By BISHOP HOWARD J. HUBBARD
When Jim Breig, the editor of this sterling newspaper, suggested that I might want to devote my January column to the issue of abortion, in conjunction with The Evangelist's coverage of the 25th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of United States Supreme Court, which virtually made abortion on demand the law of our land, my immediate thought was: "What can I possibly contribute, since there is no topic I have written or spoken about more frequently and extensively during my 34 years as a priest, 20 of which I have served as bishop in this Diocese, than abortion, unquestionably the most critical moral issue of our day?"
That very reaction, however, triggered the format for this column, namely, a sampler of my reflections over the years concerning this tragic blot on our nation's history:
* On opposition to liberalization of New York State's abortion law:
My dear sisters and brothers, it is with deep regret that I approach the topic of this morning's homily. As a seminarian studying for the priesthood, I never dreamed I would ever have to preach about this subject publicly. However, the growing propaganda and mounting campaign of special interest groups to liberalize the abortion laws of our nation, and in particular of the State of New York, have reached such proportions, and sufficiently confused and bewildered enough intelligent people that a clear and firm stand of the Church is absolutely imperative at the present time.
At the very outset, let me pull no punches: Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, encouraged, or at least tolerated, by a warped sense of the value of human life.
It is strange how times have changed the moral standards of individuals. Somehow, the word "abortion" does not sound as offensive as it did 20 years ago. Many of the proponents of legalized abortion, I am sure, are well-intentioned people seeking a solution to a difficult and often tragic situation. But neither the ease with which we speak about abortion nor the good intention of those hopefully well-motivated advocates alters one iota the basic moral principle that unborn human life must be protected and respected. This principle is as unchanging as human nature itself.
Catholic theology teaches that human life comes from God, that God alone is the author and creator of life, and that only God has the authority to take life away. In other words, human life has as its source the one God whose creative power produces the child in the mother's womb and brings it, step by step, to full life. In this teaching, parents are seen to play only an instrumental, although indispensable, role in the creative process.
From the beginning, there is a direct, personal, "I-thou" relationship between the Creator and the human being whom God is creating. All human life, therefore, has a sacred dignity that derives from our relationship to God. Human life is a gift, a loan, a stewardship. We must respect our own life and the life of others not only because we receive life from God but also because this life is to be held in trust and used in accordance with God's will.
This belief in the sacredness of human life extends to the unborn child as well. The Scriptures place an inestimably high value on the child to be born. Thus, the psalmist can say so beautifully: "It was you who created my innermost self, and put me together in my mother's womb; for all these mysteries I thank you; for the wonder of myself, for the wonder of your works. You know me through and through, from having watched my bones take shape when I was being formed in secret, knitted together in the limbo of the womb" (Psalm 139: 13-16).
Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament view the child in the womb as a gift from a loving God who creates humanity in the Lord's own image. To bear a child is to be graced by God, to be given a precious gift whose value can be measured only in terms of the value we place on our own life. In our Christian belief that God chose to become human in the person of Jesus Christ, we have the final and definitive statement of the sanctity and worth of a human person.
The Church -- in its teaching from the Council of Elvira to the Second Vatican Council -- has consistently condemned the direct or deliberate abortion of the human fetus as a termination of innocent human life and, therefore, an unspeakable crime.
This opposition to abortion on the part of Church flows directly from our teaching on the dignity of human life and on the responsibility of society and its laws to protect and sustain human life in every state of existence.
Pope John XXIII put it this way: "Human life is sacred; all people must recognize that fact. From its very inception, it reveals the creative hand of God. Those who violate God's laws not only offend the Divine Majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, but also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members."
Think, therefore, of the consequences that are implicit in the proposals to legalize abortion. If we legalize the killing of an unborn child to spare the mother embarrassment or because of social reasons, such as the likelihood that a child will be physically or mentally handicapped after birth, why can we not kill the deformed newborn, the chronically ill, the insane or the socially undesirable for the same reasons?
Indeed, such examples are not as absurd as they may sound because legalized euthanasia was just proposed in the English Parliament this past year.
Already, the cry has been heard that the Catholic Church is again obstructionist, the conservative proponent of antiquated and outmoded moral principles. But, believe me, this is no mere sectarian position but rather a clear reaffirmation of the unswerving principle that every person, simply because he or she is human, has an inviolable right to live and that governments must protect this inalienable right of all.
