them most? Such statutes contravene the Supreme Court's ruling as well as the subsequent rulings of several Federal and State courts which have declared unconstitutional the refusal of public hospitals to permit the performance of abortion.

State legislatures have also enacted a number of other anti-abortion measures, including parental or spousal consent requirements (now being litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court), prohibitive regulation of abortion clinics, and denial of medicaid payments for abortion. These measures cut away at the essence of the Supreme Court's ruling by arbitrarily denying to some women the right to choose abortion.

III. AMENDMENTS THAT DEFINE "LIFE"

Most of the constitutional amendments that are being considered by this committee attempt to define when life begins, these amendments would interpret the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution to protect the fetus at "conception" or "fertilization" from a denial of life, liberty or property without due process. There is no consensus of opinion on this issue. Neither the medical community nor the general public agree that there is a point prior to birth when a fetus can be considered a human being. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade wisely concluded that "the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to an answer." The Court determined that the countervailing rights of the woman and the unborn fetus are to be balanced against one another. This balancing process is the backbone of American jurisprudence.

The right to choose abortion is an important component of every women's right to privacy and liberty. As the Supreme Court wrote in Fisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438.

"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into a matter so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

If an unconditional right to life were granted to the fetus, this would take precedence over a woman's right to privacy in decisions concerning her own body, her own life, and her own physical and mental health. The Constitution does not guarantee a "right to life" for anyone even legally recognized persons; rather it protects against a denial of life without "due process" of law. Thus, the rights of life, liberty and property enumerated in the 5th and 14th amendments are not and never have been considered absolute rights.

Although the "right of Privacy" is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, it rests upon historical principles which are older than the Bill of Rights. As early as 1890, Samuel Warren and Louis D. Brandeis wrote "The right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, the right to be let alone..." ("The Right to Privacy" Harvard Law Review, vol. 4, No. 5 (1890)). The Court in Roe v. Wade was well within the bounds of judicial tradition in construing the right of privacy broadly enough so as to include the right to choose abortion. In addition, far-reaching consequences would ensue from such a re-interpre tation of the constitution. If pre-natal organisms were given legal status equal to live persons the significance of birth might be eliminated. All Americans could claim to have instantly aged by 7 to 9 months; this would affect birth certificates, social security, voting, and every other aspect of our complex society in which age is a factor.

These amendments generally allow abortions only "to save the life of the mother" or in limited cases of rape. There is a multitude of individual circumstances that might induce a woman to seek abortion and these might include medical factors such as diabetes, heart disease or a family history of genetic disease. Abortion in such instances might not be necessary to prevent actual death from parturition; however it is obvious that they present serious considerations.

There are many other circumstances under which abortion could be considered the most acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Examples could include failure of contraception, a mother not financially able to care for another child (adoption is not more conscionable than abortion for some women), age of the women-either young girls or middle-aged women, cases of rape, incest and other circumstances.

"Right to Life" amendments would substitute uniformity for diversity and compulsion for the right of the individual to choose. One can respect the rights of those who oppose abortion for themselves, without writing it into the basic secular laws of our land. The constitution is not the proper vehicle by which a minority viewpoint can or should legislate a particular moral standard. The framers believed that complete religious freedom is fundamental to our democratic government and pluralistic society. As Justice Holmes said in his dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198, U.S. 45, "the Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views."

Religious freedom means that no woman will be forced to have an abortion even though her conscience forbids it; and it also means that no woman will be prevented from terminating an unwanted pregnancy because the religious views of others might be offended by it.

IV. STATES RIGHTS AMENDMENTS

Another amendment being sought by anti-abortion forces is the "States Rights" amendment which would give the 50 states the power to regulate or forbid the performance of abortion, while this approach would generally restrict women's access to safe, legal abortion, its primary impact would be felt by poor women.

Statistics compiled prior to Roe v. Wade indicate that such an amendment would not significantly reduce the number of abortions performed but would merely revert to the situation in which only some states provide safe, legal facilities for abortion and other states would again force women to become the victims of non-professional practitioners.

A "states rights" amendment would constitute a blatant violation of the 5th and 14th amendments by denying to the poor equal protection of the laws. Many of us have worked hard in recent years to expand the rights of minorities under the 14th amendment. We have struggled against such measures which constitute discrimination under a guise of "states rights." Abdicating responsibility in this area by Congress would set a bad precedent for overturning other civil rights decisions. A "states rights" amendment would reinstate confusion, inequality, and resentment between states-for undoubtedly some states would bear a disproportionate share of the burden by providing abortion services for the residents of the states with stricter abortion laws. If Congress were to adopt a "states rights" amendment we would be merely passing along a difficult decision to other jurisdictions.

