amount of life that can be fully nurtured and sustained. These are all tragic, terrible realities. But despite the harshness of such truths, these are not the criteria for determining when human life begins, or whether the existence of that life has value.

It is just as impossible to arrive at a full answer to these questions from a purely legal perspective. The law, and the courts, may determine when personhood is to be granted legal definition; this, of course, is the precise intent of the constitutional amendment being proposed. In the Supreme Court's Wade and Bolton decision, it is maintained that personhood is recognized, and given rights under the law, only when that life is viable outside the womb of the mother. The Court does not answer the question of when human life, and personhood, begins. Rather, it makes an arbitrary judgment about when that life is to be valued, and thus given legal recognition and protection.

Now we simply cannot blind ourselves from the facts of embryology by allowing legal categories, constructed by a Court decision, to determine the point when human life shall be valued, and gain the status of person. There exists a clear consensus, from a biological view, that the ability of life to exist outside the womb in no way gives us a basis for deciding whether human life-a human being is present. The most obvious refutation of such view-beyond all the embryological realities-is that the point of viability is purely a function of medical skill and scientific progress, and thus is highly variable. Let us push this view to its logical conclusion. If we reach the point scientifically in some future decades where life can be created and sustained totally outside the womb, then is that life to be valued legally, as human life and personhood from the beginning of its development, while life beginning inside a womb, naturally, is not to be so regarded?

The reality of a developing life's total dependency upon the mother does not provide reason for regarding it as other than life. Neither does this fact justify depriving the emerging person of its lifesaving environment, any more than an infant's basic life need for affection, warmth, and cuddling would somehow justify the abandonment of that life. The state of intimate and total dependency hetween the mother and the evolving life within her only underscores the realization that a human relationship exists.

As Bernard Haring eloquently expresses this truth in his new book, "Medical Ethics":

"Human solidarity, the intimate dependency of the human person on the other's love and protection-never are these more strongly disclosed than during the nine months the embryo or fetus lives in the mother's bloodstream. The psychological and moral maturity of the mother, as mother, greatly affects her attitude towards the child she is bearing. It makes an enormous difference whether she considers the fetus only as 'tissue' or entertains motherly feelings towards this living being. The humanization of all mankind, the totality of human relationships cannot be dissociated from this most fundamental and life-giving relationship between the mother and the unborn child. All forms of arbitrary rationalization to justfy abortion will lead to other types of alibiing about interpersonal relationships and further explosions of violence."

In summary, it seems unreasonable and irresponsible to apply sociological or legal criteria as if they transcended scientific and biological evidence when we define the existence of a human being, and then decide what value we shall give to that life. The tendency not to acknowledge known truth about life in order to view abortion in a more acceptable light must be honesly confronted and rejected if society is to have an ethic based on reality rather than on what we wish were true. An editorial in "California Medicine," the official journal of the California Medical Association, forcefully expressed this point:

"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 intra- or extra-uterine 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 auspice."

The Supreme Court's decision must also be judged purely on its own legal terms. The Court sets limits to the legal definition of personhood-limits which cannot be justified by more fundamental biological reality. The Court, and our Nation, have dealt in the past with the legal definition of personhood. The truth of history is that the most tragic consequences have directly resulted when we, or another nation, have taken a too restrictive view of personhood and the value of all human life. The institution of slavery, reducing human beings to the level of economic commodities, the ovens at Auschwitz and the slaughter at all the My Lais of Indochina demonstrate what becomes possible, tolerable, and even legal from a philosophy of human life and personhood too narrowly conceived.

The Nation's definition of personhood, as set forth by its system of law, has potentially profound and crucial consequences on the rights of every citizen. To set a legal precedent for restricting the view of personhood according to certain artificial criteria is to open the way for the abuse of our most fundamental and treasured ideals.

We are obligated to formulate and to defend a system of law that guarantees the freedom and safety of persons within the public domain that we are called to serve. But we must not view the range of that "public" too nearsightedly. In our collective memory we honor most those lawmakers of the past who were able to hear and think beyond the vocal din of their day and to reflect justly on the needs and plight of those who had no public voice. It is difficult to bring to mind an advocate of justice whom history has condemned for a too "liberal" view of the range of human life and personhood.

