Respect Life! / /* / mn ( 7a < atholic, Com °mnet Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/respectlifeOOunit Lite! Respect Life Committee National Conference of Catholic Bishops 1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington. D.C. 20005 1975 * L No nation today is faultless where human rights are concerned. It is not the role of the synod to identify specific violations; this can better be done at the local level. At the same time we desire by our words and actions to encourage those who work for human rights, to call upon those in authority to promote human rights, and to give hope to those who suffer violations to their rights. We call attention here to certain rights most threatened today. “The right to life”: This right is basic and inalienable. It is grievously violated in our day by abortion and euthanasia, by widespread torture, by acts of violence against innocent parties, and by the scourge of war. The arms race is an insanity which burdens the world and creates the conditions for even more massive destruction of life. “The right to eat”: This right is directly linked to the right to life. Millions today face starvation. The nations and peoples of the world must make a concerted act of solidarity in the forthcoming United Nations Food Conference. We call upon governments to undergo a conversion in their attitude toward the victims of hunger, to respond to the imperatives of justice and reconciliation, and speedily to find the means of feeding those who are without food. “Socio-economic rights”: Reconciliation is rooted in justice. Massive disparities of power and wealth in the world, and often within nations, are a grave obstacle to reconciliation. Concentration of economic power in the hands of a few nations and multinational groups, structural imbalances in trade relations and commodity prices, failure to balance economic growth with adequate distribution, both nationally and internationally, widespread unemployment and discriminatory employment practices, as well as patterns of global consumption of resources, all require reform if reconciliation is to be possible. “Politico-cultural rights”: Reconciliation in society and the rights of the person require that individuals have an effective role in shaping their own destinies. They have a right to participate in the political process freely and responsibly. They have a right to free access of information, freedom of speech and press, as well as freedom of dissent. They have a right to be educated and to determine the education of their children. Individuals and groups must be secure from arrest, torture and imprison- ment for political or ideological reasons, and all in society, including migrant workers, must be guaranteed juridical protection of their personal, social, cultural and political rights. We condemn the denial or abridgement of rights because of race. We advocate that nations and contesting groups seek reconciliation by halting persecution of others and by granting amnesty, marked by mercy and equity, to political prisoners and exiles. “The right of religious liberty”: This right uniquely reflects the dignity of the person as this is known from the word of God and from reason itself. Today it is denied or restricted by diverse political systems in ways which impede worship, religious education and social ministry. We call upon all governments to acknowledge the right of religious liberty in words and foster it in deeds, to eliminate any type of discrimination, and to accord to all, regardless of their religious convictions, the full rights and opportunities of citizens. Synod of Bishops, 1974 DeaeWWW Introduction The responsibility of every member of God’s human family to promote and foster a genuine respect for human life is an ongoing challenge of first priority in today’s world. Though situations abound in which the sanctity of human life is denied or ignored, nations and peoples are coming to a new understanding of human rights within the context of the interdependent nature of international relationships. The annual Respect Life Program is meant to focus our attention on the enduring need for justice and for structures that will protect the dignity of man and insure human rights. It is not simply to decry the existence of injustice in the world, but to emphasize the theological foundation of mankind’s thirst for justice. The Program calls on the resources of parishes, schools, social service and health care agencies. The main theme of the 1975 Program is family life. This approach was taken for two reasons. First, respect for life involves respect for the person and for human dignity. The life of the individual person begins in a family, and personal growth and development usually takes place within the family unit. In fact, the primary learning experience of respect for the rights of others occurs in the earliest years of family life. Moreover, material and spiritual needs are met, and opportunities for self-development are provided in the context of family relationships. We can say that education for justice and social harmony is learned first of all in the family. The second reason for this focus in the Respect Life Program this year is that the welfare of society is very much dependent on the stability and well-being of the family. A fair and equitable distribution of material goods, a legal structure that respects family rights, the