[_private/navbar.htm]
The Supreme Court Watch - John Roberts

THE DAVID SOUTER TESTIMONY
By Howard Phillips to the United States Senate, 1990
THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS
450 Maple Avenue East, Vienna, Virginia 22180

Roy Moore for Supreme Court

Previous
Supreme Court
Campaigns

The Supreme Court Watch Page One
The Supreme Court Watch Page Two
Supreme Court Roll Call Votes
Roy Moore Petition
Howard Phillips' Statement 7/05 Release 10/04
Roy Moore 7/05
Howard Phillips' Testimony Against Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Howard Phillips' Testimony Against David SouterAbortion


TCC Supreme Court
News Coverage

 CNS News July 11, 2005
 
WorldNetDaily July 6, 2005
Washington Post July 14, 2005
Tuscaloosa News July 14, 2005
Birmingham News July 14, 2005
NewsMax Article on Howard Phillips' Opposition to Souter


Please Donate Now.

To help get a better Supreme Court and to support our many important projects with an urgent donation, please call us at 703-938-9626 or go to our secure credit card page.

 


Read Howard Phillips historic testimony against the confirmation of David Souter as a Supreme Court Justice. Nobody else dared to reveal the truth that Souter was pro-abortion, and Mr. Phillips was the only person to thus predict the course of his 19 liberal and pro-abortion years on the Supreme Court.


Testimony of
Howard Phillips
in Opposition to the Confirmation of
David H. Souter
to be a Justice of the United States Supreme Court
before the Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate, September 19, 1990

Chairman Biden: Now, our final witness is very well read and very well known and very persuasive, the Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, Inc., Mr. Howard Phillips. Is Mr. Phillips here?

Thank you for being here. As I know you know, it was not intentional to have you last. We, tried very hard to see what best panel would you fit you in with, and it was your choice to be in this circumstance. I respect that and I think it makes sense. I hope you understand that we just did not decide to make you last.

Mr. Phillips: I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I recognize that the perspective which I am bringing to this nomination is, from my standpoint, unfortunately unique. I know that everyone is anxious to move on and --

Chairman Biden: No, we have time.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you.

Chairman Biden: Go right ahead. We are here to listen.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, my name is Howard Phillips and I am Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, a nonprofit, public-policy advocacy organization based in Vienna, Virginia.

The Declaration of Independence asserted that "we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights," and that, "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration rested on the assumption that there exists "the laws of nature and of natureís God."

Our law system is necessarily rooted in and legitimated by that fundamental recognition of higher authority.

In considering David Souterís suitability to cast what, in many cases, will be the deciding opinion on the Supreme Court of the United States, it is necessary to go beyond Mr. Souterís intellectual capacity and his stated opinions, and to assess his character and moral courage in their relationship to the responsibilities of a Supreme Court Justice.

One moment of truth for Mr. Souter came in February 1973, when, as a member of the board of trustees of Concord Hospital, he participated in a unanimous decision that abortions be performed at that hospital.

Advocacy of, or even acquiescence in, such a decision is morally distinguishable from the judicial conclusion, profoundly incorrect in my view, that women have a constitutional right to destroy their unborn children.

It is also distinguishable from and far more troubling than the political argument by politicians who maintain that they are Ďpersonally opposedí to abortion, even as they advocate its decriminalization.

It is one thing to intellectually rationalize the case for permitting legal abortions, while still opposing the exercise of such legal authority. It is quite another--something far more invidious, morallyóto actually join in a real world decision to cause abortions to be performed, routinely, at a particular hospital.

Those abortions whose performance was authorized by David Souter were not mandated by law or court opinion. In fact, laws have remained to this day on the books in New Hampshire which provide criminal penalties for any "attempt to procure miscarriage" or "intent to destroy quick child." Indeed, section 585:14 of the New Hampshire Criminal Code establishes the charge of second degree murder for the death of a pregnant woman in consequence of an attempted abortion. Nor were those abortions which Mr. Souter authorized performed merely to save the life of the mother, nor were they limited to cases of rape or incest.

If the unborn child is human, and if innocent human life is to be defended and safeguarded, why did Mr. Souter acquiesce in those abortions? Why did he not speak out against them? Why did he, through 12 years on the Concord Hospital board, in a position of responsibility, help cause those abortions to be performed, and invest his personal reputation in clearly implied approval of those abortions?

The overreaching moral issue in the political life of the United States in the last third of the 20th Century is, in my opinion, the question of abortion. Is the unborn child a human person, entitled to the protections pledged to each us by the Founders of our Nation?

