health education emphasizing the dangers of such abortions, and education for responsible sexuality might provide a start, but more far-reaching socio-economic reforms are probably necessary so that women are not driven to such drastic action by societal attitudes and neglect. 4. Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest to spare the woman mental anguish One pro-abortion source (Hardin, 1968) estimates the number of such pregnancies in the U.S. at 800 per year. Again, this is a tragic figure, but a policy of killing the child to redress the father's wrong hardly seems just. By changing present public policy, we can construct social reality so that the woman need not suffer unduly after such an incident. To a large extent, the amount of anguish a woman or girl suffers depends upon society's definition of the situation. We may continue treating her as we generally do now, stigmatizing her, saying, "She probably brought it on herself," forcing her to give up schooling or job, or counseling her that the only "humane" thing to do is to destroy the child within her, while attempting to alleviate her guilt feelings. Or, we may accept her situation with compassion, allow her to continue schooling, provide maternity leave, and marshal our helping professions' resources for her so that she may bear the child with a minimum amount of medical, social, and psychological trauma. Being raped is a tragic experience. Nourishing a child for nine months and giving birth so that it may experience another 70 years of life need not be defined as an equally tragic experience, however. Although there may be unwanted pregnancies, adoptive parents can insure that there are no unwanted children. 5. Abortion is necessary to protect the physical, mental, or social health of the mother With modern medicine, cases in which "it's the baby's life or the mother's" are quite rare, and were covered by existing laws prior to abortion "reform." Some obstetricians claim never to have experienced such cases in their careers. Hilgers and Shearin (1971) report that in a two-year period (1966-68), and over the course of 5,102 deliveries without one maternal death at St. Louis City Hospital, only one abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother. A report of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1971), surveying 30,336 legal abortions in nine states, indicated that only 4.8 percent were performed because of the mother's physical health. No one has demonstrated that becoming pregnant causes mental illness nor that an abortion cures mental illness. The unborn child has a right to life and may be placed for adoption if the mother is unable or unwilling to care for it. Abortion as a solution to the personal and social problems of illegitimacy, poverty, and mental retardation is a sad commentary on our affluent, death-dealing society. Far from being an avant-garde social development offering new alternatives (the tradition of destroying human life to solve one's problems began with Cain and Abel), abortion is right in the mainstream of the American value system involving rugged individualism, economic cost-accounting and quality control, man vs. nature, "things before people," and the technological imperative. The destruction of human life made possible by mechanical advances (vacuum aspirations are neater, more impersonal, and more efficient) and biochemical discoveries (morning after pills destroy human life before it is recognizable as such) becomes acceptable simply because technological advances make it more feasible, and succeed in coming between those who employ the technology and those who are its victims. 6. Abortion should be allowed for the sake of the unwanted child This is what I term the "1984 argument." In the society 1984, the government promulgated slogans like "Love is Hate," and "War is Peace." This justification for abortion tells the child: "There is a probability (often not even a certainty) that you will grow up unwanted, battered, or handicapped. Therefore, we are going to destroy you now to save you from this fate." "Love is Hate," "War is Peace," "Destroy to Save," all seem quite similar in their reasoning. The same logic leads pro-abortionists to declare that infant mortality has declined since the inception of New York's abortion law (Pakter and Nelson, 1971) and that proabortion policy improves child health (Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, 1972, 102)! Presumably we could also improve the health and lower the death rates of our over-65 population if we undertook a policy of selective termination of 64 year-olds. 5 For expressions of these values, see Tyler and Schneider (1971). Hardin (1973). Tietze (1973), and the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (1972). In actuality, every child's "right to be born a wanted child” becomes a license to destroy those children who are not wanted. We presume to forecast the future for the child, and then to determine for him whether we consider the life we foresee worth living. This hardly seems to be a policy likely to avail the greatest number of people with the greatest number of options. Rather, it is a policy designed to secure the "rights" of the powerful at the expense of the weak. While I do not mean to condemn the motives and intent of those who advocate a permissive policy, the line between concern for others and self-interest is often a thin one. In “liberating" ourselves, are we not imposing a new set of restrictions on others, and telling them: "Thou shalt not be imperfect, and therefore a burden to us"? Advocating abortion as a solution to the problem of child abuse neither deals with the underlying problems of child-abusers, nor does it protect children, since abortion is the ultimate in child abuse. 