availability of housing, employment opportunities, education and health care are basic to insuring family stability. But society must also clearly proclaim the value of marriage and family life, and assist married couples in achieving stability and success in their marriage relationship. It is important that the family be able to draw on its own inherent strengths and resources. But society can play a supportive role here by providing preparation for marriage and parenthood within the educational system, and by establishing a network of counseling facilities and special remedial programs for families that need them. We are often told that a major effort to assist families is unnecessary or too costly. But the statistics on family disorganization prove the necessity, and the cost of an integral and consistent program of family support is a small price to insure social harmony and peace. This year's Handbook provides essays on the unborn, the family, the social conditions affecting family life, the aging, and death and dying. The program format on children emphasizes that the child is a unique person with special claims on the entire human family. For the child is not simply another “dependent,” but is the representative of the future in the present milieu. Since 1975 has been designated by the United Nations as International Women’s Year, there is a special format to highlight the contributions of women and the obstacles to their full enjoyment of basic human rights. The 1975 Respect Life Program begins on October 5, 1975. The schedule is open-ended with the options of pursuing the various topics throughout the fall months, or utilizing the program during the weeks of Lent, 1976. Schools and religious education programs will likely adopt a schedule suited to their own needs. As in previous years, each format begins with an overview of the theme, to generate awareness and stimulate further investigation and deeper understanding. A special effort has been made to provide up-to-date audiovisual resources in addition to books and pamphlets. Recommended programs are outlined, with reference to agencies that will provide further program assistance. As we have found in the past, the success of the Respect Life Program is mainly attributable to the diocesan effort which increasingly involves laity, religious, priests and bishops in a highly visible effort to proclaim the sanctity of life and the dignity of the person. As we approach our nation’s 200th birthday, we also hope that Americans will rediscover the self-evident truths “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In so doing, we will demonstrate again the validity of the American dream, and we will stand before the world as a people who respect the Creator and are dedicated to the human dignity of each person He has called into existence. Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities Terence Cardinal Cooke, Chairman Most Rev. George W. Ahr Most Rev. Justin A. Driscoll Most Rev. Juan A. Arzube Most Rev. Francis Dunn Most Rev. Walter W. Curtis Most Rev. Raymond J. Gallagher Most Rev. Thomas A. Donnellan Most Rev. Timothy Harrington Most Rev. Andrew McDonald Most Rev. Harold R. Perry Most Rev. Cornelius M. Power Most Rev. Charles A. Salatka Unborn All should be persuaded that human life and the task of transmitting it are not realities bound up with this world alone. Hence they cannot be measured or perceived only in terms of it, but always have a bearing on the eternal destiny of men. . . . For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. Constitution on the Church in the Modem World The debate about abortion has persisted in the U.S. for almost a decade. Despite the attempt of the U.S. Supreme Court to terminate the discussion, abortion is and will remain a highly charged and much debated topic. Why so? There are many reasons: abortion is basically a moral question; it is related to other life- death questions; the legal treatment of abortion has serious implications for society’s respect for human life. But perhaps the fundamental reason why the abortion debate persists, with great determination and zeal on both sides, is that it exposes some deeply human and personal dilemmas. When does the life of an individual human being begin? What should we do — individually and as a nation — to sustain and protect that life? What happens to the unborn child — the parents — the medical profession — each time an abortion takes place? The Current Debate The developing unborn child has increasingly been an object of study by a variety of empirical sciences, such as genetics, biology and fetology. The factual evidence which they have accumulated shows that each indi- vidual human life begins at fertilization, that is, when the egg and sperm unite to form a new, genetically distinct, human life. Society now debates the question of whether this new human life is to be valued in any way. On January 22, 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unborn human life represents a moral value of zero. However, the evidence of ordinary human experience says otherwise. Put simply, a woman knows when she is pregnant, and she knows what she must do to nurture her child during the first nine months of its life within her. The adventure of a new human life has already begun, and rejection of the unborn infant because he is in one of the most dependent stages of human