The issue is much more than one of legal or judicial philosophy. There are men and women in the legal profession, in elected office, and on the bench who acknowledge abortion to be morally repugnant, but who assert that, in present circumstances, it cannot be constitutionally prohibited.

Whatever Mr. Souterís legal and judicial philosophy may beóand, on the record, it seems to be one which rejects the higher law theories implicit in the Declaration of Independenceóit is a chilling fact which the Senate must consider that Judge Souter has personally participated in decisions resulting in the performance of abortions, where such abortions were in no way mandated or required by law or court decision.

By his own account, Mr. Souter served as a member of the board of trustees for the Concord Hospital from 1971 until 1985. Following service as board secretary, he was president of the board from 1978 to 1984.

In 1973, shortly after the Supreme Courtís January 22 Roe v. Wade decision, the Concord Hospital trustees voted to initiate a policy of performing abortions at Concord Hospital.

Similarly, Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, which is associated with the Dartmouth Medical School, of which Judge Souter has been an overseer, has performed abortions up to the end of the second trimester.

During the period of Mr. Souterís tenure as a decision-maker of these two institutions, many hundreds of abortions were performed under his authority, with no indication that he ever objected to or protested the performance of these abortions. Even though the Roe v. Wade decision did, in fact, authorize abortions through the ninth month of pregnancy, nothing in the Supreme Courtís decision required or obliged any hospital to conduct abortions, whether in the ninth month, the sixth month, or even in the first month of pregnancy.

If Judge Souter is confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court, he will, in all likelihood, be given the opportunity to address not only the issue of Roe v. Wade, but broader issues involving the sanctity of innocent human life.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the 1986 Thornburqh case, "There is a fundamental and well-recognized difference between a fetus and a human being. Indeed, if there is not, such a difference, the permissibility of terminating the life of a fetus could scarcely be left to the will of the State legislatures."

Justice Stevens was wrong in a very deadly way. If an unborn child is not human, I would ask Justice Stevens, what is he, what is she? But at least Mr. Stevens was logical in defending his support for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.

In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court indicated that if the unborn child is a person, the State could not allow abortion, even to save the life of the mother. In fact, in the majority opinion deciding Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court said that, "If the personhood of the unborn child is established, the pro-abortion case collapses, for the fetusí right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment."

As Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice has pointed out, "This is so, because the common law does not permit a person to kill an innocent non-aggressor, even to save his own life."

Does David Souter believe that the unborn childóthe fetus in the motherís womb--is a human person, deserving of all the protections which are guaranteed to human beings after the moment of birth?

Seemingly, Mr. Souterís answer is an unequivocal "no." By agreeing that abortions be performed at institutions under his authority, Mr. Souter established clearly that he did not recognize the personhood of the unborn child. For surely, if he did acknowledge the unborn child to be a human person, Mr. Souter would not have agreed to authorize the extinguishment of so many precious lives at medical facilities, for which he bore responsibility.

One must conclude that either Mr. Souter accepts the view that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the convenience and profit of those who collaborate in the killing of that child, or that, despite his recognition of the fact that each unborn child is human, a handiwork of Godís creation, he lacked the moral courage or discernment to help prevent the destruction of so many innocent human lives, when he had the authority, indeed the responsibility, to do so.

Either way, in such circumstances, unless there are mitigating factors or extenuating considerations which have not yet been brought to public attention, it is difficult to regard Mr. Souter as one suitable for participation in judicial decisions at the highest level of our Nation.

If, during his years of responsibility at Concord Hospital and Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, Mr. Souter believed each fetus to be a human person, and failed to act against the performance of abortion, he was morally delinquent.

If, on the other hand, he justified himself by denying the human qualities of the unborn child, then he placed himself in the ambit of those who have argued against the very philosophy which his sponsor, President George Bush, purported to embrace during his 1988 presidential campaign.

On the basis of the information now available, Mr. Souter, in my opinion, should not be confirmed.

Chairman Biden: I thank you very much, sir. Let me ask you a couple of questions, before I yield to my colleagues from Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

In his testimony, Judge Souter defended his vote to allow abortions to be performed at Concord Hospital, by saying, among other things, that he was acting as a trustee of the hospital. He said that it would not be proper--and I not quoting, I am paraphrasing--he said that it would not be proper to allow his personal views about abortion to determine how he performed the office of trustee, any more than it would be proper to allow his personal views about moral issues to affect how he did his job as a judge.

