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 a 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. KATHLEEN M. DZURENKO, Chairman, Gentral Cambria Chapter, Citizens Concerned for Human Life. Chairman, Citizens Concerned for Human Life, Inc., Chairman, Citizens Concerned for Human Life, Cambria County Chapter. KATHRYN SOLTIS, Secretary, Prospect Street Voters for Life, Portage, Pa. 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," 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973) (American Enterprise Institute Reprint No. 15 (May 1973)), John Hart Ely points out that the Court's view of "viability" as determinative of when a State may protect unborn human life is of questionable validity: "This line is drawn beyond quickening, beyond the point where any religion has assumed that life begins, beyond the time when abortion is a simple procedure, and beyond the point when most physicians and nurses will feel the procedure is victimless. It is also beyond the point which would have satisfied many who, like myself, were long term supporters of the right to abortion." (Ely, supra, at 924). Testimony was given on March 26, by Dr. Williams Keenan that medicine has been able to push back the time of viability and is continuing to do so. Furthermore, the prospect of human life being developed outside of the womb comes closer to reality annually. Is the Court's decision elastic enough to respond to these circumstances? I think not. It has drawn a line for protecting the unborn at a point which generally has not been accepted, and it has created a situation in which infants will be aborted who are indeed "viable." Moreover, our attitude as reflected in our society's system of values and laws toward this developing human life is part and parcel of our attitude toward human life. The Court's finding that the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn begs and ignores the question of State authority to regulate abortion and to protect unborn human life. As Ely notes in his article: "(I)t has never been held or even asserted that the state interest needed to jusMfy forcing a person to refrain from an actvity, whether or not that activity is constitutionally protected, must implicate either the life or the constitutional rights of another person." (Emphasis in text). (Ely, supra, at 926). The Court uses the phrase "whole life," (410 U.S. at 162)-I have grave reservations over the ramifications for this terminology for the child born deformed, for the mentally retarded person, for the old person who slips into senility. With selective extension of the Court's doctrine (for the "mental health" and "imminent psychological harm" of the "unwanted" person's family?), within a generation or two, certainly not longer, we will find ourselves in a deplorable predicament as regards the taking of life not "whole." Abortion, as defined in the uniform Abortion Act, 58 A.B.A.J. 380 (1972), is the "termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus." Therefore, we should fully understand what we are about and decide whether we wish to continue in that direction. I also urge the Subcommittee to investigate thoroughly how abortion is practiced in our country under the Court's decision. In the "first trimester," all that a State may do is require that a doctor perform an abortion. A State may not even take action to make that performance safer for the woman! The Court, moreover, envisioned a consultation between a woman and her doctor at all phases of her pregnancy before an abortion would be performed (although the Court's language is so broad so as to enable a woman to proceed against her physician's better judgment, e.g., "(T) he Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy," (410 U.S. at 153)), but this proviso has been honored in the breach by many abortionists. In Doe v. Bolton, supra, the Court struck down a Georgia law regulating abortion which established the instances in which an abortion would be allowed, a requirement that two other physicians concur with the judgment of the prospective aborting woman's physician that an abortion was needed for one of the enumerated purposes, and a condition that the abortion be performed in an accredited hospital, among other things. This has bided ill for States attempting to ameliorate the unsafe aspects of the provision of abortion services. The testimony of Carol Mansmann, presented on her behalf on March 23, detailed the scandalous pattern of events in Pennsylvania-fraud. no consultation with a physician, lack of informed consent-which that State's legislature attempted to curtail through laws which now are being challenged on a constitutional basis in the federal courts. Then, there are the articles appearing in the Washington Post on March 30, April 2, and April 4, detailing the practice of abortion in one clinic in the District of Columbia, the lack of authority to regulate this and other abortion clinics (although the article of April 2nd fails to point out that it almost surely would be unconstitutional to regulate them under |