Humanitarian feelings cause some people to advocate abortion, not on demand, but in cases of rape, incest or possible deformities of the child. The sentiment is understandable, but even here the right to life is still such a basic, inalienable right that no such exception can legally be made. The circumstances of conception do not change the essence of life as far as the embryo is concerned. He is still a human being and deserves his right to make his mark in the world even as all of us. With respect to deformities, we do not destroy deformed or incurable people living amongst us. The number of amputees, blind, deaf and paraplegic people in the world who cherish their own lives testifies to the fact that "life is more than the raiment." We are reminded that John Keats was "doubly dead in that he died so young" at the age of 26. What shall we say of all the children who never had a chance to see the light of day? The outlook is bleak for a reconciliation of the abortion issue. This is not like the usual legal matter where some degree of accommodation by opposing factions can be made. There is a basic philosophical question whether the courts or legislatures like to face it or not. It has been reiterated that we live in a pluralistic society; each person may have his own beliefs and customs; and each may go his own way. But this is only a limited truism. It can be applied to the accidentals of life, but it cannot be applied to fundamentals. We still would not permit cannibals to pitch their tents in town and practice their trade. Can a society continue to exist which does not have some basic consensus of fundamental beliefs? We are still living on the residuals of a civilization based on the teachings of Christ and the prohpets. These still influence the behavior and conduct even of nonbelievers, culturally if not by conviction. But how long can our civilization live off the residuals of a previous civilization? Our laws will inevitably reflect our mores. Abortion on demand reflects a distinct deterioration in the regard for human life, caused by an erosion of religious and moral beliefs. This is not inevitable. People who believe in the right to life of an unborn child can reawaken in others, now morally dormant, this same concern and thereby prevent our society from being torn asunder. Sayeth the prophet in the book of Wisdom: "God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in destruction of the living. For he fashioned all things that they might have being; and the creatures of the world are wholesome . . . For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him." ALTERNATIVES TO ABORTION INTERNATIONAL, WORLDWIDE FEDERATION OF PRO-LIFE EMERGENCY PREGNANCY SERVICES, Attention: Alan Parker. Hon. DON EDWARDS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE EDWARDS: With reference to the hearings in progress on the abortion question, we offer, for the record, information derived from the wide experience of the Pro-Life Emergency Pregnancy Service Centers of the World. These Centers limit their activity to service given to persons troubled by problem pregnancies. As a Federation, A.A.I. does not involve itself in legislative or judicial disputation. Annual surveys contribute much toward the more complete understanding of the nature and the proportions of the abortion situation as it unfolds from year to year, both in this country and elsewhere. From our most recent survey conducted in mid-1975, it is clear that more than 1,000,000 calls for assistance are being placed every year in the U.S.A. alone. These centers, now some 700 in number, are staffed by some 50,000 volunteer workers. At least 90% of their clients are teenagers. Most of them are calling for help in response to minimal advertising by the centers, usually a two-line notice in the classified section of daily papers which reads for example, "Pregnant? Need help?-Call . . ." The greatest number of these unfortunate persons with unplanned pregnancies feel pressured into submitting to abortion against their own desires. These pressures typically arise from boyfriends, parents, husbands, school counselors and peer groups. Findings consistently reveal that nearly all these clients are willing, and even anxious, to continue their pregnancies rather than submit to abortion, providing they encounter sincere, well informed, experienced workers who take a personal interest in them. Utilizing already available community resources, these persons show a need, not so much for money as for continuing emotional support in the resolution of their problems. Therefore it can easily be shown that it is the problem, rather than the pregnancy itself, which converts a pregnancy into a problem pregnancy. Instinctively, and almost uniformly, these persons will choose life rather than abortion when they are offered viable alternatives. Volunteers the world over are day in and day out attesting to this fact. A.A.I., in less than five years, has grown from a formative 80 centers to some 700 in this country and more than 2,000 around the world. This record has been achieved through the efforts of volunteers who recognized a need and addressed themselves to it. They have organized and operated through their own initiative, almost never receiving money from government. Their services have been given without charge. Pro-Life Emergency Pregnancy Service Centers do explain "both sides" of the abortion problem to their clients, and thus make it possible for the abortion candidate to give truly informed consent to