« AnteriorContinuar »
Refused," by Forssman, Hans and Thuwe, and
( Sept. 1972. 31. "Suicide Risk Higher in Young Gravidas," EMKO Newsletter, Aug. 1973, p. 5. 32. The Sexual Adolescent: Communicating With Teenagers About Sex, by Sol Gordon, Ph.D., Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA., 1973. 33. "Facts of Life in California--1973," Public Education Research Committee of California (PERCC). 34. "Many Teen-age Girls Sexually Active Without Contraception, Survey Finds," EMKO Newsletter, Oct. 1973, p. 1. 35. Adolescent Sexuality In Contemporary America; Personal Values and Sexual Behavior, Ages 13-19, by Robert Sorensen, World Publishing Co., New York, 1973. 36. "Sexual Experience of Younger Teenage Girls Seeking Contraceptive Assistance for the First Time," by Diane S. Fordney Settlage et al., Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 4, Fall 1973, p. 223. 37. "School Age Parents,
" and "Marry Young-Divorce Early," EMKO Newsletter,
" Oct. 1973, p. 2. 38. "Pregnancy - A 'Major Event' for an Adolescent," National Reporter, Zero
Population Growth, Inc., Washington, D.C., Aug. 1973. 39. "Later Marriage, Fewer Babies, Less Illegitimacy," Family Planning Digest, Bureau of Community Health Services, HEW, Vol. 2, No. 6, Nov. 1973, p. 3. 40. Legal Abortion in the United States, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., New York, 1973. 41. Ibid. Hawaii Dept. of Health, HPBCA Study Data; "Impact of Legalized Abortion on Fertility in California," Sklar; "First Nine Months," (New York City), Pakter. 42. Studies in Family Planning 3, June 1972. 43. "Contraceptive Failure in the United States," by Norman B. Ryder, Family Planning Perspectives, New York, Vol. 5, No. 3, Summer 1973, P. 133. 44. Toward the End of Growth: Population in America, by Harriet B. Presser, 1972. 45. "Two Years' Experience with a Liberal Abortion Law," Tietze (see footnote 12). 46. "Psychological Reaction of Therapeautic Abortion," by Kenneth R. Niswander, M.D., Judith Singer, Ph.D., Michael Singer, Ph.D., American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 114, No. 1, Sept. 1, 1972. 47. Ibid. 48. The Abortion Experience, by Howard Osofsky, M.D., Harper & Row, New York, 1973. 49. Ibid. 50. Legal Abortion in the United States, Planned Parenthood Federation, NY, 1973. 51. "Abortion Facts," National Reporter, , Zero Population Growth, Inc., Washington, D.C. Letter from Cong. VanDeerlin's office. 52. "The 'Perfect Contraceptive' Population," by Larry Bump us and Charles F. Westoff, Science, Sept. 18, 1970, pp. 1177 1182. 53. President's Commission on Population
Growth & the American Future Report, 1972.
, Vol. II, No. 1, Jan. 1974, pp. 19-20. 56. Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity With Quality, President's National Goals Research Staff, 1970, p. 40. 57. "Man and His Environment, by Ansley J. Coale, Science, Oct. 9, 1970, p. 134. 58. Testimony of Johnson C. Montgomery, formerly of the Stanford Law School and now with ZPG, Inc., before the President's Commission on Population Growth, May 1971. 59. "Population Dynamics," Equilibrium, p. 25 (see fn. 55). 60. "The 'Perfect Contraceptive' Population," Science, Sept. 18, 1970. 61. President's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (see fn. 53). 62. "The Revolution takes a backseat, or maybe even the bedroom," by Krista Luker, Ph.D., Equilibrium, Vol. II, No. 1, Jan. 1974, p. 43. 63. NARAL, EMKO Newsletter (see fns. 25-26). 64. "North American Marriage : 1970, paper presented by Leo Davids, sociology professor at York University, Ontario, Canada, to First General Assembly of World Future Society, Washington, D.C., May 14, 1971. 65. "Multiple Paths to Population Control," by Garrett Hardin, The American Population Debate, 1971, p. 264.
, 66. "Catholic Backing on Abortion Rule,' San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 31, 1973. 67. "Catholic Group Fights Anti-Abortion Laws," EMKO Newsletter, April 1973, p. 7.
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE,
Silver Spring, Md., August 21, 1975. Hon. Birch BAYH, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, U.S. Senatt, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR BAYA: While Americans United wanted very much to testify before your subcommittee on the various proposals to amend the constitution to overturn the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion rulings, we shall have to content ourselves with submitting a brief written statement. Copies are enclosed. We hope that this statement can be made part of the record of the hearings of the subcommittee. Sincerely,
Educational Relations Director. STATEMENT OF AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE To: Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. Subject: Proposals to amend the Constitution to curtail abortion rights.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is an interdenominationa organization founded in 1947 for the sole purpose of defending religious liberty and the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. Americans United has no position on abortion per se. We recognize and respect the wide diversity of opinion among Americans on this subject.
We believe that the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the legal controversy over abortion satisfactorily in its 1973 rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. These rulings left the right to make decisions regarding abortion with the individual women concerned and their physicians. The right to decide to terminate or not to terminate a pregnancy was given constitutional protection.
