will write letters to the abortion board, for which the customary fee is up to $100. The woman must go before the abortion panel of the hospital for their decision concerning her eligibility. The decision is entirely out of her hands. Most hospitals have some kind of quota system for abortions so that they do not get the reputation for performing "too many." A woman may try several hospitals and perhaps be refused by them all. By the time she may have spent four or five weeks pursuing all these channels, she may be ten to twelve weeks pregnant, with rapidly diminishing chances to secure a safe illegal abortion in some doctor's office. Under some of the recently liberalized laws, women are still experiencing long delays, contemptuous treatment from hospital personnel, demands. for unreasonable fees and an avalanche of red tape tantamount to refusal. Requirements that abortions must be performed in hospitals or hospital clinics greatly increase the problem in securing a prompt abortion. The consequent delays sometimes take the pregnant woman past the time when abortions can be performed. Many doctors feel that abortions need not ordinarily be performed in hospitals. They contend that in the early stages of pregnancy it could be a safe office procedure which would make the cost considerably lower. Some doctors have even recommended that medical personnel other than doctors could be trained to do routine abortions, much as midwives attend births. Yet the medical profession as a whole has consistently refused to consider these options. The consequences Because so many women fail in their attempt to get an abortion or are discouraged from even trying, many unwanted children continue to be born. The consequences are serious, both economic and social, as well as personal. For families in Appalachia and Harlem, unwanted children can mean the difference between self-support and welfare, between an adequate diet and hunger, between pride and shame. A study done in Sweden found that children who were born after their mothers had requested an abortion and been refused compared unfavorably with wanted children in mental health, social adjustment and educational level." Some studies show a close correlation between criminal activity and rejection as a child. Statistics on physical abuse of children in the U.S. are troubling. But there is more than one way to injure a child, and most ways do not result in physical injury or death. Rather, unwanted children tend to grow up feeling rejected and unloved, with the mother compensating for her sense of guilt either by smothering the child with solicitousness and extravagant freedom, or with unreasonable rules and restrictions and verbal abuse. Some psychiatrists draw the logical conclusion that one of the most important goals of preventive psychiatry is the prevention of unwanted children.8 Because society has for so long refused to face up to this tragic situation, I say that women are angry. We protest being victimized by lawmakers and doctors who say we have no voice in what happens in our bodies. We protest being treated as children. We protest the complex restrictions, red tape and high cost of what is usually a simple medical procedure. We protest the way we are taught to please men and to look forward to motherhood as an exclusive occupation. We protest the double standard which says that the men responsible for pregnancy in unmarried women do not have to bear any of the responsibility for the consequences. But our anger is not just "against." We believe it has helped us to see more clearly that woman too is destined to live in responsible freedom according to the Christian view and to act to achieve that destiny. We believe that abortion poses moral choices which do not belong to the doctor and the lawyer, but must be faced by the pregnant woman herself. We believe the needs of the living person must be considered as well as the rights of the human tissue which has the potentiality of becoming a person. The Board of Christian Social Concerns of the United Methodist Church, in its resolution on "Responsible Parenthood," affirms that "Personhood develops as one is loved, responds to love, and in that relationship comes to wholeness as a child of God. . . . Because life is distorted without the qualities of being wanted and loved, parents seriously violate their responsibility when they bring into the world children for whom they cannot provide love." In this context, assuring women the right to exercise full adult responsibility in regard to decisions on abortion affirms the wholeness of their personhood. Such an affirmation will initiate a healing process for the whole society. FOOTNOTES 1. An example is a recent legislative hearing for the reform of the New York State abortion law, where those invited to speak included fourteen men and only one woman-a nun. See the New York Times, February 1, 1969, p. 42. 2. Callahan, Daniel, Abortion: Law, Choice and Morality. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970, p. 292. 3. Ibid, p. 137. 4. Rev. Howard Moody, spokesman for the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion, reports that in 1965, 94% of the abortion deaths in New York City occurred among Negroes and Puerto Ricans. 5. Callahan, op. cit., p. 131-2. The estimates range from 200,000 to 1.5 million illegal abortions per year in the United States. 6. Forssman, H., and Thuwe, I.: "One Hundred and Twenty Children Born after Application for Therapeutic Abortion Refused." Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Vol. 42, 1966, pp. 71-78. 7. For example, Dr. Leon N. Shapiro, a Boston specialist who set up the Massachusetts mental health clinics for courts and prisons, has said that most of the criminals he has met were products of unwanted pregnancies. 