whatever decision is elected. Their continuing and unequaled growth with little to spend on public relations and advertising, testifies to the great need and to the general acceptance. A Worldwide Directory of Centers as of 1975 and a Fact Sheet are included among the enclosures to supply additional background information. To understand this Federation, to recognize the validity of the conclusions derived from its experience, and to recognize the need for its continued expansion and improvement of services, is not to take sides in the abortion debate. It is to recognize the need for services to those, mostly teenaged future citizens, who do stand very much in need if their futures are to be salvaged from continuing dilemmas, disharmony, and serious disasters. No constitutional questions are involved when it comes to helping one's neighbor at his/her request. Even revisions to the U.S. Constitution, and/or reversal of the Supreme Court Decision on the abortion question would do little to eliminate the need for these services, if one considers historically the slavery question and the Emancipation Proclamation and Constitutional Amendment which were designed to eliminate slavery. It takes many years to reverse a way of life no matter what legislative and judicial measures may be employed as remedies. The Officers and Trustees of A.A.I. will be pleased to appear and present testimony before any hearings in which these matters are relevant. Please feel free to contact us at any time for any additional information you may wish. Yours most respectfully, LORE MAIER, Executive Director, and Cofounder. STATEMENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR LIFE, INC. Senator Bayh and members of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, my name is Warren Schaller. I am an Episcopalian minister. I have been active in local, state, and national prolife groups for several years. Today I am addressing you as the President and Executive Director of American Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. (ACCL). My testimony is a statement on issues which are relevant to the prolife community of America. ACCL is committed to work toward an America in which abortion is not practiced because of respect for the life of the unborn child, and abortion is not needed to solve the social, emotional, medical, or personal problems of American women. The only exception to this position is an abortion to save the life of the mother when no other method of medical treatment offers a reasonable promise of protecting the lives of both the mother and the child. A unique human individual comes into being at conception. In order to protect this new life, ACCL supports the enactment of the strongest possible amendment to the federal Constitution. We understand such an amendment must contradict the Supreme Court decisions of January 22, 1973, at several basic points. First, the amendment should prohibit the actions of private individuals which would destroy the life of the unborn child. Secondly, the amendment should define the legal personhood of the child in the womb from the beginning of its biological development. Thirdly, the amendment must allow the exceptional case of abortion to prevent the death of the mother. ACCL commits itself to work toward a society where abortion is not needed. We accept national, state, and local political leaders as our partners in this effort. We believe they recognize, as we do, that it should not be necessary to sacrifice the rights of the unborn in order to alleviate poverty or to improve conditions in urban ghettos. We do not accept as final a view of America which says that children must grow up homeless or unwanted or abused if they are not aborted. We do not believe that young women must lose their opportunities for education or employment because they have become pregnant. Therefore, we ask the members of Congress to both protect and enhance all human lives, and to join with us in developing the following alternatives for dealing with the social and personal problems of women who are pregnant and distressed. FAMILY LIFE AND CHILDBIRTH EDUCATION Both men and women must understand the development of the newly conceived life in the womb of a mother, and understand the woman's own physiological, psychological, and interpersonal response to it, so they can accept the fact of the new life and assume responsibility for it. We encourage childbirth and family life education programs which stress, for both men and women, acceptance of their own bodies and their own sexuality. These educational programs should be based on the standards of the communities in which they are taught, and should involve the parents of students who are minors in the planning of the courses and selection of materials. The goals of such courses should develop positive standards of responsible sexuality and responsible parenthood. We look forward to the results of research which is designed to identify those factors which are essential in a healthy family environment and designed to develop methods for improving the quality of American family life. FAMILY PLANNING Women should be able to control their own reproductive functions and couples should be able to determine the size of their family, so long as the means they employ do not destroy a newly conceived life or deny that new life its proper environment. We encourage research in reproductive biology to further develop a variety of family planning methods which are appropriate to people of different backgrounds