Roe v. Wade. Reality check.

PIP: For US Catholics, abortion, as predicted in 1968 by Robert Drinan, has become a public policy question that places the church in the position of "sinning by the use of its prestige and power against the sincerely held convictions of non-Catholics and non-believers, or as a group which failed by silence to speak up when misguided men and women changed the law to permit the extermination of undesirable and unwanted human beings." During the 25 years since the Roe vs. Wade decision, Catholics for a Free Choice has made a sustained effort to respond to this dilemma by providing an alternative view within the church and larger society. Abortion should remain legal to protect the desperate women who would otherwise resort to unsafe abortion. Also, the tradition of Catholic legal realism dating from Thomas Aquinas notes that good lawmaking requires the possibility of compliance and enforceability. If antiabortion laws are not enforced, are not obeyed, and are subject to widespread noncompliance, they are not sound law. Because the morality of abortion remains questionable, society should use noncoercive measures to reduce its incidence. Catholic moral teaching and Catholic views on social justice could make a positive contribution in this regard. Abortion has been a central issue for Roman Catholic political participation in the past 25 years as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has attempted to reverse the Roe decision. During this time, Catholics for a Free Choice has provided an important alternative forum.^ieng

Can Congress settle the abortion issue?

KIE: Legislative hearings on the Helms Human Life Statute (S.158) and the Hatch Human Life Amendment (S.J.Res.110) revealed the depth of the philosophical differences between pro- and anti-abortionists on fundamental values, and on the relationship between law and morality and between science and politics. These differences could have profound implications for national policy. They could also have an impact on the basic separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the national government and the boundaries between federal and state political activity.^ieng

PIP: The abortion debate shifted from the courts to Congress in 1981 with the advent of a new national administration and a new Congress. Legislators introduced statutes and constitutional amendments designed to outlaw abortion and curb the powers of the federal courts. There is now a distinct possibility, for the 1st time since the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, that prolife advocates may bring about fundamental changes in national policy. In the process they may change radically the basic separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the national government as well as the boundaries between federal and state political activity. The 2 most significant political developments of 1981 were the legislative hearings on the human life statutes (S. 158) before the Senate Subcommittee on the Separation of Powers and the hearings on the new "federalist" human life amendment (S.J. Res. 110) before the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The legislative hearings on S. 158 and S.J. Res. 110 are milestones in abortion politics. They illustrate underlying philosophical differences between abortion opponents and proponents on such basic issues as the ascription of value, the relation between law and morals, the uses of politics, and the uses of science. The reassertion of congressional prerogratives on the abortion issue has meant introduction of the human life statute and the new human life amendment. Both proposals have been reported favorably out of their congressional subcommittees to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On March 10, the Judiciary Committee endorsed the Hatch bill by a vote of 10 to 7, opening the way for a full floor debate. The 1st of these 2 major initiatives, the human life statute, was introduced by Senator Jesse Helms on January 19, 1981. This bill would, by a simple majority of the 2 houses of Congress, declare a fetus to be a human being from the moment of conception. By declaring that a human life begins at conception, the Helms bill seeks to redefine the words "person" and "life" for purposes of implementing the 14th amendment. The rationale underlying S. 158 is that government can exercise its paramount duty of protecting human life only if some branch of that government can determine what human life is. Apart from the constitutionality of S. 158, Senator East's subcommittee hearings raised fundamental questions regarding the role of science in public policymaking. The Hatch amendment would overturn Roe v. Wade and permit both the states and the federal government to make laws restricting, but not permitting, abortion. The hearings on S. 158 have helped to clarify a fundamental issue in public discourse about abortion policy, i.e., the significance of the question when does human life begin. The record of the hearings indicates that both prolife and prochoice activists now realize what philosophers have long known--that this is the wrong question.^ieng