development makes no more sense than rejecting a newborn infant because he or she cannot talk, walk, or engage in abstract thinking. For human life, which is a gift of God, is the basis of all human development, before as well as after birth. The presence of human life is the basis of the dignity of the human person and all human rights. Human life is both a gift and a responsibility. It is a precious gift that we share with all members of the human family, the basis of innumerable relationships of love, friendship, community. It is also the bond that unites us, that sets up demands of justice, equality, social harmony. Most importantly, the expectations of pregnancy and the actual birth of the baby are for parents a sign of their love and a promise of the future, a future that they have given to someone who shares their love. Some who demean human life do so because it can then more easily be destroyed. Current efforts to expand abortion are not premised on an inherent conflict between mother and child. On the contrary, abortion is now pursued for social purposes or for 4 The Unborn reasons of convenience. For instance, those in favor of population control have designated the child as the enemy, and abortion is the easiest weapon to wield. As one population expert has expressed it, “the modern growth of population will be slowed permanently only to the extent that in the judgment of each individual . . . children are worth less than they will cost in time, in effort, in money, in emotion — or in the threat that is posed by their very existence.” Senators Charles Percy and Jacob Javits, in a recent debate about government payment for abortion on request, agreed that we should “consider the cost of abortions as against the probability that a large number of these children would be supported for many, many years by taxpayers’ money if the abor- tions were not permitted.” The Senators are wrong because no such probability can be demonstrated, but they are expressing the crass materialism of our age which sees human life as expendable “if the price is right.” When Life Begins: A Factual Question In response to the question, “When should the value of personhood be attached to human life,” some claim that relationship with others is the deciding norm, some claim it is the presence of the soul, others cite viability, and others birth. However, such claims obscure or overlook the full range of the factual scientific evidence pertinent to a determination of whether human life is present. The sciences of fetology and genetics yield the clearest evidence for such a determination. Fetology traces the development of both the faculties and the organs that the unborn shares with all other human beings. As Dr. A. W. Liley has eloquently stated: Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception. Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy, in command of his own environment and destiny with a tenacious purpose. One hour after the sperm has penetrated the ovum, the nuclei of the two cells have fused and the genetic instructions from one parent have met the complementary instructions from the other parent to establish the whole design, the inheritance of a new person. . . . [The uterus] is his home for the next 270 days and to make it habitable the embryo develops a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. By 25 days the developing heart starts beating, the first strokes of a pump that will make 3,000 million beats in a lifetime. By 30 days and just 2 weeks past mother’s first missed period, the baby, 14 inch long, has a brain of unmistakable human proportions, eyes, ears, mouth, kidneys, liver and umbilical cord and a heart pumping blood he has made himself. By 45 days, about the time of mother’s second missed period, the baby’s skeletonjs complete, in cartilage not bone, the buds of the milk teeth appear and he makes the first movements of his limbs and body — although it will be another 12 weeks before mother notices movements. By 63 days he will grasp an object placed in his palm and can make a fist. This then is the fetus we know and indeed once were. This is the fetus we look after in modern obstetrics, the same baby we are caring for before and after birth, who before birth can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient. This is also the fetus whose existence and identity must be so callously ignored or energetically denied by advocates of abortion. Another approach is that of genetics. Dr. Jerome Lejeune, in what he terms a commonplace observation, states flatly that “all human beings now living on this planet share the same karotype,” that is, the same genetic heritage. In this sense, as Dr. Lejeune also notes, “during the transmission of life, the link between parents and infant is continuous.” In other words, from the fusion of the sperm and egg, the special genetic information that is coded into RNA, DNA, ribosomes and proteins, very much determines the human development of the new — and genetically independent — individual that we call the zygote or the fetus. Thus, once fertilization takes place, if there is no interference and if the unborn infant receives sufficient nutrient supply, the process of human devel- opment will culminate in the birth of a human baby. The personhood of the unborn rests on objective data. The facts give witness to the unmistakable presence of human life. As the U.S. bishops