April 10, 1975
Page 9818
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the question of abortion is a complex moral issue and one which many of us find troubling. I personally oppose abortion except for medically justifiable reasons, but I do not find it an easy proposition to impose my personal moral views on others.
For this reason, I have been reluctant to support a constitutional amendment which would overturn the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling on abortion. Similarly, however, I have been reluctant to support Federal programs which might encourage the use of abortions as a method of birth control. I have felt that the use of taxpayer dollars for such a purpose amounts to a questionable imposition of public policy on the deeply held moral convictions of millions of Americans.
I have, therefore, supported the general intent of the Bartlett amendment in the past. I will vote to table the amendment today, however, for the following reasons.
The amendment involves a range of complicated administrative questions as well as some basic constitutional issues. These should be fully explored at the committee level before any legislation of this nature is considered on the floor.
I would like to give a few examples to illustrate this point. The amendment would prohibit only those funds authorized under the Social Security Act from being used to pay for or "encourage" the performance of abortions. The bill before us contains no authorization for the Social Security Act. The effect of the amendment, therefore, on the programs funded under this bill is unclear.
Would a Community Mental Health Center, for instance, be able to provide pregnancy counseling for a non-medicaid recipient, but barred from doing the same for a medicaid recipient? Would a private physician be prevented from counseling a medicaid patient on abortion while at the same time being free to provide such counsel to a fee-paying patient?
The language of the amendment is disturbingly vague on two key points: First, "encourage" is nowhere defined. Could it be construed to mean referral by a health center for pregnancy counseling or would it apply only to direct counseling in favor of abortion? Could the teaching in medical or nursing schools of the medical facts about abortion techniques and pathology be construed as "encouragement"? Second, the term "abortion" itself needs definition. Of the principal proposed constitutional amendments presently pending before the Judiciary Committee, one places the commencement of life at fertilization and one at implantation – a distinction which leads to seriously differing interpretations of abortion. The lack of definition on this point in the amendment raises questions about the techniques or birth control devices that might be termed abortifacients and thereby outlawed. Would it mean, for instance, that a Rape Crisis Center would be prohibited from offering an abortifacient-type drug to a rape victim who was a medicaid or AFDC recipient?
Additionally, I am concerned about the constitutional implications of the amendment. Court tests over the past several years of State-level efforts to limit access by some to abortion have led to such efforts being denied by the courts. The court rulings clearly imply that the mandatory elimination of one medical procedure represents a discriminatory denial of the equal protection clause.
I do not think that the floor of the Senate is the appropriate forum in which these complex and controversial issues can be decided. I will, therefore, vote to table the amendment.