the Court decision, we have seen a weakening in the basic values of life. The weakening of these valuse, of course, can not be solely attributed to the abortion decision. In fact, there is a much greater, underlying problem. Amid our material affluence, we are experiencing a deterioration of those personal values held by our people that made us great. Broken homes, deserted families, empty churches and lines at X-rated movies are signs of the times. Consequently, we've seen over the past ten years, mushrooming illegitimate births and abortions. Should the unborn child be the scapegoat of our declining morality? The Center for Disease Control reports that legal abortions have increased dramatically over the several years: from 193,491 in 1970 to 763,476 in 1974. These are the most current governmental figures. The Planned Parenthood Federation estimates that the figure reached i million in 1975.

There are many people who disagree with my views. I respect their feelings and would hope that they, in turn, respect mine. But I strongly believe that what has happened since the Court decision is wrong and counter to the basic principles that are adhered to by a humane and civilized society. I'm grateful that the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, is holding these hearings to begin evaluating the approximately 50 bills pending for consideration. What is done by this Subcommittee today, and hopefully by the Congress, will determine in large part the gains our society will make in the future with respect to preserving and protecting the sanctity of life which all of us have in common.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MOAKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, according to the Constitution of the United States, each "human being" is guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights apply to all people living in the United States and outside who call themselves American. These rights should apply to the unborn as well.

It is the purpose of the law in this country to protect the rights of each of its citizens, and even more important the law must protect the unborn. If the law fails the unborn, then there is no one to speak for them.

In January of 1973 the Supreme Court ruled to permit abortions in this country. In other words, the Supreme Court denied the unborn the status of "human being."

This is where the struggle begins.

Mr. Chairman, because abortions are now permitted, there must be a law to stop them. There is no recourse but to introduce a Constitutional Amendment. The Amendment should read that the murder of all human beings is outlawed during all stages of biological development.

The right to life of all human beings is a most urgent matter. The indiscriminate murder of helpless human beings must come to a halt. The way to put a stop to abortion is to support H.J. Res. 132, a Constitutional Amendment with respect to the right to life.

It is my view that there is one simple fact, we must address-it is illegal for one human being to take the life of another. The unborn child is a human being with all the potential for a successful and contributing life as a three-week-old human being or a 65-year-old human being. This potential must be allowed to be tested to its fullest. To ensure this, an amendment to the Constitution must be enacted.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I applaud this subcommittee for its willingness to tackle this difficult issue. Not unlike many of my colleagues, I have been deeply troubled for some time by the Supreme Court's 1973 decisions on abortion. I have been concerned by the public's reaction to the Court's action, by the methods of some of the decisions' opponents, but most importantly, I have been concerned by the profound issues which the decisions raised, and purported to resolve.

I speak to you today after an intense, lengthy, and I must say, arduous personal review of the abortion question, and I am hopeful that by sharing my thoughts

with you I can contribute to your efforts at resolving some of the difficult policy questions which now confront us in this area.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the American people have a right to be heard directly on the question of the termination of fetal existence. I therefore urge this committee to proceed with an evaluation of constitutional amendments, so that we can determine once, and for all, precisely what the national will is on this critical issue.

We have before us today an issue of immense moral proportions-an issue that will not drift away as long as a significant segment of our society believes that acts of unjustifiable homicide are occurring throughout the United States. We can no longer pay lip service to one of the most pressing moral issues of our day, and avoid addressing the question simply because the process may be painful.

The essence of the matter, it seems to me, is this: At what point in fetal development does human life commence?

In effect, the Supreme Court implies that life begins when the fetus can actually manage to survive outside the uterus, usually in the third trimester of pregnancy. At that point, the rights of the mother and child become coequal, and the law proscribes abortion. Prior to that point of "viability", we are told, the mother is entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the control of her own person.

If one accepts the court's answer to the fundamental question that I have posed above, the Wade and Bolton decisions appear to make sense. But consider, for a moment, the alternative view.

Assume that life does begin at conception, that conception is the moment at which "all men are created equal". Accepting this view, I submit, compels the conclusion that we have embarked upon a national course of action which entails the termination of life for public policy reasons, a policy repugnant to my moral conscience, and to millions of Americans.

It is my belief that any attempt, by any person or branch of government, to fix a precise time at which human life commences, is inherently arbitrary. For that reason, I would prefer to see us acknowledge the perplexity of establishing life's starting point, and act to ensure that life is protected from the earliest possible point of inception. This can be accomplished by protecting the fetus from the moment of conception onward.

There is no disgrace in admitting that reasonable men differ on the issues of when life begins and ends. We are fallible, to be sure. But, as Americans, we are also committed to the primacy of individual rights. Since we do believe that there is intrinsic worth in every person, we cannot close our minds to the clammer for a fuller debate on the question of when those rights commence. I cannot appear before you today, and omit mention of two related, but particularly troublesome, matters-the rights of women, and the charge that opposition to the Supreme Court's position aligns one with a uniquely Roman Catholic position.

