because it singled out abortions, thereby treating the abortion process differently from other medical procedures; and (2) unconstitutional in relation to sec. 6(2) of the statute requiring that abortions be performed in a hospital. The latter, standing alone, was not "tainted with unconstitutional effect"; but, by itself, the former was. The state could not subtly discourage the performing abortions by providing that hospitals which do not allow abortions may not be discriminated against when no such provision exists for hospitals which do perform abortions. These grounds do suggest ways in which the legislature of Kentucky can reframe its statute and enact a conscience clause that will past constitutional scrutiny. Still, one cannot fail to ponder the moral condition of a society whose courts proceed to set precedents that weaken actual cases under color of granting equal status to claims of conscientious objection to medical procedures no one has claimed and protecting hospitals that do abortions that no one discriminates against.

Appeal from this decision was argued before the Sixth Circuit on October 16, 1975. In that appeal, a brief amici curiae on behalf of Kentucky Registered Nurses was entered, in an attempt to save the individual conscience clause even if the institutional conscience clause fails.

Meantime, a campaign has begun to cast upon hospitals, doctors and nurses the specific duty to perform abortions. The Alan Guttmacher Institute recently issued a report entitled Provisional Estimates of Abortion Need and Services in the Year Following the 1973 Supreme Court Decision.15 The upshot is, not unexpectedly, that services are lacking or insufficient. In the report "need" means "felt need" or "manifested need," and to measure that for the country as a whole requires a base line. The base line to estimate "need" used in the report is the number of abortions performed among New York City residents in 1971 (used as the high estimate) and among California residents in 1973 (used as the low estimate).

Please note that the estimate of need based on New York City figures is drawn from that period of time when Dr. Bernard Nathanson was head of the largest abortion clinic in the world. He now has voiced professional medical and moral objection to that practice, which supplied one base line for estimating the "need" for abortion which the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a division of Planned Parenthood Federation of America) would now cast upon the medical and nursing profession as a specific duty. If this is allowed to happen and if conscience clauses fall or are ineffective, then there can be no hope for the wholly new attitude toward the "inexpressibly serious matter" of abortion for which Nathanson called. I can think of no better cause for Dr. Nathanson with his former militancy, and all of us, to embrace than actualizing and defending liberty of conscience among the medical personnel in Ob-Gyn service.

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES IN THE U.S.A.

My name is Elizabeth Jane Miller. I am an ordained American Baptist minister, the Secretary for Issue Development, Board of National Ministries, American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. In this capacity I carry primary staff responsibility for the development of Statements of Concern (formerly known as Resolutions) which provide the opportunity for delegates to the American Baptist Biennial Meeting to express their convictions as to the mind of Christ on moral, spiritual, political, social, denominational and ecumenical matters.

In 1968, after a year of study and discussion, the delegates in annual session, May 29-June 2 adopted a resolution on ABORTION (see appendix A) from which the following is excerpted:

1. That the termination of a pregnancy prior to the end of the 12th week (first trimester) be at the request of the individual(s) concerned and be regarded as an elective medical procedure governed by the laws regulating medical practice and licensure.

2. After that period the termination of a pregnancy shall be performed only by a duly licensed physician at the request of the individual(s) concerned, in a regularly licensed hospital. . .

and for certain specified reasons. On the basis of the above position, and in support of the Supreme Court Decision on Abortion, the General Board of American

15 Christopher Tietze. M.D., Principal Investigator, et al. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 515 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022 (1975); see also Jane E. Brody's report, The New York Times, October 7, 1975.

Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., the governing body of our denomination, on Febraury 24, 1974, voted to address the current efforts of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the U.S.A. to seek a constitutional amendment on abortion (see Appendix B). That statement says in part:

We acknowledge the legal right of all individuals and groups, both religious and secular, to seek the enactment of laws which reflect the values they hold to be necessary to the exercise of their freedom and on behalf of the common welfare. However, we believe that the present national effort. . . to coerce the conscience and personal freedom of our citizens through the power of public law in matters of human reproduction constitutes a serious threat to that moral and religious liberty so highly prized by Baptists and so long protected for all people under the nation's policy of the separation of church and state.

We affirm freedom of conscience for all but object to an appeal to the State which could coerce all citizens to accept a moral judgment affirmed by one member of the body of Christ.

According to American Baptist historian, Robert G. Torbet, ". . . the Baptist position on religious liberty is derived from certain biblical insights into the nature of a man in his relation to God and from the character of the Christian faith itself . . . Baptists have derived from these insights a conviction that religious liberty must be granted in society because this is the only principle by which freedom for all people can be preserved in the body politic...

The weight of Baptist thinking and action sees the role of the state as providing justice, freedom, maintaining peace and providing for the welfare of its citizens. The content of these words have changed and developed over the years but they are based on a broadly accepted understanding of morality. Thus justice must include equity and a concern for the poor and oppressed. Freedom is limited when it interferes with the life, rights and property of others. The welfare of all persons includes new aprpoaches to meet the constantly and rapidly changing events and understandings of the world in which we live.

Among religious groups generally, there is a wide divergence with regard to abortion and the law. These differences are based on moral and theological convictions concerning the understanding of personhood, human responsibility and the meaning of sexuality. According to most Protestants, God's love frees persons to become fully human and to increase their areas of responsibilty as they participate in God's mission. Thus taking responsiiblity for themselves, for the world in which they live and for their future is essential if persons are to make their best contribution to the work of God in the world.

