Imágenes de páginas

of the editorial which supports permissive abortion, is that the current controversy represents the first phase of a head-on conflict between the traditional Judeo-Christian medical and legal ethic in which the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life is secured by law, and a new ethic which accepts the taking of human life to meet the compelling social, economical, or psychological needs of others.

The editorial goes on to say, and I quote,

The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intrauterine or extrauterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted, the old one has not yet been rejected.

Nor does the “California Medicine" editorial Alinch from the necessary consequences of the adoption of the new medical and social ethic. Again I quote:

One may anticipate further development of the roles (of physicians in deciding who shall live and who shall not live) as the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or society.

Mr. Chairman, the important link between what the facts tell us and the implications we must draw from these facts was nowhere better expressed than in the testimony of Dr. Andre Hellegers, Director of the Kennedy Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction and Bioethics, before the subcommittee in April of last year. At that time, Dr. Hellegers said:

That the fetus is alive and not dead is undoubted. If it were dead, abortions would not need to be performed and there would be no child to raise. That the fetus is biologically human is also clear. It simply puts it into a category of life that is different than the cat, the rat, or the ele nant. So the human fetus represents undoubted human life and genetically it is different than any other animal life.

But I think what those who do not oppose abortion mean to actually convey is that this life is not sufficiently valuable to be protected. It has no value, no dignity, no soul, no personhood, no claim to be protected under the Constitution. That is not a biological question. That is a value issue. The issue is hidden under such language as "meaningful life" or "potential” for life, or "quality" of life. What is at stake goes far beyond the issue of abortion. The question is this, are there to be live, (not dead) humans (not rats, cats, et cetera) who are to be considered devoid of "value," "dignity," "soul,” “meaningfulness," "protection under the Constitution," or whatever phrase or word by which one wants to describe the inclusionary or exclusionary process?

This is fundumentally why I am opposed to abortion. It is because it attaches no value to live biological human entities.

Dr. Hellegers, it seems to me, has properly focused attention on the question of values. He has stated the problem both precisely and correctly. The question of the humanity of the fetus is not a question of subjective judgment or personal whim or belief. It is a question of fact, and the fact is indisputable. A fetus—and I use that term

[ocr errors]

so that I cannot be accused of slanting the statement with emotional overtones—is genetically and biologically identifiable as a member of the human species and no other. It has a 'ife and des iny of its own. Having once and for all settled the scientific fact of it, humanity, we come to the ultimate question of value. What do we, as a society, say about the worth of this living human being?

This growing knowledge of human biology and what it is that is being killed in an abortion is sharpening the public's understanding of the fundamental issues to be decided. This is why the controversy launched by the Supreme Court's abortion decisions can only grow in intensity. This was clearly demonstrated by the over 30,000 men and women who gathered in Washington on January 22 of this year, almost twice the number who met a year earlier in protest of the Supreme Court decisions. It is demonstrated by the growing strength of the Human Life Movement.

This realization of what the controversy is truly about serves to underscore the enormity of what happened on January 22, 1973. On that day, 7 men holding appointive office for life, who were clearly devoid of any understanding of biological facts of life, at 1 stroke repealed the laws of 50 States and 2,000 years of the ethical tradition of Western civilization. I respectfully suggest that theirs was a supremely political act that can only be repaired through the political process.

Under the circumstances, I urge the subcommittee to complete its excellent work with all dispatch, as I know it will. But more than that, I urge the subcommittee to report out a Human Life Amendment so that the people may once and for all determine for themselves what will be the prevailing ethic of life in the United States. At this stage, this can only be done by enabling the people through the Congress to adopt such an amendment if only to enable this enormously important issue to be judged and decided by the States. Given the institutional difficulties of enacting a constitutional amendment, requiring as it does the approval of three-quarters of the States, no one genuinely interested in having the final decision made by the people of the United States can reasonably object to so direct a testing of popular sentiment. Nothing short of such a referral can possibly resolve the deeply emotional debate now dividing such large bodies of the American public. It is not up to the Surpeme Court to decide the ethical values that will guide American society. It is up to the people. Only the people can make this judgment.