Opposition to these freedom-of-choice rulings and advocacy of constitutional amendments to prohibit all or nearly all abortions stem primarily from the belief held by many persons that a fetus, even at its earliest stages, is a human person. As testimony before this committee has made clear, this view is held by less than a majority of Americans. It is a primarily religious or philosophical or theological view held by some persons and rejected by others.
Amending the Constitution to outlaw all or nearly all abortions would therefore be the imposition by government upon all persons of what is essentially a religious or theological doctrine rejected by substantial numbers of Americans. Such an imposition would surely conflict with the sound church-state separation philosophy articulated by the Supreme Court in Everson (330 U.S. 1 1947) and later rulings: "Neither a state nor the Federal Government .
... can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." An anti-abortion amendment would be government preference for one religious position over others and would interfere with every woman's right to determine whether or not she will bear a child.
We believe that the Subcommittee's rejection of all proposed anti-abortion amendments is in the best interests of individual religious liberty and the maintenance of the church-state separation principle which both undergrids religious liberty and minimizes interfaith tensions. A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON Civil Rights
(By Eugene Krasicky, General Counsel, National Conference of Catholic Bishops)
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has not become an instrument for repression of civil rights it was once designed to safeguard. Through its April 1975 tract, euphemistically entitled, “Constitutional Aspects of the Right to Limit Child-bearing”, and through the circumstances surrounding the issuance of that document, the Commission has evidenced its readiness to put down the shield of protector and to take up the sword of the partisan.
The Report proffered by the Commission is remarkable. It celebrates abortion with a commitment so manifestly complete that it even calls for the repeal of legislation designed to protect First Amendment guarantees. An arm of government specifically concerned with the maintenance of civil rights has allowed its preoccupation with abortion to override any sensitivity to the rights of the unborn or for the freedom of conscience of those individuals and institutions opposed to participation in abortion procedures because of conscience.
The Commission was established as a public body to appraise the policies of the federal government with respect to civil rights, and to serve as a reliable source for legislative proposals.
Originally, jurisdiction of the Commission was limited to those deprivations grounded in discrimination by reason of color, religion, race, or national origin. In 1972, Congress extended the grounds to include sex based discrimination. However, the Congress did so with the caveat that the "grant of additional jurisdiction should not be allowed to cloud the other, important concerns of the Commission.” The Report submitted by the Commission not only clouds other concerns, it literally obscures them. It exhibits a callous attitude for the rights of the unborn child and no consideration whatsoever is given to the rights of those who oppose abortion procedures because of conscience.
This disregard for constitutional guarantees is magnified by the manner in which the Report was used during the Senate debate on the Bartlett Amendment. The Bartlett proposal would have barred the use of federal funds in payment for elective abortions. The debate on this proposal took place on April 10, 1975. A member of the Senate secured a letter from Arthur Flemming, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, dated April 9, 1975, which specifically urged the Senate to reject the proposed amendment and offered the then unreleased Report as the basis for this recommendation. This Senator placed copies of this letter on each senator's desk and read portions of it during the floor debate. The Commission issued its Report four days later.
In a very real sense, then, this Report was a part of the maneuverings to defeat the Bartlett Amendment and its significance cannot be assessed apart from that action.
REPORT RECOMMENDS REPEAL OF CONSCIENCE CLAUSE AMENDMENT One of the primary requisites of a democratic society is the right to freedom of conscience. It is this right of individuals within the body politic which is protective of all other rights.
The right to abortion or its more genteel formulation referred to in the preface to the Report, the “right to limit childbearing”, has purportedly been discovered, in indirect fashion, in the penumbra of the Constitution. The freedom of conscience on the other hand, is guaranteed in the Constitution. Protection from the violation of conscience, moreover, has been clearly established by case law to be an inviolate right not originating in the right to worship or religious sentiment. Madison referred to this as the most important of guarantees and his Memorial and remonstrance was issued to secure this right.
Immediately after the decisions in Roe and Doe, strong congressional opinion recognized a need for the government to take affirmative measures to protect the freedom of conscience of those morally opposed to participation in abortion procedures. Congressional awareness of this problem was, and is, widespread and strongly felt.
Further, the concern for the protection of freedom of conscience is manifested in the Roe, Doe decisions. The Georgia statute examined in Doe v. Bollon contained a conscience clause which was approved by the Court. In the face of forceful congressional policy, buttressed by compatible court decisions, it is indeed alarming to find that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' Report makes a direct attack on the conscience clause amendments.
The "conscience clause” amendment prohibits the withholding of federal funds authorized by the act from hospitals, both public and private, which refuse to perform abortions or sterilizations on the basis of religious or moral beliefs. This statute flies in the face of the decisions in Doe and Roe governing access to abortions as well as the rulings of several federal and state courts which, following Roe and Doe, have declared unconstitutional the refusal of public hospitals to permit the performance of abortions. Such refusal, the Supreme Court has decided, is a deprivation of the right to privacy and liberty in matters relating to marriage, sex, procreation, and the family; all in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
This is an incorrect reading of Roe and Doe. Moreover, there is evident in the tone of the Report more than a failure to protect but rather an active threat. Through its Report, the Commission becomes a partisan seeking to set the weight of its authority against those whose rights are now being protected.