stated in their testimony before Congress on the need for a constitutional amendment to protect human life: Newly conceived human life should be reverenced as a gift from God and from nature. The dignity of the unborn child is neither conferred nor taken away by any man or woman or by any government or society. That dignity is rooted in an objective individuality that inherently tends toward the open- ness and transcendence men commonly call personhood. The Dimension of Human Experience Wonderful as the process of human reproduction is, we must remember that the infant, before as well as after birth, is not just an abstract entity called “human life.” Each child is also — and more importantly — a unique person whose life and future are bound up with the lives and futures of many other persons. For his or her parents, the unborn child is an expression of their relationship. For some couples, the relationship may be one of infatuation or of manipulation. In most cases, the relationship is that of love between two persons who are pursuing a deeper unity and who see their children as an affirmation of their unity, fidelity and love. If abortion is thought of as the destruction of the genetic blueprint, it may become an abstract and impersonal decision. But for every man and woman who have joined in bringing a child into being, 5 The Unborn abortion is the killing of their own offspring, and something of themselves dies with the unborn infant. Perhaps one reason why almost one million known legal abortions took place during 1974 is that the abortion decision has been lifted out of the context of woman-man relationships and parent-children rela- tionships, and treated simply as a medical procedure, a private act of a woman, a practical solution to a difficult situation. Thus in trying to understand why abortions take place, we must first look at the type of relationships between women and men that permit or prohibit such killing. When a man and a woman are in love, they pursue a relationship of mutual trust, fidelity, honesty and care for one another. Their interests, concerns, hopes and lives become intertwined. More and more, they see the future as a shared adventure, conditioned upon their personal relationship. For the vast majority, this constantly developing relationship leads to marriage. It also prompts people to share their love with parents and friends, with other members of society, but most especially with the children they bring into the world. This does not give a mystical quality to childbearing. Being a parent always means increased responsibility, increased risk, a greater sharing of oneself, and a call for greater maturity on the part of both parents. But meeting these demands also intensifies a couple’s love for one another and strengthens the relationship between them. Thus, a new pregnancy does not become a dangerous threat to their love and unity, nor too great a burden for their relationship to bear. Pregnancy means another opportunity to grow, to enrich the quality of mutual love, another challenge to the family to accept and care for a new member. For most couples the reasons why they set out to have a baby include the confidence that they will be good parents, awareness that their reach into the future is shared with their children, and recognition that children are good people, good companions, and given love and acceptance, good fun. Children are also witnesses to the love between a man and a woman, the generosity and courage they have discovered and developed in their relationship, the sense of mutual security they have in one another. Indeed even when conception is not a carefully planned event, in a healthy marriage, it is a sign of the presence of these qualities. All this emphasizes an obvious question. If childbearing and parenting can be so good and reward- ing, why arc there one million abortions a year? There are a variety of answers. The sexual revolution and a reluctance to assume responsibility for one’s actions, an erroneous definition of female privacy endorsed by the Supreme Court, the tendency to find easy and quick solutions to all human problems — these things provide a backdrop for permissive abortion. But in many instances, abortion brings a woman face-to-face with the fact that a relationship that she hoped would develop and a person in whom she placed her trust and love are totally unable to meet her expectations. Abortion is the sign of rejection, of isolation, of non-love. Abortion is an act of escape from mutual love and from intimacy for both man and woman; it is a denial of generosity and a betrayal of empty promises. The woman is isolated, and left to work out her problem. The man who encourages or simply goes along with the abortion is dodging his responsibility to a friend, the mother of his child. The big-time spenders may salve their consciences by paying the medical bills, but no financial arrangement makes up for shattered hopes or the destruction of one’s child. For every man who is a party to an abor- tion, it is graphic testimony to his selfishness and unwillingness to love his child and the mother of his child. Every abortion is the denial or destruction of a human relationship between a man and woman. Not only is the child dead, but something of their relation- ship has also died. If there is a marriage and other children, the abortion is a threat — psychologically and