The laws of our society are merely a reflection of the wishes of the people who make up that society. If our laws are unjust and morally objectionable, it is because we the members of the community condone and tolerate them. Therefore, there is a clear obligation on the part of each of us, not only as good Catholic Christians but as good citizens, to oppose the liberalization of abortion laws which is now before our state legislature. I urge you, then, to write your state legislators and the Governor to record your opposition to these totally unchristian and inhuman proposals. For otherwise, your silence is tacit approval of legalized murder.
As Edmund Burke asserted: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-- From a homily delivered at Our Lady of Assumption Parish, Latham, in February 1970***
* From an ecumenical presentation:
From a philosophical point of view, the question arises: "When does the product of human conception, the fetus, become human, that is, endowed with an individual soul or principle of independent human life?"...Throughout the course of human history, a variety of answers have been given to that question in both Christian and non-Christian circles.
From the Catholic perspective, a definitive answer has never been given to the question: "At what exact moment can personhood, dignity and rights be ascribed to the fetus?" and perhaps never will be....Whatever the exact moment at which a fetus becomes a person -- if indeed it is not so from the moment of conception -- the question must be asked: "How should one behave when one does not know whether human dignity is or is not present in the fetus?"...
Where human life is at stake -- even potential human life -- the fetus must be accorded the dignity and protection given the human person. In other words, since the soul may be very likely present from conception, and there is no definitive evidence to the contrary, to destroy the fetus even at a very early state of development is at the very least the likely destruction of human life and, therefore, to be condemned from a moral point of view....
Given our belief that the Scriptures reveal the sacredness of human life; that unborn children by any reasonable biological standard must be viewed as growing, functioning and living human beings; and that philosophy at least offers no consensus on the inception of personhood, Catholic teachings conclude that it is the responsibility of society and its legal system to afford the unborn all the rights granted to any human being, the most basic of which is the right to life itself....
We believe that the Supreme Court's decision of 1973 denies this right to life, and that we as citizens have both the right and the responsibility to seek its elimination or its amendment. In pursuing this path, we reject the contention that we as Catholics are seeking to impose our moral viewpoint on a pluralistic society....As we bishops stated years ago: "Abortion is a highly complex issue, embodying theological, philosophical, medical and legal perspectives. A free discussion of all facets of this problem is entirely consistent with the democratic process and with rights of religious liberty that have enjoyed constitutional protection. We consider it our right and prerogative to be a part of that discussion, and to speak out forcefully and continuously in support of respect for human life, including that of the unborn. Indeed, we are convinced that we would be remiss in our duty if we were to refrain from speaking in behalf of human life and from urging the development of the system of justice that provides legal protection for the right of life of all human beings, born or unborn."
-- From a presentation on the Position of the Roman Catholic Community on Abortion, delivered to an Ecumenical Symposium sponsored by Christians United in Mission, January 22, 1982***
* Reflections on the Church's annual Respect Life Month observance:
Unlike other life-and-death issues, abortion seems closer to us. Nuclear war could annihilate the whole human race, but that is in some awful tomorrow. Capital punishment, as barbaric and inhumane as it is, takes a limited number of lives. Famine occurs in the African deserts or the jungles of southeast Asia or in regions of our country far removed from our own neighborhoods. But abortion is next door....
One-and-a-half million abortions are performed in the United States yearly; one of every nine women of reproductive age has obtained one. In short, most of us know someone who has had an abortion or who has seriously contemplated it, even if the choice were not made or finally posed. These statistics show why the issue is so volatile and so bone-wearying....
I have had the occasion to experience the agony of many who have had to wrestle with this issue. As chaplain for many years at our diocesan-sponsored Community Maternity Center, I have counseled, individually and in groups, hundreds of young women, pregnant out of wedlock, who have had to confront the reality of an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy....
I am well versed in the firm and unequivocal moral and doctrinal teaching of the Church on abortion; I have also studied the issue from a biological, philosophical and legal point of view. But the most poignant and powerful statement on the matter I have ever heard was made one evening in a candid group discussion among the young women at the Center... .
Talking about contemporary rationales for justifying abortion, such as women having full control over their bodies and reproductive lives, or having the right to choose whether or not to bring a baby to term, one sensitive 20-year-old said: "I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I believe it is a pre-conceptive right. Unfortunately, after a woman is pregnant, she cannot choose whether or not she wishes to become a mother. She already is; and since the child is already present in her womb, all that is left for her to decide is whether she will deliver her baby dead or alive."...