7. Strict anti-abortion laws limit freedom, lenient or no laws do not This justification for abortion is related to the "don't force your morals on me" argument, or as one pro-abortionist expressed it, "They force their religious garbage on others and demand their ideals be law." I assume the pro-abortionists' idea of a good society is one where each woman is "free" to decide whether or not to have an abortion. They reach this conclusion on the basis of their concept of the moral order, and certain value judgments. I defend their right to speak for the good society as they see it, and to support public policies which would make such a society a reality, but resent them telling me I do not have the same rights. The myth that only anti-abortionists would have their ideals reflected in the law of the land and are thereby infringing upon the rights of others to live as they choose was exploded by the recommendations of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (1972), which urged that we adopt permissive statutes nationwide, and use local, state, and national taxes and insurance premiums to pay for abortions. Those are my tax dollars and insurance premiums they are talking about. They would use them, and the money of thousands of others of like mind, to pay for a practice we consider morally abhorrent. That, certainly, is forcing their morality on us. Throughout the U.S., various organizations have announced their intention of taking court action to force hospitals under Catholic auspices to perform abortions, and judges in various states have ordered state welfare departments to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for welfare mothers. The question then, is not, "Should we allow one group to force its morality on us?", but rather, "Which group's morality should we adopt?" and "Which group's morality results in the greatest good for society?", since no public policy can be morally neutral. Moreover, as social scientists, we know it is naive to assume that individuals are controlled and influenced in societies with strict abortion laws, but not in those with lenient or no laws. Geis (1972, 70), Rosenblum (1970, 153–155), and Knight (1972, 126) have noted some of the social pressures brought to bear on women in a society with permissive abortion policies. A society which has an abortion clinic in every health facility is quite different from one in which abortion is outlawed. Both, however, reflect, create, and sustain social values, norms, and pressures. Both constitute cultural systems which will "cramp the styles" or offend the moral sensibilities of some persons. Almost all laws limit some people's freedom to preserve the (presumably more essential) freedom of others. One could use the "no law is the best law because it leaves open the most options" argument to defend doing away with all laws. For example, why not have permissive slavery? Who knows my personal life circumstances well enough to say that I should not keep a slave? Who has a right to impose their moral viewpoint on me? If others do not believe in slavery, a permissive law certainly would not force them to have slaves. Similarly, I might argue, why should we have a law requiring school integration? If you want to send your child to a racially integrated school, you are free to do so, but do not force your morality on me and tell me I must. 8. Restrictive anti-abortion laws are not effective deterrents, and thereby engender disrespect for the law The deterrent effect of any law is difficult to determine without setting up an experimental situation. However, the tendency for legal abortion rates to skyrocket and illegal rates to remain stable or increase when laws are "liberalized” (Frederiksen and Brackett, 1968; Hilgers, 1972) suggest that many are de terred. Geis (1972) cites data from Sweden which indicate that only 3-12 percent of the women denied legal abortions resorted to illegal ones. It is only partially true that "you can't legislate morality." Laws do influence people's ideas of right and wrong and their behavior. Indeed, recent research suggests that "most adults in any culture are at a stage in moral development where existing laws and customs are the most important bases for deciding what is right and what is wrong." (Dyck, 1972) As far as respect for the law is concerned, there are thousands of our citizens who regard present policy with disdain, and are actively working to change it. Just as there were those who refused to pay their taxes because of the killing in Vietnam, there are those who now do so when taxes go to support abortion programs. 9. Restrictive anti-abortion laws are discriminatory It is true that the educated, wealthy and influential could circumvent locally strict laws much easier than the poor, uneducated and powerless. We would do the latter more good by equalizing wealth, education, and power, however, than by helping them destroy their children. Moreover, it is naive to assume that present policy has given the rich and the poor the same options and freedom. The rich still obtain better care in private facilities (Tietze and Lewit, 1971), and in a tax-conscious, cost-accounting society, poor minority parents on welfare are hardly likely to have the same freedom to determine family size as affluent white parents. Two recent cases involving sterilizations of welfare recipients in Alabama and South Carolina should make this clear. A permissive abortion policy does not end discrimination, nor does it solve the basic problems engendered by poverty. 