8. Fleck, S., M.D., in an unpublished paper entitled "Some Psychiatric Aspects of Abortion," presented to the Connecticut Medical Society, May 2, 1968, stated: "Preventive psychiatry's single most effective tool is the prevention of unwanted offspring. . . . Abortion and Civil Liberty JOHN SWOMLEY, JR. In a secular state, such as the United States, laws relating to abortion* must have a validity apart from church doctrine or religious dogma. This means that if a local, state or national government adopts legislation about abortion, it may do so constitutionally only because abortion affects the public health or welfare, and not because a church or denomination is convinced that abortion is an appropriate or inappropriate course of action. Churches have the same rights as secular groups to argue for or against legislation, but they have no right to impose upon the entire society laws which are justified solely by their theological assumptions. On the other hand, laws reflect a view of man and the nature of the universe which religious groups have helped formulate. The idea that men and women as individuals have certain rights over against government is in part derived from the Jewish-Christian emphasis on the sacredness of personality and in part from Greek and Roman ethics and legal traditions. A state which is limited in its competence or its powers by rights reserved to people, including those to persons as individuals, is said to be democratic because it is prohibited from curtailing the liberties that persons need for maximum development of their personality and for the well-being of the community. A fundamental question with respect to laws about abortion is whether they are in harmony with the civil liberties set forth in the Constitution. Civil liberties are determined not simply by an individual's rights but also by the * Abortion may be defined as any induced termination of pregnancy before the embryo or fetus is capable of surviving as an individual. rights of others which must be balanced against them. A right to free speech, for example, does not mean an absolute right in the sense that anyone may invade a hospital ward to shout political slogans to patients in need of sleep. Society also has rights. These societal rights were the reason for the first laws with respect to abortion. Health interests of the state The earliest abortion law in England was adopted in 1803. Prior to that, abortion seems to have been regarded chiefly as a church offense to be punished only by religious penalties. In the United States, Connecticut (1821), Illinois (1827) and New York (1830) were the first states to adopt abortion statutes. Prior to such efforts the English common law was in effect. It permitted abortion before fetal movement or "quickening," which was generally detectable after the sixteenth week of pregnancy. Available evidence indicates that the laws against abortion introduced in the nineteenth century were not to prevent the termination of pregnancy or the killing of an embryo but to protect women against the dangers of abortional surgery. These laws were public health measures and not inspired by theological considerations. The state laws generally assumed that the preservation of the woman's life was more important than preserving the embryo, which was not viewed as a co-equal or human being. The health interest of the state is evident in legislative and court statements of the time. In this context a nineteenth century New Jersey case, State v. Murphy, is significant because it explains the purpose of the state statute which was signed on March 1, 1849 by Governor Daniel Haines. Nine years later Governor Haines participated in the first case which construed the statute. That decision included the following: The design of the statute was not to prevent the procuring of abortions, The offence of third persons, under the statute, is mainly against The New York statute, like that of New Jersey, was adopted in the context of an intention to protect women. The New York legislature at the time the abortion statute was proposed also considered a bill which would have punished "any surgical operation" unless it "was necessary for the preservation of life...." 2 The reason given for introducing these bills was the "rashness of many young practitioners in performing the most important surgical operations for the mere purpose of distinguishing themselves." It was asserted that the "loss of life occasioned by the practice is alarming." "3 Similarly in an Orange County, California case (1970), the judge stated: At the inception of the old abortion law in 1850, the state had a com- Fetal interests of the state State laws, even when reworded since their initial passage, do not view the woman and the fetus as of equal value. Illegal abortion is viewed as a felony rather than a homicide, whereas the death of the woman as a result of an illegal abortion is viewed as a homicide. Ethical, biological and legal precision all require the recognition that a zygote is a zygote, an embryo an embryo, and a fetus a fetus. Nothing is gained by equating any of these biological stages with a baby or a child that can survive in independence of its mother. It is possible to speculate theologically that a fetus is a child but, as retired Justice Tom Clark has asserted: . . . the law deals in reality, not obscurity-the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation.5 New York in its homicide statute defines a "person when referring to the victim of a homicide (as) a human being who has been born and is alive." The Federal Constitution also makes birth a prerequisite to citizenship and the various protections of the fourteenth amendment when it confers citizenship on "persons born or naturalized in the United States. . . ." One Protestant ethicist, Paul Ramsey, at this point paralleling the papal position, uses the term "feticide/infanticide" to describe an abortion, as if the state already has determined that an embryo or fetus is human, and abortion therefore the equal of homicide. He writes that "the state . . . has an interest in directing the legal order so that the value of human life will not be further eroded." 7 If the state had an interest in fetal life as such, it should make an effort to prevent spontaneous or accidental abortions just as it seeks to prevent accidental death on the highway, but it leaves the prevention of spontaneous abortion entirely to the medical profession. Paul Ramsey, in seeking to show that a fetus is a person, asserts that "a fetus can inherit" property. What he neglects saying is that "In point of fact, although an unborn child has certain rights under property law, his enjoyment of those rights is contingent upon being born alive.” 8 Paul Ramsey also refers to the one case which asserts fetal rights beyond those of the pregnant woman, wherein a Jehovah's Witness was required to have a blood transfusion to save a fetus. Ramsey does not, however, acknowledge that this case is distinguished by lateness of pregnancy (about 8 months) whereas abortion by definition relates to early pregnancy. If Ramsey had |