Protestants have also seen sexual intercourse and sexual relationships as having a larger purpose then simply procreation. More important is the role sexual intimacy plays as men and women deepen their relationships to each other and celebrate their life together. Family planning is usually recommended and practiced.

For the majority of Protestants there is no particular point at which it can be said that an embryo or fetus becomes a full human person. Rather the fetus is in the process of becoming human. While the fetus has the potential of personhood it is only the potential.

The woman who is carrying the fetus is a full human being and usually has much potential for growth and development in her life. For some that potential may be realized by continuing the pregnancy to term and bearing a child; for others that is just not so. To insist on developing the unknown potential of the fetus while denying the woman the right to make a choice about her own life is a denial of her personhood.

As long as contraceptive services and education are not available to all women in our country, and so long as we do not have a contraceptive that is completely safe, there will be a significant number of both unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Even if abortions were made illegal, women would not be prevented from getting them; it would be more difficult, however, and women would not be protected by safe medical procedures. Those women with money could probably still obtain a safe abortion in our country, or go out of the country if necessary; as usually the poor would suffer the most and many would resort to coat hangers and do-it-yourself techniques.

During the past year both the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued reports supporting abortion rights. The Constitutional Aspects of the Right to Limit Childbearing, a report of the latter organization, stated in May, 1975:

"A woman who must submit her body to carry a child to term without her consent would have submitted her will, her personal liberty, to another. The proposed constitutional amendments would compel a woman to carry a child to delivery, without regard to whether she consented to intercourse or pregnancy." We affirm the Supreme Court Decision on Abortion as the best path for our pluralistic society. From the point of viability, the life of the unborn child is protected. For the first trimester the decision of the woman is the controlling factor. During the second trimester to the point of viability, the decision of the woman is the controlling factor, but reasonable regulations may be placed by the state relating to maternal health. The decision of the Supreme Court that abortions may not be prohibited until the point of viability does not determine whether abortion is moral or immoral. It simply defines the area in which the state has a legitimate interest and therefore the right to legislate.

Since there are many different views among the theologians, philosophers and scientists concerning when life begins, American Baptists urge that no constitutional amendment be enacted which would legally require the acceptance of one point of view and deny the free exercise of religion.

APPENDIX A

AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES

ABORTION

Because Christ calls us to affirm the freedom of persons and the sanctity of life, we recognize that abortion should be a matter of responsible personal decision. To this end we as American Baptists urge that legislation be enacted to provide: 1. That the termination of a pregnancy prior to the end of the 12th week (first trimester) be at the request of the individual(s) concerned and be regarded as an elective medical procedure governed by the laws regulating medical practice and licensure.

2. After that period the termination of a pregnancy shall be performed only by a duly licensed physician at the request of the individual(s) concerned, in a regularly licensed hospital, for one of the following reasons as suggested by the Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute:

(a) When documented evidence exists that this is a danger to the physical or mental health of the woman;

(b) When there is documented evidence that the conceptus has a physical or mental defect;

(c) When there is documented evidence that the pregnancy was the result of rape, incest or other felonious acts.

Further we encourage our churches to provide sympathetic and realistic counseling on family planning and abortion.

We commend study, research and development of understanding on the part of the populace led by the people of our churches toward an enlightened view of this provocative problem.

Adopted May 29-June 2, 1968 by the American Baptist Convention.

APPENDIX B

EXCERPTED FROM MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BOARD OF THE AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES OF THE USA, PHILADELPHIA, PA.-FEBRUARY 22–25, 1974

Voted: (This is the statement as forwarded to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the U.S.A.)

The General Board of American Baptist Churches in the USA feels it imperative to address itself to the current efforts of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the U.S.A. to seek a Constitutional Amendment through the Congress and the States to nullify the January, 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court on abortion.

1. Encouraged by the mutual understanding and cooperation toward which Roman Catholics and Protestants have been moving during the past decade, we are nevertheless impelled to express a divergent view regarding the Constitutional Amendment before the Senate Sub-committee on Constitutional Amendments on March 7, 1974.

2. We acknowledge the legal right of all individuals and groups, both religious and secular, to seek the enactment of laws which reflect the values they hold to be necessary to the exercise of their freedom and on behalf of the common welfare. However, we believe that the present national effort of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the U.S.A. to coerce the conscience and personal freedom of our citizens through the power of public law in matters of human reproduction constitutes a serious threat to that moral and religious liberty so highly prized by Baptists and so long protected for all people under the nation's policy of the separation of church and state.

3. We recognize the moral ambiguities involved for many people, including American Baptists, in the birth control and abortion issues. We are nevertheless saddened when such crusades seek the passage of laws which violate the theological and moral sensitivities, and hence the freedom, of other church bodies. All must be given their constitutional rights in a free society to guide and assist their constituencies in formulating a responsible lifestyle in matters of sexual expression and family planning.

4. We affirm freedom of conscience for all but object to an appeal to the State which could coerce all citizens to accept a moral judgment affirmed by one member of the body of Christ. We urge a continuation of dialogue with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters on this and other matters. Let us seek a common understanding of the mind of Christ, and let us listen to each other in love.

We therefore request our General Secretary to communicate this concern to the appropriate Roman Catholic leadership in the hope that the progress and strides which have been made in the area of Christian unity may continue.