That perceptive insight of that young woman, faced herself with an unwanted pregnancy, captures, I believe, the stark reality and awful choice that abortion entails.
-- From The Evangelist, October 7, 1982***
* Statement of Bishop Howard J. Hubbard regarding the presentation of Governor Cuomo at the University of Notre Dame: The Governor's presentation represented a very serious and sincere effort to weigh and analyze carefully the question of religious belief and public morality. Governor Cuomo challenged the Church community to grapple with the complex questions of personal conscience and the appropriate way for public legislation to reflect society's moral posture....
The Governor's presentation should be viewed as a significant contribution to the debate, but certainly not the definitive statement. Rather, the Governor himself expressed the hope that his address might be the starting point for dialogue. As an initial contribution to that dialogue, I would make a few preliminary observations....
The abortion question is not purely an issue of Catholic doctrine. It is a basic issue of human rights, the right of the unborn child to exist. This is a burning concern shared by many Protestants and Jewish people, and by people who hold no formal religious belief. In this regard, then, the issue cannot be presented simply as that of one religious community seeking to impose its doctrinal beliefs on the body politic....
Consequently, I would suggest that we move away from such expressions as "forcing our beliefs on others," "religious values in public affairs," or behavior that is "sinful" -- expressions that punctuated the Governor's talk....
Such phrases muddy the waters, because in discussing abortion, the Catholic Church and other citizens do so not only under the heading of religious belief but also of human rights....
I agree with the Governor that with regard to the specific laws to be proposed, the exact legal sanctions are matters of strategy and prudence, and reasonable minds can differ. But I continue to believe that a public official who is convinced that abortion destroys a human being must be committed to doing something to remedy that horror legally....
The Governor's reference to the necessity of consensus as a prelude to legislation does not clinch the debate. Public officials should be leaders, and it is quite possible that our nation's laws would still support slavery unless a few public officials -- convinced of the rightness of their cause despite the polls -- had taken the first courageous step to end the tragedy....
Furthermore, even if the Governor's community consensus criteria were conceded to be valid, there is, I believe, consensus among the majority of Americans rejecting abortion-on-demand. What prudential political judgment, then, does the Governor propose to enshrine that consensus into federal and state law or into the platform of his own party?...
Governor Cuomo stated that Catholics themselves ought to adhere more faithfully to the Church's anti-abortion doctrine. He challenges the Church: "Physician heal thyself." Certainly, the Church's role as teacher of our doctrine to our people is a never-ending responsibility. There is also a responsibility to promote alternatives to abortion and to ameliorate social conditions which lead people to choose abortion. The Church has been making concerted efforts in this regard and must even intensify such efforts....
However, the Church does not restrict itself to preaching, teaching and social service. We believe that abortion is not only wrong for Catholics but is an evil for society at large. To answer the Governor's questions, yes, anti-abortion legislation is essential to human dignity because it deals with the fundamental human right, the right to life itself....The existence of weakness and sin in the believing community does not mean that the Church should not address such realities on a number of fronts: preaching, teaching, social service and legislative action.
-- The Times Union, September 15, 1989***
* Statement on the assertion of certain persons that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics about abortion:
It is factual, I'm sure, that there are some Catholics who disagree with the teaching of the Church on any number of issues, including abortion. But it is also factual that there can be absolutely no doubt about the authentic teaching of the Church on this matter.
The Catholic Church has taught consistently for 20 centuries that abortion is immoral. This position was reaffirmed by the highest teaching authority in the Church, the Pope and bishops speaking together at the Second Vatican Council wherein they condemned abortion as "an unspeakable crime."...
Catholics, then, however sincerely motivated they may be, who maintain that abortion is a legitimate moral choice are contradicting the clear and consistent teaching of the church --that deliberately chosen abortion is objectively immoral. Abortion is not a legitimate moral choice....
And so, just as a Catholic who claims to be a white supremacist is denying a fundamental teaching of the Church; or just as a Catholic who claims to be a Marxist communist is denying a fundamental teaching of the Church, so, too, a Catholic who claims to be pro-abortion is denying a fundamental teaching of the Church....
Furthermore, as Cardinal [Joseph] Bernardin [of Chicago] and our Bishops' Committee on Pro-life Activities stated so well earlier this week: "A Catholic who chooses to dissent from the Church's teaching on abortion, or to support dissent from it, is dissenting not only from Church law but from a higher law which the Church seeks to obey and teach."