A majority of the public regardless of religious affiliation favors legalized abortion for those who choose this course. In the Devries poll (December 1974) commissioned by the national committee for a human life amendment, 64 percent of the Catholics questioned disagreed with the statement, "abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances." Among protestants the percentage was 72.7 percent and Jews, 91.4 percent. Last year the Harris poll found that over the past 3 years, the percentage of the general public that favors legal abortion increased from 42 percent in 1972 to 54 percent in 1975. Evidently 2 years of unrestricted access to abortion demonstrated its benefits to the public. The February 1, 1976 New York Times poll indicated that 67 percent of the respondents believed that the abortion decision should be left up to the woman and her doctor.

A majority of Americans would prefer to make their own decisions concerning abortion. I urge the Committee to reject all the constitutional amendments restricting abortion and reaffirm the freedom and basic right of the individual to make this choice herself.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD P. BOLAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. I agree with Mr. Oberstar's amendment to the Constitution. I feel very strongly this amendment is the only way to insure that all human beings— born and unborn-will have the right to life.

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, numerous Constitutional

amendments have been proposed to overturn the Court's decision. The amendments proposed have been of two types; those maintaining the right of the States allowing, regulating, or prohibiting abortion, and, those guaranteeing life to all human beings, regardless of the state of development. The difference between these two approaches is the differences between law and conscience. I believe that in this matter the Nation must reaffirm its commitment to life.

Too often this issue is clouded with rhetoric, with sensationalism, with intractable statements. I understand the fervor and I appreciate the very real concern behind it. But I believe the issue is quickly and easily reduced to a simple rational statement: Without an amendment of this kind, we are depriving literally millions of human beings of life.

An amendment of this kind is not without precedent. For thousands of years, certain races were considered chattel, completely devoid of rights. We now see the barbarity of this system. A similar situation existed for women until only recently. Corporations-completely artificial entities-have been accorded rights in our legal system. There is some talk of recognizing the natural rights of plants and animals. In spite of this history of recognizing rights, we now find ouselves discussing an amendment that guarantees the rights of unborn children, ones whose rights should have never been questioned.

On this ground there seems to be no middle ground-one is either for or against an amendment. In the area of civil rights, we have correctly concentrated on the parties whose rights are in question. We must do the same here. Because we seem to be facing a "yes-no" situation with this amendment, we must decide "yes" for an amendment and thereby guarantee we are protecting the rights of all human beings.

In my opinion, the 1973 decisions remove all legal protection from the unborn child. We have it in our power to restore that protection. More to the point, we have the responsibility to restore that protection-a responsibility we owe to this and future generations. We can do no less than pass the Oberstar amendment and send it to the American people for ratification.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the record an article I found very moving. Dr. Seltzer's article caused me to reaffirm my commitment to this amendment and I think it may do the same for others.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES J. DELANEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, January 22, 1973 marked the third anniversary of the Supreme Court's sad decision on abortion in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Many thoughtful citizens were shocked and dismayed by this legalization of abortion on demand.

The fundamental charter that established this Nation 200 years ago stated as its first self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to life.

The Supreme Court, while admitting it did not positively know when life begins, yet made the awesome decision to allow its destruction prior to birth. If the innocent unborn are denied the right to live, what of the aged or the seriously incapacitated?

Mr. Chairman, it is not likely that efforts to protect the other rights we hold so dear will be successful if life itself continues to be diminished in value.

As I had in February 1973, on January 14, 1975 I introduced House Joint Resolution 41, calling upon the Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ensure that the lives of unborn infants, of the aged, and of the incapacitated are protected. It is my fervent hope that the Judiciary Committee will take swift action on this measure so that we might reaffirm our dedication to those principles which gave us birth as a Nation.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman: As the chief sponsor of H.J. Res. 279, proposing an amendment to the Constitution with respect to the rights of unborn persons, I welcome this

opportunity to express my views to the members of the subcommittee on the subject of abortion. These hearings by the subcommittee are certainly long overdue.

I first introduced my pro-life amendment during the 93rd Congress on February 26, 1974. May I make it clear that my conviction on this subject is one of a moral and paternal nature. I recognize that this issue is automatically controversial, but there is a basic issue at the heart of the controversy to which I address my remarks.

It is a fact that there are millions of Americans who are absolutely convinced that abortion is immoral and should have been ruled illegal by the courts. What we have then is a judicial decision that is not being accepted by millions and millions of American citizens. As a result, they must turn to the Legislative Branch of government, the Congress, for a cure to the court decision, and that would leave as a major recourse an attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment. I recognize that many of my colleagues feel that we would be, perhaps, following a more logical political course if we processed a Constitutional Amendment to provide for jurisdiction in the various states. I am referring, of course, to the Whitehurst Amendment that has been cosponsored by many Members. I can understand that the odds might favor the passage of such an amendment more than they would a pro-life amendment such as I have introduced. I believe it is accurate to say, however, that this would not really solve the matter as a national policy.

The United States Supreme Court abortion decision has created a situation where life for hundreds of thousands of unborn infants is terminated. One has to wonder whether or not this decision establishes a new view towards human life in our nation. We are also hearing more and more attacks on medical efforts to preserve life by extraordinary means. Is this an accidental or a direct relationship to the view of the life of the unborn?

