Senator BAYH. Our last witness this morning is the Honorable Ernest Gruening, former distinguished colleague of ours from Alaska.

Senator Gruening, it is good to see you again and certainly characteristic of your long history of service for the State of Alaska and our country that you would not lose interest in a vital issue such as this just because you no longer officially wear the senatorial frock. We are glad to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST GRUENING, A FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Senator GRUENING. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief apology to make. When I was asked to testify and was given to understand there was some urgency, I dictated a statement over the phone off the top of my head which on reconsideration seems to be inadequate. So I am strengthening it a little bit, and with this strengthening I would like it to be the permanent record for the committee.

Senator BAYH. You can handle this any way you want.
Senator GRUENING. It is not very long.

As a long time supporter of birth control-the term coined by that great American woman, Margaret Sanger, half a century ago-Ï have approached the subject of abortion with considerable caution. When I was conducting hearings on birth control in the Senate in 1967 as chairman of the subcommittee of the Government Operating Committee, I purposely never brought up the subject of abortion because I realized that it was a highly emotional issue and that it would detract from the growing sympathy and support for what seemed to be an essential change in the public's attitude toward contraception.

I felt then, as I do now, that if birth control were widely practiced and intelligently applied, the number of abortions would be substantially diminished and that we should continue to work in that direction. However, it is inevitable that there still will be many involuntary or undesired pregnancies, and the issue of what to do then must be squarely faced. I realize and fully appreciate that there is something distasteful about abortion-the killing of nascent human life. But the fact is that abortions will take place in the case of a mother who already has more children than the family can support, and in such cases there is a crucial and tragic dilemma that confronts those involved.

Often the family situation becomes desperate. It is likely to break up the family life, and I may add that I feel there is something definitely immoral for parents to spawn more children than they can support.

So it is with regret that abortions will take place. But when they do, I submit it is infinitely better to have it done legally and by a reputable physician, rather than to have it done as in the past before legislation authorizing it was enacted, or before the Supreme Court validated legal abortion in 1973. In consequence, many mothers have died, since they were forced either to try self-abortion or seek some quack, who used neither sterile instruments nor proper medical techniques, and this created the great tragedy of a motherless family often with many small children. So it seems to me that we must first think of saving life, and that we must respect the right to privacy of every woman. I cannot conceive of the legality of a law which tells citizens or anyone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. I cannot

conceive of a court order which would command any person not to have an operation which he or she considers desirable. This I would view as a total violation of a basic freedom and clearly unconstitutional.

So I feel we must protect this right of self-determination, and therefore see to it that the Supreme Court decision on legal abortion be upheld and that efforts to repeal this progressive legislation be defeated.

Thank you very much.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Senator Gruening. I appreciate your contribution. Glad to see you again, sir.

[Senator Gruening's testimony follows:]

TESTIMONY OF HON. ERNEST GRUENING

As a long time supporter for over fifty years of birth control-the term coined by that great American woman, Margaret Sanger, half a century ago—I have approached the subject of abortion with considerable caution. When I was conducting hearings on birth control as chairman of a subcommittee of the Senate Government Operations Committee, the first hearings ever held in Congress on that subject, I purposely never brought up the subject of abortion because I realized that it was a highly emotional issue and that it would detract from the growing sympathy and support for what seemed to be an essential change in our attitude toward contraception.

I felt then, as I do now, that if birth control were widely practiced and intelligently applied, the number of abortions would be substantially diminished and that we should continue to work in that direction.

However, it is inevitable that there will still be many involuntary or undesired pregnancies, and the issue of what to do then must be squarely faced. I realize and fully appreciate that there is something distasteful about abortion—the killing of nascent human life. But the fact is that abortion will take place in the case of a mother who already has more or as many children as the family can support, and in such cases there is a crucial and tragic dilemma which confronts those involved. Often, the family situation becomes desperate. It is likely to break up the family life, and I may add that there is something immoral for parents to spawn more children than they can support.

So, if we grant that abortions will take place, I submit that it is infinitely better to have it done legally and by a reputable physician rather than as it was done in the past before legislation sanctioning it was enacted or before the Supreme Court validated legal abortion in 1973. As a consequence many mothers have died since they were forced to try self-abortion or to seek out some quack, who used neither sterile instruments nor proper medical techniques, and thus created the great tragedy of a motherless family usually with many small children. So it seems to me that we must first think of saving life, the life of a mother rates precedence over the life of a fetus, and that we must respect the right of self-determination of every woman.