-- Press statement, October 5,
1985
***
* Comments on the decision to sue the State Health Department and the Health Systems Agency of Northeast New York for opposing the opening of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Albany, Rensselaer, Greene & Columbia counties following proper procedure for soliciting public comment on the application of the sponsoring agency and the need for such:
It is our contention that the proposed abortion facilities are not needed and will only expand in a duplicate fashion behavior which is repugnant to many members of the community.
As corporate spokesperson for a faith community that has a strong ethical tradition, I believe the Diocese had the right to challenge those actions on the part of public officials, actions which do not meet stated legal criteria.
Being a religious body is not and should not be reason to exclude the Diocese from advocating for its position through legal means. In a democracy, just as we must abide by laws with which we disagree, correspondingly we have the right to avail ourselves of the law to address public decisions, procedures and regulations which we believe to be unjust and inequitable. To date, the courts have affirmed this right....
Whatever the ultimate disposition of this current abortion controversy, however, we must never lose sight of the fact that each year in New York State more than 180,000 defenseless unborn children are aborted. This is a monumental moral and social scandal which must be addressed vigorously....
Furthermore, at the same time that we seek to protect the rights of the defenseless unborn, we must be equally concerned about those women who are faced with an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy, and who need the caring and supportive concern of the Church in a time of personal and family crisis.
-- The Evangelist, July 4, 1985
***
* Commentary on the 1989 Supreme Court Decision "Webster vs. Reproductive Health Systems":
At the heart of the disagreement which divides those of the pro-life and pro-abortion movements is our belief that every member of the human community has an inviolable dignity, an inherent worth and a fundamental right to life; and that the human community includes all members of the human species, born and unborn, powerful and dependent, who are all deserving of equal moral and legal protection....
It is imperative, therefore, that we keep firmly in mind what is at stake in the abortion issue: the human dignity and human rights of the unborn child, which are being trampled upon at the rate of 1.5 million abortions annually. Unless we keep that in mind, we can easily become misled or sidetracked by issues which are important but not central to the controversy....
Indeed, that basic truth about the humanity of the unborn child and the continuity of human development from conception to natural death is often obscured in the current debate.
Abortion, in that debate, is presented solely as an exercise of personal autonomy (a woman's right to reproductive freedom) or as a conflict between state prerogatives and the individual's right of privacy. The effort to frame the abortion debate in terms of denial of individual liberties is precisely the goal of the pro-abortion movement, which is expending millions of dollars in sophisticated newspaper advertising and TV commercials designed to feed into the people's mistrust of government....
The Church has been in the forefront of the pro-life movement since the days before the Court's 1973 Roe-vs-Wade decision, and we can be justifiably proud of our persistent efforts to resist abortion-on-demand, which the Courts have virtually made the law of our land. But we have been joined in that pursuit by people of many other faith traditions, and, indeed, by many people who profess no formal religious belief....
Eastern Orthodox Churches, Southern Baptists, the Mormons, the Evangelical Christians, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, some Jewish groups and a growing number of Fundamentalist Christian churches have developed denominational statements opposing abortion..., and more mainline Protestant denominations -- which have tended to espouse more liberal positions on the abortion issue -- have been modifying their views on this matter as grass-roots pro-life organizations in each denomination insist that their views, even if those of a minority, be reflected in the denominational statement....
For example, Methodist theologian J. Robert Nelson, director of the Institute of Religion at the Texas Medical Center in Houston, says: "There's a silent plurality of people in the congregations who have very strong reservations about the legitimacy of abortion. These people are not happy with the pro-choice resolutions passed at general conferences or with positions taken by denominational agencies in the name of the whole church."...
Clearly, then, abortion is not exclusively a Catholic issue. Indeed, abortion is not solely a religious issue but mainly a human rights issue involving the life of the unborn.
-- The Evangelist, August 31,
1989
***
* Commentary on the Pro-life Campaign of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
The decision of the Pro-life Activities Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to retain a public relations firm to assist us with promoting the Church's opposition to abortion and fostering a pro-life mentality has met with some heated opposition, both from inside and outside the Church....
The National Catholic Reporter, for example, editorially berated the bishops for resorting to a slick Madison Avenue approach as a substitute for preaching the Gospel and for imparting authentic Catholic doctrine. Other Catholics lamented that the three-to-five million dollars to be expended over the next several years in this media campaign would not be diverted to programs that serve the poor....