My record in Congress has been one of consistent support for the equal treatment of women under the law. I readily admit that the unique reproductive role of women makes it impossible for any male to fully perceive the total impact that pregnancy and childbirth have on women. But, because I deeply believe in human and sexual equality, I cannot accept the argument that the rights of any citizen are paramount to those of another. Believing, as I do, that life commences at conception, I cannot support the notion that maternal rights are superior to those of the fetus.

Nonetheless, there are difficult questions which must be answered. Perhaps the most problematic issue is whether abortion should be impermissable under all circumstances, or when there is a threat to the life or wellbeing of the mother. Who determines when such a threat is present? What will be the definition of "wellbeing" if the decisions are to be overturned? Are we forcing the poor, who do not have access to medical assistance, into an impossible situation?

These and other questions can only be answered once we have built a testimonial record on which we can rely in making a fully informed decision. These are issues about which we must consult a variety of expert opinions.

There are, as I have noted, those who characterize the opposition to the Wade and Bolton decisions as a uniquely Roman Catholic position. This is inaccurate. 72-889-76-pt. 2-2

While Roman Catholics do disagree with the recent decisions in large numbers, the opposition is not monolithic.

I noted with interest an article in the January 28th New York Times regarding statements by the first vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America, and by that group's first vice president, Rabbi Israel Klaven, who stated and I quote, "Judaism's Halacha (Canon on Religious Laws) is unequivocal in its position that abortion is forbidden except when the fetus presents a real danger to the life and wellbeing of the mother. Any change in that position is a misrepresentation of Judaism's basic teachings."

Nor is this, I would submit, even a religious issue. It is a moral question, and that is an important distinction. Questions of life and death are not reserved exclusively to those who embrace one religion or another. Indeed, the Supreme Court told us during the recent Vietnam War that moral, or conscientious objection to military service should not be restricted to those who articulate a specific religious belief. While I do not analogize between abortion and the recent war, I believe that past experience demonstrates that current moral issues are not within the exclusive providence of the religious.

It is a disservice, and a diversion, to attack personally those on either side of the abortion debate, for any reason. Ad hominem attacks do not resolve policy issues. It is pointless to debase the exchange of ideas by unleashing propaganda campaigns that inflame, rather than inform. I deplore the scare tactics of those who seem to instinctively presume bad faith on the part of their intellectual adversaries. It is for that reason that I am grateful to this subcommittee for dealing with this question under these circumstances.

This is the appropriate forum in which to initiate consideration of this question. Our presence here today proves, once again, that this body can address an explosive national policy issue. My faith in the legislative process being complete, I am convinced that these hearings can enlighten the Congress and the people on the wide range of issues which these decisions raise.

Because I believe that a full set of hearings are an essential prerequisite to the drafting of an amendment, I shall abstain from endorsing any specific language until we have a complete record upon which to base à recommendation. I am, however, continuing with the preparation of a proposal of my own, which I shall submit to the Congress at the appropriate time.

I shall premise my legislative effort on two personal convictions: That human life should be protected from the point of conception onward; and, second, that there should be a uniform national policy which will prevent the crossing of State boundaries in search of varying State policies.

While the foregoing embody the views of one Member of the Congress, I fully recognize that there are many reasonable Americans who embrace different views. They, too, must be heard. And it is for that reason that I say "let the people speak". In the absence of a national referendum, a procedure for which our Constitution does not provide, a constitutional amendment is the best way to put this issue to the test.

Our Constitution belongs to the people, and it has come to the time when we should let them decide whether it is to be changed.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. MURTHA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman. At times over the past couple years I believe we have all at one time or another worried about the concern and involvement of our citizens with their government. I would like to say that one group that has always returned my confidence in our citizens is those in the 12th Congressional District who oppose abortion.

These citizens have shown the kind of dedication and involvement that is what has made our government great and preserved our democracy.

As someone who shares their views in opposing abortion, I have been particularly heartened by their dedication to the religious principles of our nation and their desire to protect the family unit. Those are goals I share with great enthusiasm.

It is my pleasure to introduce to the Subcommittee two men who have made the trip to Washington today to continue their work on behalf of prohibiting abortion. They speak on behalf of five citizens' groups whose members I am familiar with, and who I know feel extremely strongly about this important issue.

I am glad to introduce Reverend Robert E. Bayusik of Portage and Mr. Edward J. Pyo of Lilly who speak on behalf of thousands of citizens from central Pennsylvania. Specifically, they are presenting the testimony on behalf of Ms. Kathleen M. Dzurenko, Chairman Central Cambria Chapter of Citizens Concerned for Human Life; Ms. Rosemary Zenone, Chairman, Citizens Concerned for Human Life, Northern Cambria Chapter; Ms. Veronica M. Oravec, Chairman, Citizens Concerned for Human Life, Cambria County Chapter; and Ms. Kathryn Soltis, Secretary, Propsepct Street Voters for Life.

A STATEMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON ABORTION

Gentlemen: The United States Constitution guarantees "liberty and justice for all."

The Supreme Court, on January 22, 1973, in its decision on abortion violated the Constitution by denying all rights to the unborn child, even the right to life itself. With this abortion legislation, the Supreme Court issued a license for the wholesale murder of the unborn citizens of these United States.