I cannot conceive of the legality of a law which tells individuals what they may or may not do with their own bodies. I cannot conceive of a court order which would command an American citizen or anyone to have or not to have an operation which he or she wants. This, I would view as a total violation of a basic freedom and clearly unconstitutional. So, I conclude that we must see to it that the Supreme Court decision and legal abortion are upheld and that efforts to repeal this humanitarian legislation are defeated.

We will reconvene at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene March 7, 1974, at 10 a.m.]

ABORTION-PART 1

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1974

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 1202, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Birch Bayh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bayh, Fong, and Cook.

Also present: J. William Heckman, Jr., chief counsel; and Abby Brezina, chief clerk.

Senator BAYH. We will reconvene our hearings this morning, if you please.

This is the second day in our effort to find the answers to some of the most perplexing moral and political questions that are confronting us in the Senate today, an issue that is a very personal one to many, many people; and for that reason we are trying to get as broad a cross-section of opinion as we possibly can.

As chairman, may I say that we are indeed honored this morning to have before this committee four gentlemen who certainly speak with great authority and represent a very strong view in one area of the abortion question, Cardinals Krol, Manning, Cody, and Medeiros. Your Eminence, I think this is the appropriate reference, I am grateful that men of your stature and concern would grace our committee. I might ask my distinguished colleague from Hawaii if he has a

comment.

Senator FONG. Mr. Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming their Eminences, Cardinal Krol, Cardinal Manning, Cardinal Cody, and Cardinal Medeiros to this committee this morning. I know they have some very pertinent testimony this committee should hear. Thank you for coming.

Senator BAYH. Cardinal Krol, it is my understanding you are the initial spokesman.

STATEMENT OF JOHN CARDINAL KROL, ARCHBISHOP OF PHILADELPHIA; TIMOTHY CARDINAL MANNING, ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES; HUMBERTO CARDINAL MEDEIROS, ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON; AND JOHN CARDINAL CODY, ARCHBISHOP OF CHICAGO

Cardinal KROL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am Cardinal John Krol, the archbishop of Philadelphia. I appear before this subcommittee today in my capacity as

43-245-75-11

president of the U.S. Catholic Conference, the official, national-level agency of the 300 American bishops who minister to the spiritual and religious needs of nearly 50 million American Catholics. I am accompanied, as you noted, by Cardinal John Cody, archbishop of Chicago and chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities; by Cardinal Timothy Manning, archbishop of Los Angeles; and by Cardinal Humberto Medeiros, archbishop of Boston. Each of us will present a brief oral statement, after which we shall be happy to respond to the questions of the subcommittee. We also ask your permission to submit for the record a longer written statement of the position of the U.S. Catholic Conference, in which we express the enduring principles of the Catholic Church on this question.

Senator BAYH. Without objection, that statement will be submitted. Cardinal KROL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are pleased at this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. We are pleased, too, that the subcommittee has decided to conduct hearings on proposed constitutional amendments to protect the life of unborn human beings from conception onward. This is an encouraging sign of forward movement which, we hope, will soon lead to congressional enactment of such an amendment.

I emphasize the word "soon," for this issue has an urgency shared by few others now confronting our Nation. Each day that passes without such an amendment signals further massive destruction of unborn human beings in this country. It has been estimated that there is 1 abortion every 20 seconds in the United States-3 every minute. Every week, since the Supreme Court's decisions of January 22, 1973, there have been as many deaths from abortion as there were deaths at Nagasaki as a result of the atomic bomb. That is every week. Every 9 days there are as many deaths from abortion as there were American deaths in the 10 years of the Vietnam war.

Last month Mr. Justice Blackmun was quoted as saying that the Court's abortion ruling "will be regarded as one of the worst mistakes in the Court's history or one of its great decisions, a turning point." I agree with Justice Blackmun at least to this extent, that the abortion decisions will be viewed as a tragic mistake. But I am convinced that they will ultimately be seen as the worst mistake in the Court's history. Only a constitutional amendment can correct this mistake.

At the same time, we are aware that amending our Constitution is not a step to be taken lightly. Congress and the states are obliged to reflect seriously on such action. In this process of reflection it is essential to consider the views of many concerned Americans. It is precisely as concerned Americans who are also moral and religious leaders that we appear here today.

We do not propose to advocate sectarian doctrine, but to defend human rights, and specifically, the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life itself. While we are leaders of the Catholic Church in the United States, we believe that what we say expresses the convictions of many Americans who are members of other faiths and of no faith, and there is evidence of this.

I do not intend to dwell at length on this point, but I believe it is important at least to raise it, in order to dispose of a facile but misleading slogan often directed against those who speak against abortion. We reject any suggestion that we are attempting to impose "our”