capital punishment, religious inquisition, or punitive legislation. Brethren have sought rather to develop helping institutions and services for those who suffer, to introduce a note of compassion.

SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The biblical affirmation that human life is sacred does not easily resolve the ethical dilemmas concerning the quality as well as the fact of human life. Such a dilemma is obvious when the life of a mother is threatened by her pregnancy. Most Brethren have been willing to allow that a fetus may be aborted to save the life of the pregnant woman. This seems to be within the direction of biblical teaching although we marvel at the love of a mother who voluntarily risks her life in order that her child might be born. Surely no one should be required to do so.

The dilemma is posed in another form when the threat of world over-population is considered. Various population estimates indicate that the world will be intolerably overpopulated within two or three generations if present population trends continue. The human reproductive potential is increasingly coming into conflict with the lives and quality of life of those already born. Is the threat of overpopulation with attendant starvation and death sufficient reason to resort to abortion? Reverence for human life should lead Christians to use medically safe and effective contraceptive methods rather than resort to abortion.

The moral dilemma of abortion is complicated by the fact that abortion is not so available to the poor as it is to those who are not poor. It is hardly just to retain strict abortion laws that are only enforceable against those who cannot afford to do anything but comply. The dilemma is also complicated by the fact that abortion is so prevalent, even in the face of great danger and degradation. Thousands of women each year willingly risk their lives and many die because of self-induced or illegally obtained abortions. Their decisions to abort could hardly have been made for the sake of mere convenience or whim, but must rather have been accompanied by severe mental anguish and despair. Even though abortion is not an acceptable means of solving problems, there are many situations in which a woman finds no alternative that she feels she can bear. In such cases, condemnation is destructive and does nothing to relieve misery; it only makes a woman less capable of coming to a rational decision.

Merely condemning abortion is self-defeating. In our concern for the well-being of the fetus, we may add to the despair that has already driven the mother to seek a "way out" of her problems rather than find a constructive solution. On the other hand, merely condoning abortion is equally self-defeating. In our concern for the mother, we run the risk of encouraging her too easily to make a decision that is callous of all human life in its destruction of the unborn. We must not allow ourselves simply to voice a position and then be satisfied that we have met our responsibility. Rather, as Christians we must actively and compassionately share in the burdens that lead women to seek abortions.

In seeking to preserve the life of a woman and the fetus she carries, we need to understand the life-destroying situations that drive her to abortion. Her family may already be so large and so poor that they are starving. The fetus may be defective and require expense and care, both emotional and physical, that she and her husband are unable to give. Faced with these and other difficulties, a couple must sometimes make an extremely difficult decision. When they prayerfully and maturely wrestle with all available alternatives and choose personal sacrifice for the sake of their unborn child, we celebrate God's compassionate spirit.

MEDICAL/COUNSELING CONSIDERATIONS

The range of individual choice regarding pregnancy and family planning is much broader than it used to be and modern medical developments promise to make it even more so. Modern contraception has made pregnancy a relatively deliberate and free option for many persons in our society. The risk to life and physical health of the mother as a consequence of pregnancy and delivery is now small; the physical risk accompanying medically ethical abortion procedures in the first trimester of pregnancy is much smaller. This risk increases, however, as pregnancy progresses. By way of contrast, the risk to health and life due to clandestine, unhygienic, often desperate abortion procedures at the present time is exceedingly high, and there are many hundreds of needless deaths yearly. Further technological advances in the utilization of intrauterine devices (IUDs), the

"morning-after” pill, and the seemingly imminent appearance of effective oral medication that will abort by chemical means in the earliest stages of pregnancy promise to make it increasingly difficult to delineate contraception from abortion. Existing public laws with respect to abortion, therefore, may well become increasingly irrelevant and unenforceable.

Technical discoveries about the genetic and congenital abnormalities of human development have increased the possibility of detecting carrier states of defective genes and chromosomal defects and of predicting such disease in potential offspring. Such conditions may occasionally be diagnosed as early as midpregnancy. Genetic counseling considers the degree of risk involved, the seriousness of the possible defect, the parents' willingness to care for a defective child, the possibility that a defective child might be helped by medical or surgical procedures to achieve a more nearly normal life, the possible result of the defect on the life of the child, on other members of the family, and on society.