Mr. Chairman, in urging that your subcommittee report a human life amendment, I have no pride of authorship. I introduced in 1973, and again this year, a proposal for such an amendment that I believe will accomplish the objectives of all who have joined in the entiabortion movement. I have also introduced another that has been drafted by the National Right to Life Committee so that the subcommittee may have the benefit of differing approaches to the same goal.

Any apparent technical differences between the two amendments will, as I understand it, be discussed by the distinguished professor of law at Fordham University, Robert Byrn, who will testify before you later this morning. What I wish to emphasize here is that despite these differences our goals are identical; and if these goals are shared by a majority of the subcommittees, I will defer to its expert judgment as to how they may be best achieved. Mr Byrn is an eloquent and learned advocate of the constitutional right to life for all Americans. I am certain he will provide you with factual data and expert opinions on these and other important matters.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by once again thanking you for the fairness and objectivity that have been evident throughout these hearings.

Senator Bayh. Thank you, Senator Buckley. I appreciate your giving us your thoughts again.

I noticed you glanced at your wristwatch and you do have to catch a plane. I will not ask any questions. I will say that not only have you expressed more interest than perhaps any other Member of this body, but the detailed letter sent to me last year as chairman, listing a number of questions which have to be answered, indictes that you are fully aware of the complexity of this issue.

I find that some of the most avid supporters of the amendment fail to realize the significance of passing this particular kind of amendment. I do not put you in that category. We have tried our best to find the answers to some of those questions. I am not sure we have all of them yet. We are still looking at the legal aspects of it.

I hope you will let us have your thoughts as we go along.
Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Bayn. Our next witness this morning is our distinguished colleague from the State of Oregon, the Honorable Robert Packwood.

Senator Packwood, we are happy to have you with us this morning.

Senator Packwood. I have submitted a full statement, which I would appreciate if you would print in the record, together with several attachments that I would like printed and to appear with the statement.

Senator Bays. Without objection, we will put the attachments and the statement in the record as if they had been read in their entirety.

[The prepared statement of Senator Packwood follows:) STATEMENT OF SENATOR Bob Packwood, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS SUB

COMMITTEE, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, MARCH 10, 1975 Mr. Chairman, two years have now passed since the Supreme Court issued its decisions which made possible across the Nation the legal option of abortion. Debate on the ethical and moral issues regarding abortion has continued unceasingly. Testimony which your Subcommittee has received over the last year has given ample proof of the range and intensity of the conflicting views on the abortion issues. To some this has been a sign that the decisions were ill advised and should be reversed.

I believe that the opposite is true. The continuing debate is evidence of the wisdom of the Supreme Court decision.

The abortion issue is highly complex and emotional, and one on which there is no consensus among theologians and others who deal with values in our society. The Supreme Court importantly recognized this fact, and the broad range of values in our pluralistic society, and wisely placed the state in a neutral stand on the theological questions. At the same time, the Court acted appropriately to protect the health and welfare of our citizens, their right to privacy, and the right of physicians to make medical decisions according to their best judgments.

Many of those who have asked Congress to overturn the Supreme Court decision by Constitutional amendment are deeply religious and moral people. They are moved to act out of their concern for life. We have been quite aware of their voices these past two years, and will hear them speaking with equal vigor in the future, I am sure.

But we in Congress must not foregt that there are also millions of deeply religious and moral people sincerely concerned with the preciousness of life, who just as fervently hold an entirely different view of how best to deal with the issue of abortion.

Let me give you a few examples. The general conference of the United Methodist Church in 1972 expressed its views in these words:

“Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and wellbeing of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy:

“In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion. . We support removal of abortion from the criminal code, placing it instead under laws relating to other procedures of medical practice. A decision concerning abortion should be made after thorough and thoughtful consideration by the parties involved, with medical and pastoral counsel.'

Connecticut Council of Churches issued the following statement on its position in 1969:

"Because Christian respect for the sanctity of life and the dignity of persons can be realized only in the context of free moral choice and responsible decision making, we concur ... that 'the right of a woman to determine her own reproductive life is a basic human right.'