The point is this: What the lessons of history teach us is that where societies have erred, they have erred on the side of bigotry and narrowmindedness. They have more often than not erred in the direction of failing to grant rights where those rights were subsequently recognized to be legitimate.

The question, then, is: How broadly shall we apply our system of justice? How liberally shall we interpret the principles spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and more specifically in the 5th and 14th amendments, which state that no person shall be deprived "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" or "the equal protection of the law"?

This was precisely the issue which Congress sought to settle by the adoption of the 14th amendment. With the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court in effect had recognized another criteria, other than existence, for determining personhood. The impulse behind those who framed and urged the adoption of the 14th amendment-men like Congressman John Bingham of Ohio, Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, the Radical Republican leader from Pennsylvania, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, and others-was to make absolute and unequivocal that when the Constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," every person means every human being. No other criteria or limitation can be applied by the State in defining who is a "person."

In the words of Congressman Bingham after the adoption of the joint resolution proposing the constitutional amendment:

"By that great law of ours it is not inquired whether a man is 'free' . . . it is only to be inquired is he a man, and therefore free by the law of that creative energy which breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul, endowed with the rights of life and liberty. . . . Before that great law the only question to be asked of the creature claiming its protection is this: Is he a man? Every man is entitled to the protection of American law, because its divine spirit of equality declares that all men are created equal."

The argument for the 14th amendment rests originally with the concepts of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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."

These rights are not rights conferred on man by the State. It is not for the State to decide what persons shall or shall not have the right to live. These rights are ordained by the Creator. That is why they are universal. Our country was founded on the principle that human rights--the most fundamental of which is the right to life itself-are not given by governments, but endowed by God. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevenson). The Senator's time has expired. Under the previous order, the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Hughes) is recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, I would like to yield a part of my time to the Senator from Oregon to complete his statement, as if it were my own, and I am certainly more than willing to adopt it.

Mr. HATFIELD. I would be very appreciative of that. I have about 6 minutes more, I would say.

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield a portion of my time to the Senator from Oregon to continue with his statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from Iowa.

Abraham Lincoln understood the full meaning of that document:

"I should like to know-taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal, upon principle, and making exceptions to it— where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute-book in which we find it, and tear it out! (If it is the truth.) Let us stick to it then; let us stand firmly by it, then."

It is fascinating to discover that advocates of civil rights during this time, who framed and supported the 14th amendment, are among the same men who successfully urged the adoption of the Assimilative Crime Statute in 1866, which adopted as law in Federal territories antiabortion laws passed recently before as State statutes. The adoption of such statutes had been prompted, in large part, by the growing scientific knowledge about the process of conception-the human female ovum was not discovered until 1827-and the resultant urgings by physicians and medical associations for more specific statutes outlawing abortion. In 1873, Congress responded even more specifically to these pressures by passing a law prohibiting the sale, lending, or giving away of any drug, medicine, or any article causing unlawful abortion. The record shows those supporting the statute included Congressmen and Senators who were framers and advocates of the 14th amendment. This was all far more than coincidence. When one becomes convinced that every human being has fundamental, endowed rights, which are rooted in the right to life itself, then it becomes natural to apply that principle consistently, and universally.

What, then, do we discover to be the true legal issues involved with this question? We recognize that life is life from the beginning; it is endowed with personhood from its outset. To make any other legal definition of personhood is to jeopardize and nullify the most basic right guaranteed by our Constitution-the right to be. The purpose of the amendment proposed today is to restore an essential unity to what the law recognizes as a person, and what we know from science, observation, and conviction to constitute a human being.