Obviously, you are not persuaded by that explanation. Can you tell me why you believe that explanation is flawed? I assume are you persuaded by that explanation?

Mr. Phillips: No, sir. As a matter of fact, I regard that explanation as profoundly damning of Judge Souterís case, because, in effect, what Judge Souter is saying, that because something is legal, it should, therefore, be permitted, that because abortion, in the view of those who accept Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, is appropriate, that, therefore, Concord Hospital should perform it.

In fact, there is no legal requirement and there was no legal requirement at that time that Concord Hospital should perform abortions. In fact, I am advised that there was a case in 1977, Plelker v. Doe, which affirmed this and which said that, even more so private hospitals are under no obligation, and never have been, to perform abortions.

I would also point out that, while Roe v. Wade was permissive about the kinds of abortions which could be performed, that in no way did it require private or public hospitals to perform convenience abortions.

Judge Souter, prior to being a judge, in his role as a trustee at Concord Hospital, did not limit abortions to rape or incest or the life of the mother. There were many hundreds of convenience abortions performed at Concord Hospital, and for Judge Souter at that point, as an adult, to have permitted that to go forward, indeed, to have concurred in that decision and, apparently, to have advocated that decision, can only lead me to conclude that he does not regard the unborn child as a human being, because as I indicated in my testimony, if he regarded the child as human, he could not, in conscience, have authorized those convenience abortions.

Chairman Biden: So, you have reached two conclusions, that this is not merely a case of non-feasance, it is a case of Judge Souter being pro-abortion?

Mr. Phillips: It is clear that Judge Souter, having been given the opportunity to vote on the question of abortion, voted for abortion at Concord Hospital, and that as a trustee of Dartmouth Hospital, he oversaw a situation where abortions were performed, reportedly until the end of the second trimester, and that there were numerous abortions performed that were not performed for the sake of protecting the life of the mother or dealing with rape or incest. Let me say that I would oppose such abortions, as well, but even if you take the George Bush position, he went well beyond that.

One can only conclude that, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, there is no possibility, unless he has a change of heart, that he would accept the concept of the personhood of the unborn child and that, beyond that, because he rejected the concept of the person as a human being, his decisions about when and whether abortions might be performed would be based on entirely pragmatic considerations.

Chairman Biden: I cannot resist asking you this next question.

Mr. Phillips" Please.

Chairman Biden: I hope this will not ruin your reputation. I read what you write, I think almost all of what you write. You mentioned President Bush. Do you think President Bush is committed to a position of overruling Roe v. Wade?

Mr. Phillips: You know, President Bush once said that he was a conservative, but he wasnít a nut about it, and I think that is a fair way of describing his view on abortion, that he is against abortion, but he is not a nut about it.

Chairman Biden: Okay. I accept that answer. I admit, it is beyond the scope of this hearing, other than tangentially.

Mr. Phillips: But it seems to me that the President did have a greater duty of care than that which he exercised in the selection of Judge Souter, given the kinds of commitments which he made during the 1988 presidential campaign and given the kinds of comments that were in the Republican Platform.

Let me say also, responding to your question, that while Justice OíConnoróand this has been pointed out by other witnesses--while Justice OíConnor was careful not to preview her vote on Roe v. Wade, when she was up for confirmation, she made it quite clear that she found abortion to be morally repugnant.

I found it rather chilling that Judge Souter was not even willing to say that. I know there are many liberal democratic United States Senators who vote for a "pro-choice" position, who still find abortion morally repugnant, but Judge Souter was not even willing to say that.

Chairman Biden: That is an interesting observation. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Phillips, on this question, you and Mr. Joseph Rauh, the leader of the Civil Rights Committee, are in total agreement, that is, on the rejection of Judge Souter.

Mr. Phillips: Well, let me say, with respect to Mr. Rauh, who is an estimable warrior for his views, that I believe he and his colleagues have gotten far more than they deserved in Judge Souter and that those on my side of the aisle have gotten far less.

I would also say that the conservatives in America have a lot to learn from the civil rights movement, because if President Bush or President Carter had named to the Supreme Court a man who is a trustee of a country club, had voted to exclude blacks, that man or woman would, ipso facto, have been disqualified from service on the Supreme Court. I would have voted, had I been a Senator, against a prospective Justice who, as the member of the board of a country club, had voted to exclude blacks from membership.