"Like all such rights, however, this one should be exercised in the context of the highest ethical and spiritual considerations available to the conscience of the individual concerned. Basic to this ethical and spiritual determination of her own reproductive life is the acceptance of the promise to the potential child implicit in every act which begins the reproductive cycle. Since the action which initiates the promise is the woman's and not society's, the woman herself has the primary obligation to keep or break the implicit promise to the future child. We hold that it is this obligation to the future child as a result of the act of promise-making which is the ethical issue in the proper exercise of the woman's determination of her reproductive life. Should she break this promise without good cause, the guilt and shame are hers, not society's.

"Therefore, we hold that in attempts to legislate the legal conditions for abortion, society usurps the woman's own ethical responsibilities ... We urge that full, voluntary consultation of counselling be undertaken by the woman with representatives of her religious or ethical tradition as part of the process of decision making.

In 1972, the Council reaffirmed its earlier statement:

"Debate over the issue of abortion law underscores again the fact that persons of good will and integrity, often sharing the spiritual and ethical resources of the same basic faith, can come to fundamentally different conclusions regarding complex moral issues. This is true not only because they interpret their faith from within different culturally conditioned traditions, but also because they attach special importance to different aspects of the factual situation ...

"We believe in the sanctity of life and the dignity of persons. But we also believe these can be realized only in the context of free moral choice and responsible decision making. Therefore, we believe that the right of a woman to determine her own reproductive life is a basic human right ...

The National Council of Jewish Women also addressed the issue in 1969, and concluded:

"The National Council of Jewish Women believes that the freedom, dignity and security of the individual are basic to American democracy, that individual liberty and rights guaranteed by the Constitution are keystones of a free society, and that any erosion of these liberties or discrimination against any person undermines that society.”.

The Council thereupon resolved:

"To work for and encourage public understanding that abortion is an individual right, and to work for the elimination of legal obstacles that limit this right.” The Lutheran Church in America issued this statement in 1970:

“... In the consideration of induced abortion, the key issue is the status of the unborn fetus. Since the fetus is the organic beginning of human life, the termination of its development is always a serious matter. Nevertheless, a qualitative distinction must be made between its claims and the rights of a responsible person made in God's image who is in living relationships with God and other human beings. This understanding of responsible personhood is congruent with the historical Lutheran teaching and practice whereby only living persons are baptized.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

“On the basis of evangelical ethic, a woman or couple may decide responsibly to seek an abortion ..

“Persons considering abortion are encouraged to consult with their physicians and spiritual counselors. This church upholds its pastors and other responsible counselors, and persons who conscientiously make decisions about abortion.

Mr. Chairman, these are but a few of the statements which have been issued by responsible religious organizations. I should also mention a number of other religious, medical and socially-concerned groups which have similarly expressed their concerns over restrictive abortion laws, and have indicated their belief that the abortion decision should rest more properly with the individual than with the state. I would also like to request that their individual statements be included in toto in the hearing record.

The Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism.
The Unitarian Universalist Association.
The American Baptist Convention
The American Jewish Congress.
The Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation.
The National Council of Jewish Women.
The American Friends Service Committee.
The Connecticut Council of Churches.
The B'nai B'rith Women.
The Church Women United.
The United Methodist Church.
The Lutheran Church in America.
The Moravian Church in America, Northern Prov.
The United Presbyterian Church in USA (Northern).
The Episcopal Church Women.
The Capital Area Council of Churches.
The Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies.
The National Women's League of the United Synagogue of America.
The United Church of Christ.
The Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ.
The West Virginia Council of Churches.
The Council of Churches of the Mohawk Valley Area.
The United Church of Canada General Council.
The Church Women United of Connecticut
The Church of the Brethren.
The Catholics for a Free Choice.
The Pennsylvania Council of Churches.
The National Association of Laity.


The Medical Committee for Human Rights.
The American Public Health Association.
The American Medical Women's Association.
The American Psychiatric Association.
The New York Academy of Medicine.
The Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry.
The American Protestant Hospital Association.
The American Psychoanalytic Association.
The American Medical Association.
The National Council of Obstetrics-Gynecology
The Student American Medical Association.
The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists.
The California Medical Association.
The American College of Nurse-Midwives.
The Michigan Nu Association.
The National Medical Association.
The American Association of Maternal & Child Health.
The Physicians Forum.
The Iowa Medical Society.
The State Medical Society of Wisconsin.
The Minnesota State Medical Association.

60-577 0 - 76 - PT. IV - 2

« AnteriorContinuar »