TESTIMONY His Eminence John Cardinal Cody Archbishop of Chicago Mr. Chairman: I am Cardinal John Cody. 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-range implications of the Supreme Court's abortion decisions and of the current practice of abortion in this country. One aspect of the Supreme Court's action which has 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 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 "meaninglessness" 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 in 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 the cruel standard of "meaningfulness" has already begun to take its toll on other lives besides those of the unborn. Where does the 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 implicitly 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 measures such 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 kinds of human life? That is a question which all Americans might well ponder as we confront the tragedy of abortion in our country today. "How is it possible that a line of distinction can be drawn between kinds of human life?" Resolution of the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON THE PRO-LIFE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT November 13, 1973 On repeated occasions since January 22, 1973, offices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops have expressed opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling on abortion. Abortion, the destruction of a living human being in the womb of its mother, is morally wrong. No law or judicial opinion can change the moral judgment. We are convinced that the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong, and must be reversed. The only certain way to repair effectively the damage perpetrated by the Court's opinions is to amend the Constitution to provide clearly and definitively a constitutional base for legal protection of unborn human beings. A number of constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress, but to date, no definite action has been taken. We wish to state once again, as emphatically as possible, our endorsement of and support for a constitutional amendment that will protect the life of the unborn. We urge Congress to conduct hearings and move with all deliberate speed to pass a pro-life amendment. We reaffirm the statement of the NCCB Administrative Committee of September 18, 1973. At the same time, we remind our people that the passage of the amendment will require concerted and continued efforts on their part to convince the Congress and the American people of its absolute necessity. Specifically, we urge public information programs and petitions to state legislatures to memorialize Congress in be half of a pro-life amendment. In all of this, well-planned and coordinated political organization by citizens at the national, state and local levels are of highest importance. Our system of government requires citizen participation, and in this case, there is a moral imperative for political activity. Thus, we commend and encourage pro-life groups that have already initiated programs of political action to bring about congressional action on a constitutional amendment. We urge continued and unified efforts directed toward convincing the Congress to hold hearings at the earliest possible date. We especially invite the collaboration of other religious leaders in pursuing a pro-life constitutional amendment. Finally, we wish to make it clear beyond doubt to our fellow citizens that we consider the passage of a pro-life 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 for all human beings, before as well as after birth. STATEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE CATHOLIC BISHOPS ANTI-ABORTION AMENDMENT September 18, 1973 The Administrative Committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirms its commitment to a constitutional amendment in defense of unborn human life. While abortion transcends legal and constitutional issues and involves fundamental questions of individual and social morality, a constitutional amendment is now the only viable means to correct the disastrous legal situation created by the Supreme Court's rulings on abortion. We therefore urge early hearings in the Senate and House on pending constitutional amendments to protect the unborn. We also urge pro-life supporters to call on their senators and representatives to support congressional hearings at an early date. We are strongly encouraged by the fact that numerous pro-life amendments have been introduced in both houses of Congress. We commend the many members of Congress who have sponsored such amendments. In view of the evidence of widespread popular and congressional support for an amendment, we feel that prompt and positive congressional consideration is in order. Furthermore, independent of the hearings, we recognize the need for grassroots pro-life organization on behalf of such an amendment. Local action can render an essential service: for ex |