I recognized that everyone may not agree about the certainty of where personhood begins. But I suggest that if we are to err, then let us err on the side of being too liberal about the definition of human life. Even if one is unsure about when personhood originates, that does not automatically condone adopting a more restricted, liimted view regarding what constitutes a human being. For if one is to argue that unborn life may be taken, more or less at will-outside of the case where there is a threat to the life of the mother-then there must be convincing certainty that a human being does not exist when that life is eliminated. The burden of proof lies with those who would advocate abortion to demonstrate conclusively that they are not taking human life. It is hard to imagine where the evidence exists-biologically, philosophically, or in any way-to conform certainty to that belief. Our commitment to life's ultimate, intrinsic value dictates that we never be careless with so crucial a question, whatever our initial views may be. The task must be to safeguard and preserve human life, rather than rationalize its expandability.

The reason why it has become so difficult and even perilous to discuss the issue of abortion is because of the growing realization by women, that they have inner gifts to express, and roles in society to explore, that have previously been disregarded and resisted by society-or more specifically, by men. Women have suffered deeply and even been dehumanized, by society's discrimination of them, and the socially enforced stereotypes every woman has been expected to fulfill. A review of our country's lamentable history in granting to women the very same right we have been discussing-full personhood under the law-makes us realize how tragically we have contradicted our ideals about human rights as far as women are concerned. Further, the depth of the culture's discriminatory attitudes, as also in the case of racism, makes this problem far more complex than merely one of legal injustice.

Many women today believe deeply that their worth is defined in ways that far transcend their ability to bear children. They see new possibilities vocationally, and new ways to express their gifts and capabilities to society. In the process, they reject the notion that the only normal, worthy, and respectable role they should play is that of being a mother. Rather, that is an option that can be chosen and embraced, if desired, rather than arbitrarily imposed by society's expectations. I fully respect these feelings, for I deeply believe that every person who comes into this world has unique gifts which only he or she can give to others. There must be an atmosphere of freedom to allow their expression-freedom from arbitrary roles, rules, and expectations, which means freedom from prejudice. But in pursuing these convictions, some believe that the woman's choice over whether or not to become a mother must be guaranteed not just by the preventive techniques of contraception, but by an unquestioned right to abortion. They further buttress this claim by pointing out that society, as well as biological reality, makes the woman's life bear the full weight, burden, and guilt of an unwanted pregnancy, rather than the father.

The harsh and reprehensible treatment, and the deep suffering, that can be inflicted upon the unwed mother, or a life unwanted by its parents, is painfully obvious in many instances. But the crimes of society do not exempt an individual from moral responsibiilty; they cannot be invoked to number the conscience, and rationalize what is wrong into something easily excusable or inherently justifiable. Sociological tragedy does not alter the biological reality of a life's existence. Further, I cannot condone any liberation movement that demands the sacrifice of innocent human life. You do not liberate life by destroying life. The goal, after all, is the human liberation of all mankind. It is a tragic and frightful delusion to believe that goal will be enhanced by granting the right to take life at will, claiming this can make one more fully human. The humanization of mankind will never come through condoning the slaughter of unborn life. Ghandi's words apply directly:

The means is the end in the making.

Many cases where abortion is considered are lives faced with compounded personal tragedy. In human terms, nothing can totally erase depth of tragedy from such lives; that is the province of religious faith. But society can and must take steps to at least alleviate this tragedy, and assume the responsibility for the nurturing of all life.

Let me simply outline society's obligations, which have yet to be assumed with true faithfulness and commitment. Every unborn life has a birthright; for life that is unwanted by unwed parents, society must insure that right. This necessitates maternal care and support so that the psychological, medical, nutritional, and financial needs of the mother are fully cared for, with compassion and acceptance. It means that adoption laws need substantial revision, so especially the mixed-blood or handicapped child will find the warmth and love of a family. Our whole approach to foster care must be humanized.

To prevent the tragedy of unwanted pregnancies, we must promote an uncompromising commitment to sex education and family planning services. Destroying the myths and teaching the truth about sex, and the origin of life, can instill the fundamental reverence for the miracle of new life, preventing tragic pregnancies and scarring of lives.