Psychological studies of women who undergo abortion by acceptable medical procedures have not supported generally held beliefs regarding the emotional stress of such an experience. In the majority of cases, general relief or a brief and mild depressive reaction is reported. Rarely do more severe disturbances appear. The emotionally disturbed woman who undergoes abortion seems to experience no loss of stability and, sometimes, even improves. Frequently expressed beliefs regarding the occurrence of involuntary infertility, difficulty in sexual functioning as well as depression, are not substantiated by the presently available evidence. There is, however, continued expression of concern by psychiatrists and psychologists about adverse effects, short-term or long-term, individually or collectively, of requested resort to abortion.

Effective research has yet to be done to clarify the real psychological and social efforts of changing social codes regarding abortion and the response that large numbers of persons are making to these changes. Clinical experiences with persons who have sought an illegal abortion, usually in a context fraught with tension, secrecy, fear, and real risk to life and health, reveal frequent important emotional trauma and suffering from the experience. It appears that condemnatory attitudes, compassionlessness, profound insensitivity, and lack of understanding in ourselves and those around us lie at the heart of this distress. Even when no longer expressed in legal prohibitions, these attitudes tend to be preserved in the larger community, and often in the church as well, by keeping distant from the problem and by isolating responsibility within the hands of the medical profession. Professional people, as well as their patients, have need for persons of compassion and insight who will undertake to share the burden of moral decision and thereby bring a fuller humanity into the lives of all. The meeting of minds, whenever possible, of caring persons most involved and most to be affected by any decision brings dignity, moral sensitivity, and support to persons in crisis.

Psychological studies of children and of family life have brought a new and increasing concern of behavioral scientists for the problems of the "unwanted child." Nearly everyone agrees that being unwanted in early childhood is devastating to the development of personality and is the cause of many behavioral and emotional problems.

The physician is committed to the preservation of life. When faced with a request for abortion, he is placed in a position of felt conflict that is often keen. Along with his commitment to life he and other counselors are also called upon to care about and relate to individual persons in their choices, conflicts and needs. He is asked to care enough that instead of controlling, dominating, or manipulating, he seeks rather to set persons free to grow and to discover their own highest purposes.

A POSITION STATEMENT

Brethren oppose abortion because it destroys fetal life. Let it be clear that the Brethren ideal upholds the sacredness of human life and that abortion should be accepted as an option only where all other possible alternatives will lead to greater destruction of human life and spirit.

However, we confess that we are part of a society that contributes to abortion by denying parents the support and assistance they need. We further confess our lack of compassion, our condemnation of those who differ with our view of morality, and our need to coerce and compel others to our way of thinking.

Thus, our position is not a condemnation of those persons who reject this position or of women who seek and undergo abortions. Rather, it is a call for Christlike compassion in seeking creative alternatives to abortion.

72-889 76 Pt. 2 - 27

We support persons who, after prayer and counseling, believe abortion is the least destructive alternative available to them, that they may make their decision openly, honestly, without the suffering imposed by an uncompromising community.

We oppose any action, direct or indirect, by parents, physicians, the state, or anyone that would compel a woman to undergo an abortion against her will.

All who seek abortions should be granted sympathetic counsel about alternatives available as well as the health and safety of publicly available physicians and hospital care.

It is vital to the spiritual and social well-being of the Brotherhood that it educate its members about the sacred spiritual quality of human life and human sexuality, family planning, and the meaning and practice of responsible parenthood. This effort should be both an individual and collective responsibility. The Brotherhood should also support organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Clergy Consultation Service in their educational efforts.

Christian parents must seriously consider limiting family size, since overpopulation poses a very real threat to the whole of human life. However, this should be achieved by contraception and voluntary preventive measures, such as male or female sterilization, rather than by abortion.

The Brotherhood should do everything it can to assist and encourage mothers and fathers to want and care for all their children. For example, Brethren can show their concern and compassion by providing homes for unwanted children or by giving of their time and resources to families who cannot afford the care of another child or cannot bear the physical strain of an additional infant. For many Brethren, situations such as threat to the life and health of the mother, rape, incest, or possible fetal deformity are considered sufficient to warrant abortion. However, such situations need not necessarily lead to abortion unless they threaten serious destruction of the life or spirit of the family. The precise definition of circumstances must be left to the mother, father, physician, pastor, and other significant persons who are well informed and in whom the mother and father have confidence.

Counseling should encourage the mother and father to work through the decision in view of the value of human life, the options available, including adoption and foster care, the consequences of options, and the well-being of those most directly affected.