10. Abortion is necessary to fight the population explosion While we certainly should be concerned about the population explosion, there are more humane solutions than abortion. The major problem as far as the U.S. population is concerned is that the rest of the world cannot afford us. Paul Ehrlich (1968) states that we consume over half the world's raw materials, although we constitute less than 1/15 of its population. Population "problems" have always involved the interaction of numbers of people and the resources necessary to support them at a given standard of living, as the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (1972) consistently points out. In spite of this, and in spite of the fact that it stated, "At the present time, it is difficult to make precise quantitative statements concerning the demographic impact of abortion" (1972, 103), while blithely assuming that in the year 2000, "The average individual's consumption is expected to be more than twice what it is today...." (1972, 38), the Commission placed its major emphasis on limiting the number of people by means including abortion, rather than urging that we cut down on the consumption of luxury items in order to conserve our resources and control pollution." The Commission made tax-supported abortion-onrequest an official recommendation, taking some three pages to justify this policy, (1972, 101–104), while it took only a few lines to suggest that we cut down on extravagant consumption (1972, 42, 51). It took two pages (1972, 40-41) to defend the notion that population stabilization would not be bad for business, but almost no space to suggest that the growth of business might be bad for people. As a nation, we have not yet come to the realization that we are all here together on spaceship Earth, and that whatever we use to sustain ourselves we deny, at least potentially, to others. Or realizing it, we are now concentrating on deciding whom we can shove overboard to increase our comfort, rather than on making the trip equally comfortable for those already here, including the unborn. CONCLUSION We have adopted a permissive abortion policy to solve certain personal and social problems. In my view, it is an extreme policy and is based upon inadequate evidence as to its necessity and efficacy. It is a "solution," moreover, which involves the destruction of human life. Certainly, we can utilize our professional efforts and knowledge, our organizing ability, our charity and tax dollars to develop programs which nourish all human life, and which make the choice of life more feasible, desirable, and honorable for our citizens. Hilgers, 6 Four Commission members did note this gross imbalance in emphasis in dissenting statements. Some of the Commission's own data on pollution control (1972, 48-49) suggest that cutting our GNP by one percent in the next thirty years would do more than reducing family size by one child. Commoner (1971) attributes only 10-20 percent of the pollution build-up of the last 35 years to population growth, while allotting 80-85 percent to technological "improvements." Mecklenberg, and Riordan (1972) offer a list of practical, constructive programs, and a good starting point. Beyond these, we must work to change societal attitudes away from seemingly efficient but superficial, destructive solutions to human problems. Personal freedom is truly enhanced, it seems to me, only by helping people appreciate the facts of the situations they find themselves in, and encouraging them to deal with the facts in ways which permit self-acceptance and personal growth toward others. If these suggestions for social change appear to be idealistic and naive, I would point out that the same might have been said of the abortionist's goals seven years ago. Unless we actually begin to act in support of more positive programs, they never will be realized. REFERENCES Callahan, Sidney. Feminist as Anti-abortionist. National Catholic Reporter, April 7, 1972, p. 7. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Population and the American Future. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1972. Commoner, Barry. The Closing Circle. New York: Knopf, 1971. Dailey, Edwin F., Nick Nicholas, Frieda Nelson, and Jean Pakter. Repeat Abortions in New York City: 1970-72. Family Planning Perspectives, 1973, 5, 89–93. Dyck, Arthur J. Is Abortion Necessary to Solve Population Problems? 1972, pp. 159-175 in Hilgers and Horan. Ehrlich, Paul. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine, 1968. Frederikson, Harald and James W. Brackett. Demographic Effects of Abortion. Public Health Reports, 1968, 83, 999-1010. Geis, Gilbert, Not the Law's Business? Washington: National Institutes of Mental Health, 1972. Gesell, Arnold L. The Embryology of Behavior. New York: Harper Brothers, 1945. Hardin, Garrett. Abortion-or Compulsory Pregnancy? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968, 30, 246–251. Hardin, G. Stalking the Wild Taboo. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, 1973. Hilgers, Thomas W. The Medical Hazards of Legally Induced Abortion. 1972, pp. 57-85 in Hilgers and Horan. Hilgers, T. W. and Dennis J. Horan. Abortion and Social Justice. New York: Hilgers, T. W., Marjory Mecklenberg, and Gayle Riordan. Is Abortion the Best Horan, D. J., John D. Gorby and T. W. Hilgers. Abortion and the Supreme Noonan, John T., Jr. Dissecting the Decision. National Catholic Reporter, February, 16, 1973, pp. 9, ff. Pakter, Jean and Frieda Nelson. Abortion in New York City: the First Nine Months. Family Planning Perspectives, 1971, 3, 5-12. Rosenblum, Victor G. Coercion in Liberation's Guise. 