Further, we must recognize the plurality of sexual morality that exists in our society. That is not likely to change. But the result need not be unwanted life. Thus, there should be widespread knowledge and availability of contraceptive options. This should be steadfastly and forthrightly pursued so that life will not be created unless it is desired.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevenson). The Senator's additional 6 minutes have expired.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my statement be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, since the time is mine, I will continue to give the statement of the Senator from Oregon as though he had given it.

Mr. HATFIELD. I would be very happy for the Senator to do that.

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, I would be more than happy to adopt the statement of the senior Senator from Oregon.

The Senator from Oregon and the Senator from New York have given wise and an unusual amount of research and dedication to this high purpose. I compliment the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from New York and others for undertaking what is obviously a very divisive issue in this country at this point.

It is a very controversial one and one that could have been easily avoided by those in public life. It will be a very difficult one for this Nation to face.

I would like to continue with the reading of the excellent statement of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Hatfield). It deserves to be stated here this morning. And with the Senator's permission, I will now do so, as follows:

Those who advocate abortion often cite their genuine concern for the plight of the poor. It is felt that those who are poverty stricken should not be subject to the burden of trying to support children they may not have planned to bear. Yet I believe the dispossessed should be listened to, and allowed to speak for themselves about their needs. The truth is that in general they have not been the ones asking for abortion laws to be liberalized. Quite to the contrary, the Reverend Jesse Jackson has termed abortion a form of genocide practiced against blacks. He condemned

"The moral emptiness and aloofness that comes when protecting human life is not (considered) sacred."

When we realize that society has been more ready to provide assistance for the poor to have abortions than for the poor to have children, maintained by an adequate standard of living, we recognize the truth spoken by those who view abortion as another form of our oppression of the poor.

The reality we face is our reverence for life. On many fronts today we are being asked and urged to have life. We want to save endangered species from extinction; we are asked to spare animals the abuse they suffer at rodeos or from experimentation; we hear pleas to find homes for the thousands of stray dogs populating our dog pounds; and we all know the urgent demand to preserve our natural life-to nurture the rare species of plants, to reverence the value of nature's beauty, and to protect and enlarge major portions of our natural habitat from man's destructive encroachment.

Why should this urge to reverence life, based as it is on a recognition of life's transcendent value, exclude a commitment to save unborn human life? I only plea that we recognize and seek to preserve and nurture the sacredness of life in all its forms.

Abortion is a form of violence. That is the undeniable reality. It is the destruction of life. It furthers the dehumanization of life. It cheapens life.

There is no single characteristic of our society that troubles my inner self more than the degradation, the cheapening, the dehumanization of life that we see all around us today.

That is what is at the heart of the terrible inhumanity of our policies in Indochina. Human life became cheap, and easily expendable-especially Asian life, which somehow seemed less valuable than American life. We justified policies by talking about body counts. And we destroyed all sensitivity to the sanctity of human life.

That is what happened at Attica. That is what happens whenever we heed the frightened and vengeful pleas for "law and order" that would have us crush the lives of others.

The same holds true for capital punishment. The State cannot be so arrogant as to take away that ultimate right of every citizen-the right to life. Those who clamor for capital punishment-even for those certain "exceptions"-do not sense how basic a right they would deny.

A cheapness for life plagues our attitudes regarding amnesty. We would ostracize young men from our midst-ban them forever from our land-because we disagree with their conscience. It means we have little respect for their lives. We have suffered so many assaults on the sacredness of human life that our conscience is insensitive and numb.

So we face a complex troublesome issue. And what do many want to do? Resort to violence once again. Much of the impulse is to degrade life, and take life once again, thinking that it is some kind of a solution.

Violence is no solution. We have had enough. It is time it all stopped.

Let me echo the sentiments expressed by E. Eric Lincoln in the Christian Century:

"I, for one, am sick of blood and bloodletting-in the streets, on the battlefields and in the safe aseptic privacy of a doctor's office. In our continuing retreat from responsibility, we are too ready to wipe out the consequences of our private and public acts with a shrug and a resort to blood. But there are consequences to human behavior-economic, political, social, psychological and sexual: and neither the bayonet nor the scalpel is the ideal means of setting things straight." Let us believe in life. Let us nourish life. Let us commit ourselves to life.