Somewhat more predictably, Planned Parenthood spokespersons decried the bishops' action as an ill-conceived attempt to impose their religious values on a pluralistic society. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) went a step further by paying for a full-page ad in the April 22 issue of The New York Times. The ad attacked the bishops for violating the separation of church and state, and accused us of misusing our tax-exempt status to influence governmental action. (It is interesting to note that both Planned Parenthood and NARAL spend millions of dollars annually for the services of public relations firms to promote their position of abortion-on-demand and enjoy the same tax-exempt status they accuse the bishops of misusing)....
Such criticism is worthy of comment. As one of the bishops who sits on the administrative committee which approved the proposal of the Pro-Life Activities Committee, I believe that the use of modest funds to help us better understand the attitudes that underlie people's positions on abortion and to better communicate the Church's teaching on this matter is certainly justifiable....
The Second Vatican Council urged the Church to use the techniques of modern communication to proclaim the Good News effectively. Furthermore, contrary to the National Catholic Reporter's comment, the public relations firm has been retained not to determine what the message is -- this we know from the Scriptures, and the teaching and tradition of the Church -- but rather to assist us with communicating this message most effectively in a milieu which systematically seeks to discredit our position....
It should be noted, as well, that the funds for this national pro-life education campaign -- which are meager by any standards for such a national effort -- are being donated by private foundations, organizations and individuals, and do not come from contributions to our parishes and dioceses. The funds for this campaign, in other words, are restricted funds and in no way are being channeled from the Church's mission of serving the poor or from other worthy endeavors which the Church has traditionally supported....
I note parenthetically, however, that if even one woman chooses not to abort her child as a result of this media campaign, the poorest and most vulnerable among us -- the unborn child, as well as the woman herself -- have been served, and every penny expended in the endeavor would be worthwhile.
-- The Evangelist, June 7, 1990
***
* On the need for parental consent legislation:
Time and time again, our legislatures and courts have recognized the importance of parents' responsibilities for the well-being of their children.
"The guiding role of parents in the upbringing of their children justifies limitations on the freedom of minors," the Supreme Court stated in 1979 (Bellotti v. Baird). Yet, in one critical decision regarding their children's lives, parents have been denied any role: the abortion decision....
Under current law, minors can procure an abortion in New York State without any parental involvement, even though written consent is required to have a minor's tooth drilled or an ankle X-rayed. At a time when minors may be unaware of their medical history or allergies to certain types of medication, and when they are most vulnerable to coercion, ambivalence, deceit and compromised decision-making because of age, dependence and idealism, children and teens are permitted without any parental notification or consent to undergo the invasive surgery of abortion with its potential for grave physical and psychological consequences....
Understandably, then, many parents are rightly outraged that New York State currently makes no provision for parental knowledge, reflection time or consent regarding their child's decision to have an abortion.
-- The Evangelist, January 31,
1991
***
* On the need to fight the pro-abortion rhetoric:
In addressing the challenge to foster "the culture of life" which our Holy Father issued to the young people assembled in Denver for World Youth Day, let me cite the intensive lobbying effort of the abortion movement to fund what they like to call "a private choice." Not content with abortion having the legal status of a right, they now want it to be an entitlement. To the argument that millions of Americans do not want their government coercing them to fund a procedure they abhor morally and religiously, the abortion lobby responds glibly that "we all have to pay for things we don't like."...
It is true that not all taxpayers are in agreement with all government programs which their taxes fund. But as Gail Quinn, executive director of the U.S. Bishops' Department for Pro-Life Activities, observes: "There is a huge difference -- a fundamental moral difference -- between subsidizing abortion and soybeans."...
Millions of Americans recognize that abortion is the direct killing of innocent human life. That recognition immediately puts in place a different moral plane from that of other activities the government may fund. No government has the right to violate so fundamentally the conscience of its citizens in this serious moral matter. Indeed, 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson stated: "To compel anyone to furnish contributions for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- The Evangelist, September 30,
1993
***
* Reflections on Pope John Paul II's encyclical, "The Gospel of Life":
The Holy Father's encyclical shows that the respect we must have for human life extends to all facets of the life continuum, including a condemnation of artificial contraception, racism, sexism, capital punishment, environmental pollution, economic exploitation and nuclear warfare....