Physicians are urged not only to consult with their medical colleagues, but also to seek other ways to share the burden of moral responsibility so frequently thrust upon them. They are encouraged to resist the inclination to shoulder the weight of decision in isolation from others who are involved and concerned. Any physician or attendant who, because of personal moral conviction, chooses not to perform or participate in an abortion, however legal, should be free to do so in good conscience, and should receive the full support of the church. We urge a physician with such convictions to refer patients who may desire an abortion to another competent certified doctor.

Laws regarding abortion should embody protection of human life, protection of freedom of moral choice, and availability of good medical care. Brethren should work for laws that uphold these principles, even though there are differing opinions as to how such principles may be achieved. Brethren are asked not to try to enforce their highest ideal of morality by strict civil law.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Brotherhood make available a course of study on human sexuality and responsible parenthood. Such a course should be designed to assist congregations and families in their teaching and individuals in personal growth.

2. That a "fellowship of families" be organized in a network throughout the brotherhood for the purpose of helping those families who need support and assistance in wanting and caring for their children. Examples of such assistance include taking in an unwanted child, sharing in the care of a handicapped child, sitting with children so that parents can renew their own relationship, or giving material and financial aid. The strength of such a fellowship should be in its ability to respond creatively to any situation in which families need help in wanting and caring for children.

3. That, at the joint initiative of the Brotherhood and of interested physicians, a group of physicians, informed pastors, and knowledgeable laymen be called together to consider ways to promote sharing the burden of responsibility for moral choice, so often left to the physician alone.

STATEMENT OF THE LEHIGH VALLEY ABORTION RIGHTS ASSOCIATION (LEVARA), BETHLEHEM, PA.

The Lehigh Valley Abortion Rights Association was organized in the Spring of 1971 by some citizens of Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton as a response to the introduction into the Pennsylvania Legislature of a completely restrictive abortion bill:-no abortions under any circumstance whatsoever. Our purpose now is to support the United States Supreme Court's abortion decisions of January 22, 1973 and to oppose efforts to undermine or overturn these decisions.

The personal opinions of our membership regarding abortion for themselves vary, but we are strongly united on the proposition that each pregnant woman is entitled to make the decision to continue or terminate the pregnancy in consultation with her doctor and without government interference except as any regulation would be related to the protection of her health. That is, every woman is entitled to make a decision to obtain a safe, legal abortion if she chooses it. This in no way forces abortion on anyone.

We believe that Congress should reject the proposals for constitutional amendments which seek to abolish the historic freedom to limit child-bearing as contained in the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment and as recognized by the Supreme Court.

It is unfortunate that this religious debate is now taking place in the halls of Congress in this year in which we are celebrating the Bicentennial of our nation's birth! A constitutional amendment which would grant rights of due process and equal protection to a fetus from the moment of conception would establish a theological presupposition of equality between the adult woman and a fetus which she is nourishing,-a moral belief that is not held by most major religious bodies. This is not a matter of "when life begins",-human life began eons ago. The abortion controversy centers on the relative importance of the stages of human biological development, (1) the live ova and sperm before they meet, (2) the moment of fertilization, (3) the fertilized ova as they implant in a woman's uterus, (4) the periods of nourishment and maturing of the embryo before birth. Different religious bodies and religious people of good faith do not all agree on the personal and societal value of the unfertilized sperm and ova nor on the value of the fertilized ova. Our constitution and legal precedent in this country protects human life following a live birth,—a live birth being interpreted by the Supreme Court as a human individual (person) which has the potential to mature without the life support of the woman.

When asked to comment on January 22, 1973 about the Supreme Court's ruling on that day, The Rev. Dr. Howard D. Spragg, executive vice-president of the Board for Homeland Ministries of the United Church of Christ said, "The decision is historic not only in terms of women's individual rights but also in terms of the relationship of church and state. Although religious principles often form the basis of secular law, we hold that where religious beliefs vary, American law traditionally establishes the neutrality of the state. The doctrine of one religious group is not imposed by legal fiat or enforced by criminal sanctions on the rest of American society." On the same day, the late Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, obstetrician and gynecologist of world renown, called the decision "a wise and courageous stroke for the right of privacy and for the protection of woman's physical and emotional health".