But here is a man who voted for policies which resulted in the death of many hundreds of unborn children, and I profoundly regret that there are not right-to-life organizations and conservative organizations standing up and at least expressing profound concern about that fact.

Senator Specter: Mr. Phillips, I start with the proposition of you and Mr. Rauh in agreement, because it illustrates the difficulty of the committee, a Senator or the Senate in pleasing everyone or perhaps in pleasing anyone.

Mr. Phillips: Senator, with respect, I do not expect you to please everyone, I expect you to do what your conscience directs you to be correct.

Senator Specter: Well, I will do it, I have in the past and will here.

I think your testimony is really very important, because you and the National Organization of Women come to the same conclusion, that Judge Souter should not be confirmed, that the Senate should not give its consent, because he displeases you on the abortion issue, just as he displeases illustratively the National Organization of Women.

I think your testimony is very important here, because it shows the very strong feelings which are held by those who are opposed to abortion. The testimony by the panels yesterday who opposed Judge Souterís confirmation, because they insist on a commitment that Roe v. Wade be sustained was very powerful on the other side. They did not all insist on that commitment. Some drew a lesser line, saying they would be satisfied with a commitment to a liberty principle, saying they would be satisfied with the strict scrutiny test, in coming to the conclusion.

But I think it is very important for America to know that there are those who feel very, very strongly on the principles which you have just articulated, and I had some questioning yesterday about the sense of where our majority stood and, although the public opinion polls consistently show that a majority of people do not want an elimination of abortion, that as soon as you start to put qualifications on itóshould there be an abortion by a married woman, married for a long period of time, the first child conceived, without the husbandís consent, then the picture starts to shift, for whatever value the public opinion polls have.

So, I thank you for your testimony and I just have really one question for you--

Mr. Phillips: Senator, before you ask the question, may I respectfully disagree with your analysis.

Senator Specter: Certainly.

Mr. Phillips: I would say that there is a fundamental distinction between the groups such as NOW and NARAL and Planned Parenthood and so forth which urge a "no" vote on Judge Souter. Their position is that they are not absolutely certain that Judge Souter is going to be with them to their satisfaction. I, on the other hand, am absolutely certain on the basis of the record that Judge Souter does have a permissive view toward abortion.

The implication of your prefatory remark was that this is a single-issue concern, and perhaps it may be for NOW or Planned Parenthood. I will let them speak for themselves. To me, this transcends any single issue. To me, the heart of the law is--and I speak as a laymanóthe heart of the law is that the system of justice is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. The purpose of the system of justice is to protect the innocent.

The predicate to the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence which says we are endowed by our Creator, which talks about a firm reliance on Divine Providence. I believe we all are created beings and that the unborn child is a created being. And if the rights of that created being are denied by a person appointed to the Court, denied in more than a theoretical way, but denied in the sense that he has actually been complicit in the performance of abortion, I think you have got something very serious.

Now, the next statement that I have could be regarded as inflammatory, and let me make clear that I am not saying that David Souter is Adolph Eichmann. That is not what I am saying. But listen to what I am sayingó

Senator Specter: You are not saying he is what?

Mr. Phillips: Adolph Eichmann. But it would be no more convincing for an Adolph Eichmann to say that his personal views on gas chambers had no bearing on legal decisions he might make as a member of a Nazi high court than it is now plausible for a David Souter to argue that his role as an accomplice to abortion has no bearing on his suitability to be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, different people have different views on whether, in fact, we have had an abortion holocaust in the United States. I believe we have. And I believe that it is a profound moral disgrace that this has been permitted to occur. But I donít think it is enough to say that this is just another issue. I think it goes to the very heart of David Souterís character and moral philosophy.

Senator Specter: Well, as a result of what you have just said, I have a second question.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, sir.

Senator Specter: I will ask first, you say that you believe that in what Judge Souter has done he has shown a sympathy for abortion. Is it your personal view--I couldnít ask this of Judge Souter, but I can ask it of youóis it your personal view that Judge Souter will vote to uphold Roe v. Wade?

Mr. Phillips: Senator, it would be speculation. Because Judge Souter approaches legal questions from a positivist perspective rather than from any theory of natural law, even the kind of theory which Senator Biden has endorsed, and as he very articulately put forward during the Bork hearings, it is a matter of guesswork.

Senator Specter: Do you have a guess?

Mr. Phillips: No, sir, I donít.