and beliefs, so long as these newly developed techniques are not intended or proven to act as abortifacients. Public family planning programs should be seen as an integral part of comprehensive medical care, and avoid indoctrination of the recipients into specific contraceptive techniques which are preferred by certain agencies or organizations. We object to any programs which involve penalties or incentives that oblige social workers or health care personnel to disseminate information which may not be desired by recipients of public benefits, or that oblige these recipients to practice contraception. BIRTH DEFECTS Being different is no reason for not being, and we reject eugenic feticide or infanticide. We do not approve and encourage research into the causes of birth defects, if the purpose of the research is to benefit both the individual involved and future generations. Genetic counseling is accepted if the purpose is to enable high risk parents to responsibly choose not to have a family. We encourage the elimination of disease rather than the elimination of diseased individuals, and point to programs to eliminate potential birth defects through rubella vaccination and through venereal disease treatment and prevention. Detection and monitoring of high risk pregnancies is appropriate to enable prompt pre- and postnatal treatment and rehabilitation. We encourage federal agencies to carefully screen potentially teratogenic (defect-causing) drugs. And we look forward to the development of insurance programs which would defray catastrophic medical expenses by paying benefits to the parents of children diagnosed as having medical problems of a major degree. Such benefits should be payable when the medical problems are diagnosed, whether during the prenatal period or at any time after the birth of the child. We support tax deductions for all adoptive parents, and incentives for the adoption of exceptional children. We also encourage the development of special educational programs for exceptional children, equal work and social opportunities for them, consideration in the designing of buildings and civic projects, etc. FETAL EXPERIMENTATION Proper concern for the rights of the unborn child need not bring medical research to a halt. New therapeutic techniques can be used with the hope of proving them superior to traditional methods of treatment, after adequate theoretical work and animal experimentation has been carried out. Parents can give consent for experimental therapeutic treatment of the unborn if there is valid reason to believe that such treatment is in the best interests of the child. In addition, organs may be transplanted from the dead fetus, and tissue cultures may be developed from fetuses which are clinically judged to be dead according to the same criteria which would be used for a born child or adult. We recommend careful retrospective clinical and statistical study of defective babies for identification of teratogenic drugs. However, this is not the same thing as purposefully introducing known or suspected harmful substances for research purposes into the live unborn child or his mother which could cross the placental barrier. Systematic benefit should not be derived from systematic induced abortion. We do not approve of experiments which would be judged "cruel" or "senseless" by the average sensitive layman. And parents cannot consent to non-therapeutic research on unborn children who are being purposely aborted. EUTHANASIA By referring to "personhood in the whole sense" and the capability of "meaningful life", we believe that the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973 opened the door to unfortunate future decisions in the area of euthanasia. Therefore, we would like to clarify, for the guidance of members of Congress, what we understand to be the important principles involved in the euthanasia debate. 1. If properly understood, we take no exception to the idea of a dignified death. By this, we mean allowing a terminal patient to die a truly humane death-to free the dying from the loneliness and alienation which may accompany the application of "extraordinary" medical technology. It is not necessary to continue extraordinary treatment where there is no hope of cure, restoration, or continuation of life. However, this "euthanasia" does not involve neglect of the dying patient, for he, like any other human being, is entitled to medical care which is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances involved. 2. We oppose "mercy killing", which is the intentional use of medical technology to cause or to hasten death. Mercy killing can include abandonment of a patient or withdrawal of “ordinary" (reasonable and prudent) medical care, as for instance when Mongoloid children are denied ordinary treatment for pneumonia. 3. We see a dangerous trend developing of "death selection", which is killing as a medical management option. This might also be called "managerial euthanasia", and involves defining certain classes of human beings as incapable of "meaningful life" and not persons in the "whole sense". Classes of individuals who may be subjects to such definition are the "habitual" criminal, the aged, the seriously mentally ill, the retarded, etc. ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS We favor mandatory maternity insurance benefits for all women regardless of marital status. Needy mothers should be eligible for AFDC payments for their unborn child as soon as pregnancy is diagnosed and continuing, for the full duration of pregnancy. The classification "illegitimate" should be removed from birth certificates. Low cost housing should be made available to single parent families. Day care facilities needed by mothers who must work to provide for themselves and their children should be widely available and controlled by the community standards and administered by the citizens of the areas in which they are located. Equal educational opportunities should be available for pregnant women both during and following the pregnancy, including parenting skills, job training, and marriage counseling. Senator Bayh, you know what an extraordinary undertaking it is to attempt to amend the Constitution on any subject, let alone on one as controversial as abor tion. It will take an enormous organizational effort and educational campaign to accomplish this task. We are going to amend the Constitution, Senator Bayh, because we are willing to make the effort involved. In the process of bringing about such a revolution we accept responsibility for helping to change the conditions of life for women who are pregnant under unfortunate circumstances, so that they need not resort to the choice of abortion. We invite you and other members of the Judiciary Committee to join with us in developing a suitable amendment to the Constitution to protect the life of the unborn child, and to work with us for its passage by two-thirds of the Senate. We likewise pledge to you our support in passing legislation which will ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged and vulnerable pregnant women, children who need special care and protection, and families who face exceptional problems in attempting to care for and raise their children. The prolife movement will be the partners and supporters of elected leaders who are working for the protection and enhancement of all human lives, and we will champion legislation to bring about these goals. STATEMENT ON MEETING THE NEEDS OF PREGNANT WOMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES BY MARJORY MECKLENBURG, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR LIFE, INC. (Prepared by Marjory Mecklenburg and Judith Fink, in consultation with men and women from the medical, legal, social science, and moral theology disciplines) My name is Marjory Mecklenburg. I am the President of American Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. (ACCL), a national organization which seeks to promote respect for human life and to work for its enhancement. Testimony presented to a previous Subcommittee hearing by ACCL outlined our philosophy on a broad range of the life issues. We are pleased that you have invited us to present further testimony today on the specific topic of alternatives to abortion. Senator Bayh, many people are disturbed by the rising tide of violence in this nation. Americans are subjected to violence on the streets and on television and movie screens. Congressional hearings on violence in our schools have recently been completed. The subject of violence has a great deal to do with what we are discussing here today. Abortion, the destruction of unborn human offspring, is a violent act. This violence to unborn children has become a widespread and legal practice that is publicly funded and promoted in our country. We in ACCL believe that our nation is capable of a loftier public policy-that our women deserve much more than the right to destroy. And that our nation's children, both born and unborn, have the right to protection and nurture by our great government. Senator, we are pleased that your Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments has not only chosen to hold lengthy and balanced hearings on a constitutional amendment dealing with the rights of the unborn, but that you have, in addition, focused today on the real problems faced by pregnant women and their families. Most of the testimony offered during the course of these hearings has been focused on the two poles of argument which underly the controversy over abortion. Those who share ACCL's concern about the loss of the right to life of unborn babies have focused on the need for re-establishment of that legal protection. Those speaking against the enactment of a Human Life Amendment have promoted what they believe to be the right of a woman to preserve her privacy by aborting her pregnancy. Abortion proponents have also argued that in order to prevent discrimination of poor women the procedure must be both legal and reimbursable through public funding. This sharp polarization has resulted in a degree of bitterness. We at ACCL have observed that additional subtler negative effects have taken place in the midst of the furor aroused by legalizing abortion. These effects have been deleterious to the pregnant women who decide to give birth to their babies. We need to ask what are the conditions of life which confront women who are troubled by an unintended pregnancy but who do not choose abortion. What are their rights? What is society's duty to them and to the children they will bear? Are we meeting that duty? Or have these women been largely ignored by the public sector and much of the private sector, and been pushed into the background or eliminated totally from the abortion debate? We believe that they have been ignored, and that they constitute a disadvantaged class suffering a special kind of discrimination. We believe that the abortion question centers around human rights-their interpretation, and their denial. We believe that the unborn child lays claim |