REL 406: Religion and Reproduction

This paper, "Partial Birth Abortions: A Bridge Too Far," was written by Susan E. Wills, a prominent lawyer who stopped practicing law to become the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was written to contradict Haskell’s paper, seen in an earlier exhibit on the D&X method. Wills used grotesque language and persuasive methods to convince readers that partial birth abortions were inhumane. She went as far as to quote Ruth Bader Ginsburg and even said that “comparing the short-term inconvenience of pregnancy to the very prolonged challenge of living in close quarters with one’s teenaged children, one could plausibly argue for extending the abortion license up to, say, the 83rd trimester!” [1] She goes on to list 10 consequences of Haskell’s presentation on partial-birth abortions and the prospects of banning partial birth abortions.

The House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, along with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary had a hearing on partial birth abortions on March 11, 1977. Helen Alvare, the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities before Susan Wills, delivered a testimony at the event. She quoted an “abortionist” who performed around 1500 partial birth abortions a year - information which may or may not be credible - as saying, “Most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were." [2] As she explains what she believes are proponents of pro-choice arguments for partial-birth abortions, she presents counterarguments to them all, even calling her side the “truth.” [3] Her testimony helps explain the Catholic perspective of partial birth abortions; though Alvare was totally against the procedure, she was arguing for the ban mostly due to its “elective nature,” [4] not for medically necessary uses.

President Bill Clinton vetoed the congressional legislation to ban partial-birth abortions twice, allowing the practice to continue. Following the first veto in 1996, the Cardinals of the United States wrote him a letter, condemning his choice to veto the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. This strongly worded letter, written by a collection of 9 cardinals across the US, attempts to speak directly to President Clinton, offering up choice words: “Your veto of this bill is beyond 

comprehension for those who hold human life sacred. It will ensure the continued use of the most heinous act to kill a tiny infant just seconds from taking his or her first breath outside the womb.” The rhetoric used by the bishops seeks to resonate with the president’s ethos, fervently urging him to reconsider his vetoing of HR 1833. 

Pro-life Catholics were infuriated by Clinton’s choice to veto the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. They vehemently opposed partial birth abortions, writing pamphlets, crafting letters to the president, and speaking in Congress. Despite the idea of keeping a separation of church and state, these religious leaders attempted to let their religious views seep into their political views as well. The Cardinals of the United States added in their letter to the president, “We will also urge Catholics and other people of good will -including the 65% of self-described "pro-choice" voters who oppose partial-birth abortions--to do all that they can to urge Congress to override this shameful veto.” [5] Religious officials are attempting to make changes in politics based on their own religious views - in this case, based on their religion’s stance on abortion.