Surely Congress does not wish to pass a constitutional amendment which would be contrary to the moral beliefs of over 50% of its citizens. May we please refer you to the fine tabulations of citizen polls from the various states on abortion? These polls are attached as an exhibit to the splendid testimony of Senator Packwood at the Senate Subcommittee hearings on March 10, 1975 and are recorded in the Congressional Record on March 11, 1975, Vol. 121, #39.

However, it is our opinion that your decision on these "fetus-rights" and "states' rights" proposals should not be based on citizen polls, but on justice and constitutional grounds,-that no amendments should be added to the constitution which undermine the existing amendments. It should be some satisfaction to know, though, that the majority favors the right to choose.

The Supreme Court in its January 22, 1973 decision explains carefully the reasons for these decisions. Lower courts had already ruled that restrictive abortion laws were unconstitutional. A year ago, in April 1975, the Civil Rights Commission of the U.S. transmitted to President Ford and members of Congress their review of the U.S. Supreme Court's abortion decision in its report-Constitutional Aspects of the Right to Limit Childbearing-in the light of the fetus-rights and states' rights proposals to amend the constitution.

In this report the Civil Rights Commission advises that these proposals to outlaw abortion by constitutional amendment would undermine the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution and would, as well, cause chaos in our tort, property, taxation and criminal law. Further these proposals would discriminate cruelly against poor women.

These amendment proposals before you would not stop abortion,-they would only make abortion illegal, expensive and dangerous. Such amendments in making abortion inaccessible would discriminate not only against poor women, but against poor children as well. Women of means for well over 50 years have been able to obtain safe abortions. Now, with the improvements in medical science, an early abortion is 8 to 10 times safer than child-birth or tonsillectomy, even mid-term abortion is a little safer than child-birth. A reprint from Science by the Institute of Medicine on abortion and women's health is attached.

In regard to those who advocate the limitation of the right to choose abortion under circumstances which are not related to a woman's health, Mr. Justice Blackmun in writing the Doe v. Bolton, the Georgia part of the decisions, explains carefully the injustice which would follow such attempts; this part of the ruling makes clear that a "middle ground" between choice and arbitrary restriction to choice cannot be arrived at logically or fairly. Mr. Justice Blackmun who wrote the majority opinion for the Court was eminently qualified since he had previously been legal counsel to the Mayo Clinic.

We view with alarm the recently introduced bill by our own Pennsylvania Congressman Edwin Eshleman, H.J. 485: "no human fetus shall be aborted after its heart begins to beat except when life of the mother is endangered unless that abortion takes place." We regard this as a compromise attempt which would create an impossible-to-determine "grey area" in gestation time when abortion might or might not be permitted. No law can be this imprecise! This also could be interpreted as a means of defining death. Surely medical terminology which changes with medical progress should not be incorporated into our constitution.

The "states' rights" proposals either of the Whitehurst, H.J. Res. 438 or the "Noonan" type, H.J. Res. 681 (Sullivan) would not only add an amendment to our constitution which would undermine the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but would permit the States to place varying interpretations on our Federal Constitution. And if some states were allowed to prohibit abortion, the result again would be felt by the poor, those women who would be most likely to need abortion, but who would be unable to travel to distant places where legal abortion would be safely available.

You have before this Subcommittee a constitutional issue upon which honest men and women of many religious faiths differ. Please do not change our constitution to incorporate into it the religious precepts of less than the majority of our citizens. This would not only be unjust, but the ramifications in our criminal and civil law would be horrendous. Imagine, if you will, the dilemma which would be faced by a physician whose patient is threatened with a spontaneous miscarriage. To treat her he would be running the risk of prosecution for abortion. And, imagine the plight of the woman who could not find a doctor to care for her, because of the doctors' fears of criminal prosecution!

Please do not lead this country into another "Prohibition Era" similar to the 1920's and early 1930's-a time when crime thrived on the Eighteenth Amendment.

ABORTION STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

The American Association of University Women (AAUW), founded in 1882 as the first association of college and university educated women in the world, has a membership of 193,000 women organized in 1819 branches in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Since its beginnings the Association has worked actively in support of the rights of women, the rights of minorities, the rights of all people. Very early in this century AAUW's legislative and community work began to expand beyond the issues of educational opportunity and access to the professions as Association members came to realize that a woman's success in academia and in the professional world could not be separated from other issues as well, for example, health concerns, individual rights. In the 1930's AAUW took a stand in support of making contraceptive information available. Continuously since then the Association has supported the need for family planning, health education and contraceptive re