Your subcommittee has very properly extended its hearings and will hear from scientists. medical leaders, theologians, and other expert individuals. I ask that this subcommittee maintain its objectivity and reach its decision after hearing all the testimony presented. I make this comment in reference to press reports which claim that a majority of the subcommittee members are opposed to any pro-life amendment While I recognize the obstacles in the path of a Constitutional Amendment, this procedure would provide for debate and consideration in all of our fifty states. It is obvious that within the governmental and political arena a compromise acceptable to all is not possible. It is obvious that the issue is growing, not diminishing. Therefore, it can best be resolved by the Full Committee presenting a Constitutional Amendment to the Full House to determine whether or not two-thirds of the members would support it. I see no justification for bottling up these amendments within the subcommittee.

To sum up, Mr. Chairman, it is my view that life in the womb is human life and this is the basis for the amendment that I have introduced.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. ICHORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit testimony in support of a constitutional amendment which would allow the State legislatures to pass their own laws regulating abortions in keeping with the convictions of the people in the given States. The pro-abortion ruling by the Supreme Court has generated more controversy and concern than any ruling I can recall during my 16 years in the United States Congress. The Supreme Court has clearly in this decision-as it has done so many times in the past-usurped for itself the right to legislate. The Supreme Court has the specific responsibility of interpreting the Constitution and the legislative branch has the constitutional responsibility to make the laws. If the men who sit on the Supreme Court want to make laws, let them run for public office. The decision made various references to the first, second, and third trimester of the development of the fetus and made different rulings for each of these stages of development. Certainly the Constitution makes no such distinction nor does it even hint at such distinction

It has been one of my strongest convictions during my tenure in Congress that we must return major responsibilities for government to the State and local

levels. The officials on the local level are in closer touch with the people and are in a better position to determine what the residents of their States desire. Decentralization of governmental power is a must in a society as diverse and heterogeneous as ours.

Therefore, since I do believe strongly in limiting the Supreme Court to its constitutional function and because I also believe in strengthening the State governments, I take the opportunity to urge your favorable consideration of H.J. Res. 61, a constitutional amendment which I introduced and which is currently pending before this Subcommittee. H.J. Res 61 would allow the States to regulate or forbid the voluntary termination of human pregnancy.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN Y. MCCOLLISTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

I am pleased that the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights is holding hearings on the abortion issue. We need the benefit of these hearings in which the views of the best Constitutional lawyers, medical scientists and theologians can be recorded and evaluated.

It is my opinion that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. I do believe, however, that an abortion should be permitted in order to save the mother's life. For these reasons, I have co-sponsored the Human Life Amendment, H.J. Res. 132 by Congressman Oberstar which is now before your Subcommittee.

Since the landmark decisions, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, by the Supreme Court in January of 1973, the abortion issue has increasingly developed into a national debate with strong emotional overtones. It is an issue that you as Members of this Subcommittee and the entire House membership must address openly and decisively. I'm sure many Members would prefer that the issue would go away. But unlike aborting a child, we cannot "abort" the abortion issue.

I believe that the medical evidence is overwhelmingly clear that life does begin at conception. In the first month of life, growth and development are rapid and dynamic. The central nervous system sees its most important growth spurt, and the rhythmic contractions of the heart begin. The primitive skeletal system has completely developed by the end of the sixth week, and the electroencephalogram has detected brain waves as early as 43 days. During the sixth and seventh weeks, the nerves and muscles begin working together for the first time, and the lips become sensitive to touch. By the seventh week of life, the child's shape and form is unmistakably human. He now has all the internal organs of the adult. Growth will continue until he reaches the age 25-27 years. If this is not life, then what is it?

The crux of the whole controversy centers around what moral value this life possesses and to what extent the law of our country should extend protection to that life. Until three years ago, American law gave the benefit of every doubt to the existence and continuation of the unborn child's life. The Supreme Court decision turned the law upside down. The rights of these unborn children are now being ignored. The Court was unequivocal on the issue of whether or not the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court concluded, “. . . the word 'person', as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." However, there appeared no doubt, in the majority's opinion, as to what the legal effect of fetal personhood would have on the case: "if this suggestion of personhood is established, the apellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Such a moral pronouncement by the Court, I believe, seems to disregard the medical evidence regarding the existence of life, and the legal aspects, especially the law of torts, which is prejudiced in favor of the unborn child. In several cases, women of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith who refused to have blood transfusions to save the lives of their unborn children were forced by the courts to do so. Historically, common law has acknowledged the rights of the unborn children by granting a stay of execution to pregnant women so that the child could live. The unborn child can also be the beneficiary of a trust or inheritance.

The abortion issue is so very important, so controversial and yet so fundamental to the basic structure of our civilized and humane society. Yet, since