physically — to the other children. Psychologists tell us that children are disturbed by the knowledge of abortion because it prompts the question of what might have been — or yet might be — if they had been or yet become too much of a strain on their parents' convenience. And although statistics are not completely conclusive, it is a thought provoking fact that 28% of the abortions in 1974 were performed on married women — a figure which correlates with the number of divorces that can be expected among couples marrying in a given year. Abortion and the Medical Profession In its 1973 abortion opinions, the Supreme Court asserted that the abortion decision is “inherently and primarily a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician.” Time and again throughout the two opinions Justice Blackmun showed unlimited confidence in the medical profession and assigned extraordinary responsibilities to physicians. Abortion may be a medical procedure, but it is not simply a medical decision, nor is it one that involves only the woman and her physician. The abortion decision involves an expectant mother and the child, as well as the father of the child. In many cases the decision touches parents, family or close friends of the expectant mother. The decision-making process involves moral judgments, psychological or emotional factors, and reaches into other areas such as the relationship between father and mother and the implications for future childbearing. Nonetheless, responsibility for abortion does rest heavily on the medical profession and especially on those physicians who perform abortions. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a physician who directed the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, the largest abortion clinic in the United States, has clearly outlined the ethical dilemmas that he faced and the responsibility 6 The Unborn that he ultimately found unbearable. In a carefully written article in a respected medical journal, Dr. Nathanson denied that abortion is simply a medical decision. In fact, said Dr. Nathanson, “there are seldom any purely medical indications for abortion. The decision is the most serious responsibility a woman can experience in her lifetime, and at present it is hers alone.” After a year and a half, Dr. Nathanson resigned as director of the Center. Although the Center had performed 60,000 abortions with no maternal deaths, he said that he was compelled to resign because “I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” Dr. Nathanson explained that there was no longer any serious doubt in his mind that human life exists in the womb from the very onset of pregnancy. In fact, he wrote, “since the vast majority of pregnancies are carried successfully to term, abortion must be seen as the interruption of a process that would otherwise have produced a citizen of the world. Denial of this reality is the crassest kind of moral evasiveness.” He argued that it is necessary to face the fact that in abortion “we are taking life, and the deliberate taking of life, even of a special order and under special circumstances, is an inexpressibly serious matter.” “Somehow,” Dr. Nathanson added, “we must not deny the pervasive sense of loss that should accompany abortion and its most unfortunate interruption of life. We must not coarsen our sensitivities through common practice and brute denial.” Dr. Nathanson is not alone in his realization that “life is an interdependent phenomenon for us all.” Willingness to destroy life in certain circumstances compromises the medical profession’s overall commit- ment to heal, to cure, to protect and foster the capacity of human beings for living. The implications of permissive abortion for the medical profession also came to light in the Boston trial of Dr. Kenneth Edelin. Dr. Edelin was tried and convicted of manslaughter for having caused or allowed the death of a fetus that, in the mind of the jury, might have survived with the doctor’s help. Dr. Edelin pleaded innocent on the grounds that the fetus was not a person, and that in performing the abortion he felt no responsibility to preserve the life of the fetus. In defense of the physician, it was argued that in permitting abortion on request during the first six months of pregnancy, the Supreme Court had accepted that an abortion would destroy whatever “potentiality for human life” a fetus might have. However, human life is present from conception, and the process of human development continues throughout the preg- nancy. Practically, there is little difference between an eight-month-old fetus and a one-month-old infant. Both require care and sustenance to reach their poten- tial as self-sustaining and independent persons. The Boston case raises serious questions for society and for the medical profession. First, on what grounds and by what authority may a doctor terminate the life of a living human fetus? Second, in an atmosphere of permissive abortion, what is the doctor’s responsibility to sustain the life of a living fetus? Third, if the potential for human life is somewhat limited, as in the case of the elderly, the seriously ill or victims of accident or violence, is a doctor justified in refusing medical care or in taking direct measures to terminate life? American society is aware of these problems, but it seems unwilling to address them openly. For various reasons, there is a tendency to defend the Supreme Court’s opinions and to label all disagreement as the fanatic opposition of Catholics and right-to-life forces. However, other nations are struggling with the same moral problems raised by the abortion question. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled against permissive abortion. The West German Supreme Court rejected permissive abortion on the grounds that the “bitter experience of the Nazi period provided histor- ical grounds for determining that the protection of human life should receive absolute priority.” The German court emphasized that in the German Constitution the express recognition of the self-evident right-to-life was chiefly a reaction to theories of “valueless life,” “the final solution,” and the liquida- tion programs of the Nazi regime. The abortion debate continues in the public forum. In the late fall of 1974, nearly two years after the Supreme Court’s abortion rulings, the highly respected firm of DeVries & Associates conducted an extensive public opinion poll which found that more than seven out of every ten Americans think Congress should take legislative action to reverse the Court’s abortion rulings. This finding is consistent with the other major opinion polls on abortion conducted over the last decade. It is not surprising, then, that constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress and that hearings have been in progress in the Senate for over a year. On the state level, the question of appro- priate abortion legislation remains unresolved. In an alarming development, euthanasia legislation was introduced in at least 13 state legislatures in 1975. Human dignity and human rights are everyone’s concern. They should be protected and promoted by society through its legal institutions. Thus the Ameri- can Catholic bishops have repeatedly endorsed an amendment to the Constitution which will effectively reverse the abortion decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. For “the existence of human rights and the fragility with which they are maintained places a claim on society to provide bulwarks of protection for individuals. A society committed to justice, equality and freedom must establish a system of law that protects the rights of each person while maintaining order and promoting the common good.” Program Suggestions Events of the past two years have made it clear that a constitutional amendment is absolutely necessary in 7 The Unborn order to assure any protection for unborn children. The U.S. Catholic Conference, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amend- ments, proposed the following principles that should govern the drafting of an amendment: • The amendment should establish that the unborn child is a person under the law in the terms of the Constitution from conception on. • The Constitution should express a commitment to the preservation of life to the maximum degree possible. The protection resulting therefrom should be universal. • The proposed amendment should give the states the power to enact enabling legislation, and to provide for ancillary matters such as record keeping, etc. • The right to life is described in the Declaration of Independence as “unalienable” and as a right with which all men are endowed by the Creator. The amendment should restore the basic constitutional protection for this human right to the unborn child. In order to change the existing social atmosphere allowing abortion virtually on request, citizen activity is necessary at every level. This activity has been carried on effectively by various pro-life organizations, but for maximum effectiveness, a pro-life group should exist in every parish. This group will serve to inform parish leaders, to stimulate a public information program, and to help direct political action. The following activities are important. Political Action Systematic efforts arc necessary to persuade Congress to pass a constitutional amendment and to create a legal structure that prohibits permissive abortion. This includes personal visits to elected representatives, continual letter writing and sending of significant articles or information to remind the Representatives of your concerns. The effort to pass an amendment includes asking each Congressman to sponsor a Human Life Amend- ment to the Constitution. Human Life Amendments generally affirm that the basic legal rights of the person should adhere to human life from its biological beginnings at fertilization. (More information on specific wording and resolution numbers can be obtained by writing to the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (address listed below).) For purposes of sponsorship the choice of a specific amendment should be left to the Representative. The important point of sponsorship is that the Congress- man expresses a political commitment to reverse the meaning and intent of the Supreme Court’s abortion rulings. Those Congressmen who have sponsored a states’ rights constitutional amendment (these proposals simply leave it to the states whether they will prohibit or allow abortions in any way) should also be asked to co-sponsor a Human Life Amendment. If you organize a new pro-life group or join an already existing one, it is important that in the group one person be assigned the responsibility of co-ordi- nating liaison work with the Congressman from the district and the two senators from the