Senator Specter: Last question. If you were sure, had a commitment from Judge Souter that he would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, flat commitment that he would reverse Roe v. Wade and adopt the position that you articulate that abortion ought to be outlawed, would you change your opposition to his nomination? Or would you recommend that we not consent on he basis that his character is fatally flawed by what he did in permitting abortions in the hospital, as you referred to?

Mr. Phillips: Well, if he said that he thought abortion should be outlawed, then he would be changing his view, and I would recommend his appointment. But merely repealing Roe v. Wade will not necessarily prevent the continuation of massive abortions, conceivably, in every one of the 50 states. All that that will do is return the process to the State legislatures.

Senator Specter: But if he agreed to reverse Roe, you would recommend that we consent to his confirmation?

Mr. Phillips: I would take that into account with other factors. The focus of my testimony today and the reason that I decided to request the opportunity to testify relates to his record in authorizing the performance of abortions. But I have to tell you that I am troubled by his answers to other questions.

Frankly, I found his most troubling answer one which he gave to Senator Thurmond at the very beginning of the hearings, when he said that the power of the law comes from the people. I donít believe that. I believe it comes from God. And having read and reread two or three times David Souterís senior honors thesis, it seems to me that he still believes many of the things that were very much implied as reflecting his belief in that senior honors thesis at Harvard. It seems to me that this is a man who totally rejects higher law authority and that he is purely a legal technician.

Now, I would not have come here to testify against him but for the fact that he had been complicit in the performance of abortion because there are many others far more knowledgeable about the law than I, and the issues would have been better addressed by others. But even had he given that assurance concerning which you inquired of me, I still would have been troubled in the context of his other statements.

Senator Specter: Well, I thank you, Mr. Phillips, for your very profound testimony.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, sir.

Chairman Biden: The Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Humphrey.

Senator Humphrey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Phillips.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Senator.

Senator Humphrey: I, too, am disturbed about Judge Souterís participation in the decision by the Concord Board of Trustees to commence the performance of abortions at that facility. I am disturbed by his view that members of such a board should exercise no moral judgment in overseeing a hospital. A hospital of all places, it seems to me, should be subject, its operations should be subject to moral judgment.

But I am not sure it is dispositive. I am not sure of anything, frankly, about Judge Souter. I donít think anyone is. I think he soft-pedaled his views before this committee. That would only be human after what happened to Judge Bork. Anthony Kennedy certainly soft-pedaled his views and turned out to be far better than his testimony indicated to conservatives, at least, that he would be. So I am hoping that is the case with Judge Souter.

Mr. Phillips: I hope you are right.

Senator Humphrey: I will tell you another reason I donít think it is dispositive. You and I have a friend in this very body who, as a state legislator back in the mid-1970ís, supported pro-abortion legislation. Why? Because he hadnít really given much thought about it. But once he had, he came to a completely different conclusion. I think you know about whom I am speaking.

It is my experience that a lot of adults, intelligent, thinking adults, have not really thought an awful lot about this because it is human nature not to think about something as ghastly and as grisly as chopping up little babies. And the pro-choice slogan is very appealing. No doubt it was designed by pollsters and consultants. It is very effective. The Americans are for choice. It is democratic to be for choice. But when you think about what the choice is, then you have to come to another conclusion.

My opinion is that Judge Souter, because he has never faced this kind of case, has never really given it deep thought--and I hope I am right on that--he at least indicated with regard to the decision at the Concord Hospital that it did not indicate that he views--that he rules out personhood for the unborn child. I am paraphrasing him now. He said that should not be taken as an indication. So I am not sure, but I am more inclined to be optimistic on that point than I think you are.

However, I do wholeheartedly agree with your views on natural law. It is just mind-boggling that in this country, of all countries, we should be splitting hairs to determine who is a person and who isnít. I mean, in the Soviet Union, at least until recent times, it was fairly routine for there to be a class of humans who were non-persons, officially designated--at least, in any event, officially treated by that government as non-persons. But in the United States to invent by splitting hairs a class of non-persons, a class of human beings who are non-persons is one of the great shames in our history, one of the great tragedies of our history.

You referred to Justice John Paul Stevensí statement in the Thornburgh case. You quoted him saying, "There is a fundamental and well-recognized difference between a fetus and a human being. Indeed, if there is not such a difference, the permissibility of terminating the life of a fetus could scarcely be left to the will of the State legislatures."

Did he say more on this subject, or did he just posit that as a given and move on, that there is a fundamental and well-recognized difference between a fetus and a human being?

Mr. Phillips: I donít believe he went into detail. If he did, I am not aware of it.

