americans care about extending due process and equal protection to the unborn, with all that these legal rights entail. The public supports contraception as a means to reduce abortion, and for its own sake. Many anti-abortion groups oppose contraception and sterilization, as well as abortion. Vocal opponents of legal abortion have never assisted in the struggle to make contraception or sterilization available to the public, nor can they count among their membership people who have devoted their lives to reducing infant and maternal mortality. They have no past record of public service on which they may stand and claim some right to public respect. They are dedicated zealots whose "spiritual supposition" allows them to find evil where the rest of us find none at all. APPENDIX Some recent data are reported in Table 25b. In the note at the bottom of the table we report the number of legal abortions per 1000 live births, by marital status and race. These ratios are similar to those from New York City, reported by Tietze. The rates are lower than in New York because access to abortion in California was restrictive through 1972. The California data are superior to those of New York because one need not estimate the marital status of abortion patients, as in New York. When we break up the data by marital status and year we have an opportunity not only to have a descriptive picture of the trend in California's abortion and birth rates, but to also see whether or not the recent decline in California birth rates is still that one could confidently attribute declines in birth rates to increases in abortion rates. If you cannot do this then it is likely that the increase in legal abortion rates represents, for the most part, a replacement of former unreported illegal abortions with legal reported abortions. We have abortion rates per 1000 women aged 15-44, by race and marital status, related to birth by race and marital status in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972. We also show birth rates in 1966-a year when virtually no legal abortions were performed. The legal abortion rate for 1966 is not shown because it is not available-it may have been about 1 or 2 for the unmarried, and was certainly less than 1 per 1000 for married women. The top panel shows rates for unmarried women (i.e., separated, widowed, never-married and divorced). We find an illegitimacy rate of 26 per 1000 unmarried in 1969, and a rate of 22 in 1972-a decline of 4 births per 1000. In contrast, the legal abortion rate moved from 4 to 45 per 1000-an increase of 41. The increase in the abortion rate of 41 per 1000 is accompanied by a decline of only 4 per 1000 in illegitimacy rates. Other things being equal, this indicates that the bulk of the rise in the abortion rate to unmarried women represents replacement of former illegal with legal abortion. Inspection of data for the unmarried by race allows a similar conclusion. The 1969-1972 decline in illegitimacy is larger among blacks than whites. In one adds together the birth and abortion rate the total rate yields an estimate of change in the pregnancy rate, under the assumption that there were no illegal abortions in earlier years, and spontaneous fetal loss rates did not change. The latter assumption seems more credible than the former assumption. It is difficult to believe that the pregnancy rate among unmarried women more than doubled between 1969 and 1972-a conclusion would have to accept if one believed that no illegal abortions were performed in 1969. Among married women a different pattern emerges. For both whites and blacks the birth rates have declined, and even with the addition of legal abortions we have a decline in the total rate of known pregnancies among married women. At the very least this suggests a great improvement in contraceptive effectiveness between the late 1960's and 1972. Among married women it is unlikely that the rise in legal abortion had a great impact on marital births. For example, the abortion rate among black wives increased from less than 1 to 24 per 1000 between 1966 and 1972-an increase of 24. In contrast the marital fertility rate among blacks declined from 145 to 92-a drop of 53 per 1000. The decline in birth rates was double the increase in legal abortion rates. If one assumes a sizable level of illegal abortion among married women in 1966, the possible net increase in induced abortions is even less than 24-this again suggests that the bulk of the decline in marital fertility is coming from contraception-not legal abortion. Finally, it is interesting to have fertility rates, by color, for 1972 in a state with 20 million people. (The National Center for Health Statistics has not published national race-specific fertility rates since 1968, at which time the birth rates per 1000 whites and blacks aged 15-44 were 81 and 115, respcetively. This rate includes both legitimate and illegitimate births. Trends in California are shown in the bottom panel. We see that the fertility rate for all women 15-44 in 1972 was 68, and for whites only it was 67. The rate for blacks was 77 births per 1000 aged 15-44. Among whites a fertility rate of about 72 will be a replacement level if it is maintained over a long period of time. Among blacks slightly higher mortality at early ages requires slightly higher fertility rates to replace the black population-perhaps a rate of 74 will do the job. The conclusion, then, is that whites are slightly below and blacks only slightly above replacement fertility levels-this represents a radical change from the situation as late as 1970. Finally, it is doubtful that this radical change from the past is primarily caused by legalization of abortion, although we would expect to find larger effects on abortion on births after 1972. Although these abortion rates appear large they should increase in 1973 --especially among the poor and unmarried-because the court's 1973 decision will reduce restrictions on abortion in California that remained in effect throughout 1972. BIRTH AND LEGAL ABORTION RATES PER 1,000 WOMEN 15 TO 44 IN CALIFORNIA Source: Sklar and Berkov (1973). 1972 Abortion ratios for unmarried and married whites and blacks, respectively= 2,326, 1,105, and 98 and 253. White total=322; black total=680. RAPID CITY, S. DAK., August 28, 1974. Mr. J. WILLIAM HECKMAN, Chief Counsel, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HECKMAN: As Chairman of the Rapid City Right to Life Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to present written testimony from our group for your hearing on Constitutional Amendments. The Rapid City Chapter of the South Dakota Right to Life consists of 44 regular members. We have 6 members that are unable to attend meetings because of physical disabilities but who are on call for any assistance they can provide. There are also 5 non-members who are willing to donate time and money whenever possible according to circumstances. We are all opposed to abortion. It is legalized killing and is not consistent with our Constitution that proclaims all men are created equal and have a right to life. On August 13th through the 18th we had a booth at the county fair. The number of people who stopped to give us their moral support was very encouraging. In the three years of our existence we have never had such a heartwarming response. Recently we were able to acquire 8,000 signatures in just a few days to protest abortion in Rapid City hospitals. We sincerely hope that some of this pro-life feeling will penetrate the political minds in Washington. Please consider human life at all stages to be worthwhile even if they can't vote. Sincerely, MRS. LARRY ROBERDEAU (RITA), |