state. Ideally, there should be one person who holds a similar respon- sibility for the totality of each congressional district. These congressional liaison people usually work in concert with the various national pro-life organiza- tions, e.g., National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, or the National Right to Life Committee. Write to these groups and inform them of the name of your congressional liaison person. Congressional liaison work would involve research- ing and monitoring the Representative’s legislative action, votes, statements, etc.; forwarding to the Representative's office pertinent newspaper editorials and other news on abortion-related activities from within the district or state; organizing meetings with the Congressman both in Washington and in the home district; relaying to your group program directives on congressional matters sent out by the national offices, etc. Efforts to persuade state legislatures to enact laws and regulations that restrict the practice of abortion to the maximum extent possible are needed. Visits, letter- writing and occasional phone calls are necessary as described above. The various Right to Life and Pro-Life organiza- tions in your state or locale will be able to provide specific input for such activity. Some national resources include: • Information on the congressional dimensions of the amendment process can be obtained from: National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, 1 707 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. • Information on other specific aspects of federal and state legislation is available from: Bishops’ Com- mittee for Pro-Life Activities, 1312 Mass. Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. • General information on right to life activities is available from: National Right to Life Committee, National Press Bldg., Rm. 557, 529 14th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20045. • Information on youth pro-life activities is available from: National Youth Pro-Life Coalition, 236 Mass. Ave., Room 209, Congressional Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20002. Public Information Support of public opposition to abortion on request and clarification of some of the issues that create uncertainty in people’s minds require continual moni- toring of the media. Competent spokespersons should seek opportunities to publish articles, to speak out on TV and radio shows, and to take part in community programs where the issue is debated. Doctors and 8 ABORTION, ATTITUDES, AND THE LAW The enclosed booklet, - Abortion, Attitudes. , and the Law contains data which was compiled by De Vries and Associates, a highly respected polling firm com- missioned by the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment , Inc. to sample public opinion on a wide range of pro-life issues. We think that the informa- tion would be especially helpful to priests. The poll indicates that: A. Priests/ministers rank at the top in confidence level. B. People expect "guidance on moral issues" from priests even if it means that the priest will get involved in politics. C. Priests rank fourth out of 23 reliable information sources. The implications of these findings and others in tne study indicate that : A. Priests should be encouraged to study the issue of abortion laws.,, and to provide in- formation and motivation to their people. They should approach the abortion question in the context of other respect life issues, and avoid a one-issue approach. B. Priests can give "moral guidance," and also ; point to political implications of the moral guidance, C. r Priests should work closely with doctors. and lawyers in providing leadership and motivation to their people. D. At the level of political activity, priests should organize pro-life groups and provide information and tactical advice to such groups , E. In attempting to build public understanding of the moral issue, priests should elicit as much ecumenical understanding and support as possible. We would encourage you to study the entire document. Some of the findings may tend to support your personal impressions and others may surprise you. In either case, we feel that the study will assist your deter- mining what role your people expect you to play in some of the more profound questions of public and per- sonal morality. » j *' 1 J rl rr The Unborn nurses should be encouraged to take part in this public information effort. Ultimately, the law is the great educator on human rights issues. The public education process must be accompanied by a proper articulation of the rights of the unborn in the law. The bibliography below should be of assistance in highlighting valuable educational and research materials. Education An accurate knowledge and understanding of the growth and development of the unborn child leads to a more clearly reasoned opposition to abortion. Thus, it is important to include information on conception, pregnancy, fetal development and childbirth in educa- tional programs, especially for junior high school students and onwards. Several textbooks for use in high schools and adult education programs are now available: • Human Life: Our Legacy and our Challenge, Marcy Cavanagh Sneed (ed.), N.Y., McGraw Hill, 1975. Classroom tested. Human Life provides a comprehensive look at the life issues by specialists in the fields of political science, law, natural