Because of this flagrant misuse of the Justice Department, it is now mandatory that there be an immediate amendment correcting this gross violation of the rights of some for the convenience of others.

We, the Citizens Concerned for Human Life, herewith state that we are opposed to all murder, especially when it be the murder of the most defenseless human beings of our society, namely, the unborn children.

It is our absolute conviction that the child from the time of its conception already has all the determining factors necessary for it to qualify as a human being; and only further development is necessary for it to reach the fullness of stature. From conception on, the child has life and its right to life is equal to all other human beings, including the mother that bears the child.

Our conviction as to the human dignity of the unborn child from the very time of conception is borne out by the conclusion of the members of the First International Conference on Abortion, held in Washington, D.C., in October, 1967. This distinguished scientific meeting brought together authorities from around the world in the fields of medicine, law, ethics, and the social sciences. They met together in a "think tank" for several days. The first major question considered by the medical group was, "When does human life begin?"

The medical group was composed of biochemists, professors of obstetrics and gynecology, geneticists, etc., and was represented proportionately as to academic discipline, race, and religion. Their almost unanimous conclusion (19 to 1) was as follows:

"The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life." (Blastocyst stage is shortly after fertilization and would account for twinning.)

They continued:

"The changes occurring between implantation, a six-weeks embryo, a six months fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation."

The unborn child with its inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be done away with without the attending guilt that is accompanied with all other forms of murder. Murder remains to be murder even if it is licensed by the Supreme Court.

We, the Citizens Concerned for Human Life, are uncompromisingly opposed to all direct abortion; and we can accept indirect abortion only in the case where the mother's life is in danger, the means to save the mother's life are all just and ethical means, and the death of the child is an accidental and unintentioned result of the steps taken to save the mother's life. We reject all other arguments that are being used to justify direct or indirect abortion.

In answer to the argument that the woman has the supreme right over her own body, we answer that she certainly does have a supreme right; but that her right is limited to conceive or not to conceive a child, and once a child is conceived, the rights of the child are equal to the rights of the mother. No one, not even the supreme moral person of the State, can declare that the mother has a greater right to life simply because she is already living outside the womb.

Viability of the infant outside the womb can never be used as a criterion for determining the status of a human being. Such a standard is a false standard and violates the natural law that governs the normal and proper place for the infant at all times.

No one will deny that we have many social problems resulting from the unwanted pregnancies. However, the murder of the unborn child is not the solution to this problem. There are other alternatives open to us, namely, adoption and orphanages. When we speak of orphanages, we are referring to the type operated by the Fraternal Order of Moose at Moose Heart, Illinois. A nation that was able to find room for millions of immigrants and refugees from foreign lands must of necessity find a place for its own unborn citizens.

As we condemned the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi Regime of a generation ago, we must also condemn the atrocious killing of the unborn child. Our doctors in the sterile atmosphere of the hospital operating room are no different than the butchers of Germany that slaughtered six million Jews.

It is imperative that this Committee become the true champion of liberty by its leadership in rectifying this ignominous evil that has become the law of the land. In this Bicentennial year may it be said that our generation also was possessed of great patriots, who were worthy to stand side by side with Our Founding Fathers as true Americans.

We demand an abortion amendment to the Constitution in 1976.
God bless America!

KATHLEEN M. DZURENKO,

Chairman, Gentral Cambria Chapter, Citizens Concerned for Human Life.
ROSEMARY ZENONE,

Chairman, Citizens Concerned for Human Life, Inc.,
Northern Cambria Chapter.
VERONICA M. ORAVEC,

Chairman, Citizens Concerned for Human Life, Cambria County Chapter.

KATHRYN SOLTIS,

Secretary, Prospect Street Voters for Life, Portage, Pa.
EDWARD J. PYO,

Vice President of Dutchtown for Right to Life, Lilly, Pa.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT H. QUIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

I align myself with those who believe we should draw back from the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), constitutionally protecting permissive abortion. While any stance between and including absolute proscription and absolute permission is fraught with problems, I have no trouble in my conviction that the Court went too far. Possibly, we cannot determine when life begins, but we do know that at the moment of fertilization, a new human being is beginning its development. At any point in the process, this development can cease for any number of reasons, but also at any point in this process, the unborn infant is a member of our species, has a complete genetic package, has a primary brain at one month, internal/ external differentiation at seven weeks, and primodia formed at eight weeks. In other words, there is identifiable life instantly and recognizable human life within a short time of fertilization.

By drawinig back from the Court's decision, would we simply be giving a "process" undue respect? No. I believe rigorous examination of the biological and medical aspects of prenatal human development would demonstrate that an independent human being exists in the womb, and I urge the Subcommittee to expand upon the one morning of hearings it had with medical witnesses and to call neonatologists, geneticists, obstetricians, gynecologists, psychiatrists and sociologists to explore fully the current and increasing knowledge about prenatal human life. Quoting from Stone. "Abortion and the Supreme Court." Modern Medicine (1973), in his article, "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,"