1970, pp. 143–156 in Hilgers and Horan. Tietze, Christopher. Two Years' Experience With a Liberal Abortion Law: Its Impact on Fertility Trends in New York City. Family Planning Perspectives, 1973, 5, 36-41. Tietze, C. and Sarah Lewit. Legal Abortions: Early Medical Complications. Family Planning Perspectives, 1971, 3, 6-14. Tyler, C. W. and J. Schneider. The Logistics of Abortion Services in the Absence of Restrictive Criminal Legislation in the U.S. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, as reported in Family Planning Perspectives, 1971, 3, 59. U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. The Effects of Changes in State Abortion Laws. Washington, 1971. U.S. News and World Report. Why A Sudden Drop in Baby Adoptions? July 30, 1973, p. 62. U.S. Supreme Court Reports, Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton 35 L. Ed 2d. February 15, 1973, pp. 147-222. Willke, J. C. and Barbara Willke. Handbook on Abortion. (Rev. ed., 10th printing). Cincinnati, Ohio: Hiltz, 1972. Wynn, Margaret and Arthur Wynn. Some Consequences of Induced Abortion to Children Born Subsequently. London: Foundation for Education and Research in Child-Bearing, 1972. Hon. DON EDWARDS, NEW YORK, N.Y., January 5, 1975. HONORABLE CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: I have been informed that you are accepting testimony concerning women's personal experiences with abortion and therefore request that you accept this correspondence as mine. I shall not be disclosing that specific location of these experiences for the protection of my family nor do I feel I have the option of approaching your committee personally as the experiences herein described have held a lasting effect upon me and I find that when attempting to verbalize them I become too upset to talk. Hence, as a citizen, I would very much appreciate your submitting this testimony on my behalf. When I was a young girl, my mother and I were terribly poor. Daily living was a never ending struggle. We always had more bills than income and found it necessary to move to a slum area where oppression was the greatest common denominator amongst neighbors. My mother and I were the only whites in the area who didn't conveniently leave at the end of the business day. Everyone else was black and Puerto Rican. Nobody in our neighborhood had enough money for even the danger of a back-alley abortion. When you got pregnant, if you didn't want to get stuck with another unwanted baby you went into the bathroom, straightened a wire coathanger and rammed it into your own uterus. The event was as horrifying and dreadful to the surrounding neighbors as it was painful and frequently fatal to the self-inflicted victims. Everybody knew that a woman who did it could probably count herself as dead the moment she walked into the bathroom, but things were really that desperate. I don't honestly remember the number of times this happened when I was about, but I do know how it frightened me. I never forget how deeply I resented the fact that women with money all over the world were having legal and illegal operations that we didn't have the chance to get. Nobody rich ever bleeds to death from a perforated uterus. First, you heard the woman scream. Then people would run in the hallways asking, "Who is it?". Then when the proper bathroom was found, you could see the victim lying and moaning on the floor. She would have the elongated coathanger sticking out between her legs. The blood gushed around it and there was nothing you could do to stop it. Sometimes people screamed and sometimes people stood and shook nervously. It's not really possible to develop an immunity to the shock. Someone with a straight head would know enough to call the police or a hospital ambulance. Children would be afraid and naturally ran around crying until someone would be able to stop them. Somehow, I simply don't remember the victim's husband or boyfriend or even pimp being home when it happened. The act didn't appear to be considered part of a man's sphere. Police always took the victim away in an ambulance. Usually she didn't come back. After being told that their mother was now dead-and enduring the consequent hysteria that went with it—the woman's children would be taken in by the dead mother's relative if they were lucky or carted off to a state institution and forgotten. To be honest, childbirth took place with greater frequency than the abortions. But the issue of the hearings being presented in the nation's capitol is abortion and this is how abortions happen for the very poor. I do not beileve it is possible by any means to prevent recurrence of these horrors by employing any act which alters the United States Supreme Court Decision of January 22, 1973. Before this decision was produced in this country we were ruled by arbitrary legislation by which the rich got what they wanted, the middle class grabbed what it could without getting caught and the poor got shit. I cannot apologize for my use of strong wording as I feel my emotions to be justified. I trust my testimony will be presented to the committee in a fashion less emotional than by any means I could give it. The memories are upsetting to me, but I feel the admission of them will help protect repeated acts from taking place in the future. Thanking you for accepting this correspondence, I am Sincerely, ... APRIL RENE' HELLER. |