science, sociology, mental health, and others. The program concerns itself with positive values, and contrasts these values with the current attacks that threaten or ignore the value and dignity of human life — abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, etc. Discussion questions and bibliographies for each chapter are included. Good for high school and adult education programs as well as for popular reading. Cost: $4 (discount for bulk orders, $3 ea.). [Webster/McGraw Hill, 1221 Ave. of the Americas, N.Y. 10020] • Choose Life, Indiana Catholic Conference. A cur- riculum guide for teachers and a manual for stu- dents for use in upper grade school years. The program covers the abortion issue in the context of other pro-life concerns and is quite effective. For information: Indiana Catholic Conference, 442 Illinois Bldg., Illinois & Market Sts., Indianapolis, Ind. 46204^ • Love for Life, Right to Life of So. Calif., 301 S. Kingsley Dr., Los Angeles, Calif. 90020. Cost: $1.50. Quantity rates available. • Abortion: A Study in Human Values, Committee for Life, 21 Rockville Ave., Rockville Centre, N.Y. 11570. Donation: $5.00. Social Action Assistance to women with problem pregnancies and their unborn children requires a combined effort of voluntary agencies and professional resources. Volun- teers can be trained to take phone calls, and to help women in need. Part of the help may require assistance of physicians, social workers and psychologists. • Pregnancy counseling and Birthright programs enlist volunteers to provide one-to-one assistance to pregnant women in distress. More than 600 coun- seling centers are now operating in the United States. A complete listing of these centers is avail- able for $1.00 from: Alternatives to Abortion, Hillcrest 511, Madison & 16th Sts., Toledo, Ohio 43624. Information for setting up a pregnancy counseling service, as well as a periodic newsletter, are also available from Alternatives to Abortion. • The local Catholic Charities organization, or its equivalent, is a valuable resource and guide to those individuals or citizen groups who wish to become more involved in some particular program to assist pregnant women and their children. Check your local telephone directory or write to: National Conference of Catholic Charities, 1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Special Pro-Life Projects Some type of activity on or around January 22 each year is useful to call attention to the Supreme Court’s 1973 abortion decisions, and to give public witness to the strength of the pro-life effort and the determination of a majority of people who believe some Congres- sional action is appropriate. Information on such activities in Washington, D.C. can be obtained from the National Right to Life Committee, National Press Bldg., Rm. 557, 529 14th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20045. Your state pro- life office will have information regarding local events. Bibliography and Resource Materials These materials are listed in addition to those mentioned above under “Program Suggestions.” Books/Pamphlets Abortion, Attitudes and the Law, 16-page booklet published by the Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities and Our Sunday Visitor (1975). This booklet contains an analysis of the main findings of a study of public attitudes toward abortion and the legal and political implications thereof. The findings are consistent with past polls in showing that the majority of Americans do not agree with the Supreme Court and would favor some restriction of the present abortion-on-request situation in the United States. Available from: Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities. 1312 Mass. Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Documentation on the Right to Life and Abortion. United States Catholic Conference. 1974. Contains the testimony of the U.S. bishops on a human life constitu- tional amendment to the United States Constitution, submitted before the U.S. Senate at hearings held March 7, 1974. This booklet should prove a valuable aid in parish education programs. Available from: USCC Publications, 1312 Mass. Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Cost: 75C Quantity rates available. 9 The Unborn Life in Our Hands, Valerie V. Dillon, 1973. Considers contemporary ethical/ medical questions, including abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, and other pertinent topics. Available from: Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities. Cost: $1.25. Quantity rates available. The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspec- tives, John T. Noonan, Jr. (ed.), 1970, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. Press, 276 pp., $2.95, paper. Seven outstanding scholars probe the moral and legal aspects of the abortion issue. Abortion and Social Justice, Thomas W. Hilgers and Dennis J. Horan (eds.L Sheed & Ward. 1972. A valuable collection of essays on all aspects of the abortion question. Available from: Sheed & Ward, 6700 Squibble Rd., Mission, Kansas 66202. Cost: $3.95. Nine Facts to Know About Abortion, Valerie V. Dillon (1974). Well done 16-page question and answer pamphlet. Covers medical, legal, biological, and theological aspects of abortion: includes select biblio- graphy. Available from: Indiana Catholic Conference, 442 Illinois Bldg.. Illinois & Market Sts., Indianapolis. Ind. 46204. Single copies: 25