Senator Humphrey: Well, it is true, out of ignorance in some parts of our history, a lot of people have probably believed that there is a difference between a fetus and a human being. But, likewise, during other shameful parts of our history, a lot of people thought there was a difference between Afro-Americans and citizens of the United States, including Chief Justice Taney.

Mr. Phillips: That is right.

Senator Humphrey: And at other times in our history, there have been a lot of people who thought there was a fundamental and well-recognized difference between enfranchised males and females who didnít have the franchise. And just because we did things wrong for a long period of time didnít mean that women should go without the vote forever, didnít mean that black Americans could be enslaved, and shouldnít mean that unborn human beings are treated as so much property that can be disposed of at will.

Mr. Phillips: Senator, President Lincoln agreed with you. He was politically active during the period following the Dred Scott decision.

Senator Humphrey: Yes.

Mr. Phillips: And he refused to accept the Dred Scott decision as applying to anything more than the parties to the case. And that is my view of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Senator, if I may, I pray that your optimism is well founded. It is entirely possible that Judge Souter will only now begin to think seriously about abortion. I think, however, his statements indicated that he still felt that his earlier decision was justified.

Now, you tried to ask him a question at the very end of your initial interrogation of him about his contact with that young couple when he was a Harvard law student counseling a young Harvard student and the girlfriend of that student, who had indicated to him that the young lady was contemplating a self-induced abortion. And Judge Souter in response to your inquiry and that of other Senators was very reluctant to reply.

I find that reluctance to reply in and of itself very troubling. You know, young people throughout the country look to the Supreme Court of the United States, not just as the guardian of liberty but as the guardian of law. And if Judge Souter was unwilling to say that, yes, he told that young woman to obey the law and to reaffirm now that, yes, he told them to obey the law, or that if he told them to break the law and procure an illegal abortion he was wrong--if he today is unwilling to say that, then I donít think the right example will be set for our country if he serves on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. Rauh, speaking for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, suggested that Mr. Souter be recalled to consider other questions. I would suggest he be recalled until it be determined whether as an adult, as a Student at Harvard Law School, he advised a young woman whom he had taken under his professional care as a proctor to break the law. I think the people are entitled to know that. And if he did advise her to break the law, the people are entitled to know whether he now regrets that decision and would change it.

Senator Humphrey: I think that is a fair observation.

Well, I want to go back and briefly follow up on the points I attempted to make a moment ago about natural rights and the ridiculousness and the tragedy of trying to construe a distinction between a human being and a person. With regard to fetology, the study of the fetus, we have only recently emerged from the dark ages. The most eminent scientists and jurists thought for a long time that there was no life until at some moment it was infused and the mother felt the child move. Quickening used to be the accepted standard. Now we know that quickening has no particular significance; that, in fact, the infant is moving well before the mother can begin to feel it; and that quickening is just one day in the whole stretch of days of development from conception until death.

We have come through a lot of ignorance. That the argument should be raised in favor of abortion that we should continue to do things because we have done them this way for a long time, we have regardedósome people, at least, have regarded the fetus as something less than human, that we should continue, even though fetology and medical science have advanced greatly in recent years, is just preposterous. Just because we used to have slavery doesnít mean we should continue to have slavery; just because we used to deny the women the franchise and many other rights doesnít mean we should continue to do so. Just because out of ignorance people didnít understand fetology and human development and acquiesced and practiced abortion doesnít mean we should continue to do so.

In any event, it ought to be self-evident that the offspring of human beings are human beings, and under natural law one is endowedónot at birth or some moment convenient to modern society, but one is endowed when one is created. Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence is just so much rubbish. If it has no operative status, then letís just declare it rubbish, something we summon up on the 4th of July. But if it does have operative status, then that means all of us are endowed by our Creator when we are created, not at some moment convenient to modern society. And, therefore, abortion is an abomination and ought to be made an unlawful act, as it once was. Thank you.

Chairman Biden: Thank you very much, Senator. I thank you, Mr. Phillips.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, sir.

Chairman Biden: Particularly for agreeing to be the clean-up hitter here.

Mr. Phillips: I appreciate the opportunity.

Chairman Biden: With that, Mr. Phillips, we excuse you. We appreciate your being here.



[_private/navbar.htm]

www.ConservativeUSA.org
E-Mail
The Conservative Caucus

450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180 * 703-938-9626

Copyright © 2009-1990 The Conservative Caucus, Inc.  All rights reserved.