In particular, he employs very strong and theologically precise language to condemn abortion and euthanasia. He does so, I believe, because he sees these insidious practices to be blatant signs of the moral confusion that reigns in this last decade of the twentieth century, and that contributes in a unique and special way to the growing disregard for the sacredness of human life.
-- The Evangelist, October 5,
1995
***
* Reflections on the decision of the Federal Court to overturn the State of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide:
I have a confession to make. As a seminarian, I hated philosophy. I found the various courses in the philosophy curriculum to be dry, boring and totally irrelevant to whatever I envisioned myself doing in priestly ministry. So I endured the classes as a necessary but useless prerequisite for ordination to the priesthood....
The practical pastoral and social implications of recent Federal Appeals Court decisions on abortion and physician-assisted suicide, and their enormous impact on law, medicine, morality and public opinion in our nation, have served to underscore the importance of such basic philosophical concepts as fundamental principles, the logic of an erroneous conclusion coming from a false premise, and the necessity of making distinctions between cause and effect, commission and omission, intent and action, etc....
In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned by an 8 to 3 majority the State of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide....
Relying on the constitutional "liberty" reasoning articulated in the Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision, which affirmed a woman's right to choose abortion, the Court of Appeals held that this freedom also applies to a terminally ill, mentally competent adult's right to physician-assisted suicide....
The majority opinion written by Judge Steven Reinhardt states: "Like the decisions of whether or not to have an abortion, the decision of how and when to die is one of the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime." The judge concluded: "Prohibiting a terminally ill patient from hastening his death may have an even more profound impact on the person's life than forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term."...
As Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston rightly notes, in this decision, we have "the court's expansive use of the Supreme Court's abortion rulings to establish the 'right' for some citizens to have themselves killed." The decision, therefore is a perfect example of a false premise leading logically to a tragically erroneous conclusion.
-- The Evangelist, May 2, 1996
***
* Response to Mother Teresa's death:
Let me suggest how we can keep alive the memory of Mother Teresa, and be ourselves lovers and affirmers of and believers in life....We can be staunch in our opposition to abortion. Mother Teresa stated: "Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."...
We can continue Mother Teresa's courageous defense on behalf of the unborn by working to have our nation and state ban partial-birth abortions. Last year, the New York State Senate banned this cruel and barbarous procedure, but the State Assembly did not bring a similar bill out of committee for a vote by the full body....
I urge you, then, to write Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly Health Committee chairperson Richard Gottfried to demand that this issue be debated by the entire Assembly on its merits. It would be helpful to send a copy of your correspondence to your local state Senator and Assemblyperson....
Similarly, last year, both houses of Congress passed a federal ban on partial-birth abortion, which one of our own senators, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, branded as "infanticide." Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed this legislation. While his veto was overridden in the House of Representatives, it fell short in the Senate. Again, I urge you to write the President expressing your opposition to partial-birth abortion and to send copies to your congressperson and our two United States Senators.
-- The Evangelist, October 2,
1997
***
* Some new thoughts occasioned by this 25th anniversary:
Despite the pleading of our Church and the activities of the pro-life forces throughout the land, the fact remains that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision remains basically intact. This could be viewed by us as a monumental failure. However, echoing the sentiments of the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta, I would remind us that God has chosen us not to be successful but to be faithful. And faithful in confronting this fundamental moral issue of abortion, we as a faith community have been and must continue to be.
Therefore, to all those who have fought long and hard in the battle to reverse Roe v. Wade and its deleterious consequences -- for example, our human life coordinators at the diocesan and parish levels; the staff at Community Maternity Services and other pregnancy programs who offer an alternative to abortion; adoptive couples and foster care families; elected officials who have voted consistently in opposition to abortion; and all who have employed non-violent means to combat abortion, such as preaching, teaching, marching, petitioning, picketing and letters to the media and public officials -- I thank you profusely.
May the 25th anniversary of this monstrous decision be an occasion for you and for all people of good will to recommit ourselves to work tirelessly to at least modify and, ultimately, to eliminate the cruel and horrendous practice of terminating unborn human life.
Again, one practical way to do this would be to write the President, urging him to reconsider his support of partial-birth abortions, and to send copies to Senators D'Amato and Moynihan, with a note commending them for their opposition to this barbaric procedure and requesting them to keep this issue alive in the 1998 legislative session. I can think of no better way to keep the light of hope flickering as we mark the 25th anniversary of that day of infamy, which the January 22, 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is in the history of our nation.