Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1511672
label
Abortion
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1511672
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Abortion
citationUrl
collections
Ron Nessen Papers
General Subject Files
subjects
Abortion
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
2
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1511672
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-01
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-01-01
month
1
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7b2910ebdc4ad860
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "Abortion" of the Ron Nessen Papers
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Ron Nessen donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 1 of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
GDP Plalform
en's rights" forces were in fact surprisingly weak, and admittedly afraid of fighting
abortion for fear of losing out on ERA too (they got that, with a big assist from Bet
Ford). The text, however, is hardly a ringing declaration of rights for the unborn
letter's man-in-Kansas City reports that it could have been made much tougher if anti
abortionists had agreed on a hard line). It reads: "The question of abortion is one
the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and pers
issue, but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and crimina
justice. There are those in our party who favor complete support of the Supreme Cour
decision, which supports abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere conv
tions that the Supreme Court decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment E
hibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position; or they have assumed a $
somewhere in between the polar positions. We protest the Supreme Court's intrusion
-
the family structure through its denial of the parents' obligation and right to guide
their minor children. The Republican Party favors the continuance of the public dial
11
on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional
amendment to restore protection of the right to life of the unborn child."
FORD is LIBRARY CERALD
bill
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
rondite "why, ?
How dif ?
/ - Economs "What
Jobs
Inflation
2 - Energy
3 - Crime
Y Y- Factlin Count.
5- Meliter expendence
Freignfolig.
6 - Busing
7- Abortion
3 questions from a Mr. Bernstein on Cronkite show.
1. Do you agree with the Supreme Court's position that the
right to abortion be left to a woman and her physician?
2. Do you think states should have the power to regulate abortions?
3. Do you favor a constitutional amendment to curb the Supreme
Court's liberalized abortion ruling?
Union Leader page 60
"There is still only one who
determines whether life or
LEADER - Wednesday, January 14, 1976
death shall occur. and that is
God Himself."
Editor Hartle said she hopes
Abortion
Hit
this will be only the first of
various interviews with the
presidential candidates giving
their views on pro-life issues.
Citing such people AS Cesar
Chavez. Garry Wills. Jesse
Jackson and Ken Keser for
By
Reagan
their opposition to abortion. she
said some presidential candi-
dates mistakenly have assumed
that liberal politics means one
must hold a pro-abortion post-I
MINNEAPOLIS. Minn. In a of the voie after only three
tion.
copyrighted interview in the weeks of pro-life television com-
Mrs. Hartle continued. "We:
latest issue of the National mercials,
reject the Idea that merely
Right to Life News, official Reagan. who signed permissive
because a politician is a Cath-
newspaper of the National Right abortion legislation when he was
olic. he deserves the prolife
to Life Committee Inc., presi- governor of California. savs in
vote. Nor do we believe that
dential contender Ronald the interview that eperience
prople who aren't Catholic will
Reagan explains his opposition with that law convinced him
reiect pro-life politics.
to abortion and euthanasia. that "I would have vetoed the
Ronald Reacan is an obvious
In the interview with News bill. in the light of what 1 know
example of someone who's not a
"
editor Alice Hartle. Reagan ex- now
Catholic who takes this view.
presses support for a Human He says that if he "had it to
And this is especially refreshing
Life Amendment to the U.S. do over again" in signing
when the Republican Party's
Constitution to overturn the U.S. abortion legislation. he would
titular leader. President Ford.
Supreme Court's Jan. 22. 1273 sign a strict law allowing
is all pro-life commitment
ruling that abortion is a basic abortion :0 prevent the death of
and ais wife enthusiastically
constitutional right throughout the mother. This use the
endorses the killing of innocent
pregnancy not merely in the traditional allowance for abor-
unborn children.
"first three months," as is still tion in American law.
We have heard enough eva-
often reported.
Asked his opinion of eutha-
sion from people like Sens.
Reagan becomes the second nasia - "mercy killing" -
Edward Kennedy and Birch
presidential hopeful thus far to Reagan replied. "It is one thing
Bash who claim they 'person-
ally don't favor abortion but
support the idea of an amend- to talk about the truly doubtful
ment. Experienced case. the moral case of the
won't try to give moral guid-
ance to resiore the rights of the
activist Ellen McCormack. Bell-
individual whose bodi!y func-
more, N.Y., has announced she
inborn by supporting a strong
tions are being kept all:e. when
Human
Life
Amendment
is entering Democratic presi-
death
has
really
occurred
to
ail
"No
less
a
pro-abortionist
dential primaries because none
intents and purposes.
han Nelson Rockefeller re-
of the other Democratic as-
"But euthanasia. of course. cently said here in Minnesota
pirants is supporting a Human
followed right on sbortion. If hat to reverse the Supreme
Life Amendment.
you can decide that It is Court's ruling. you'd have to
Pro-lifers recall that, in last
morally all right to kill someone imend the Constitution. We'll
year's New York race for the at one end of the life span. you give our support to candidates.
U.S. Senate. Barbara Keating can figure 011 a reason why It regardless of party or other
an
unknown third-party cana.- must be morally right :0 do it flews. as long as they demon-
date
with
a
pro-life
stard.
at the other. and both are trate a sincere commitment to
picked up more than 16 per cent morally wrong.
protecting all innocent human
life by endorsing a strong;
Human Life Amendment."
REAGAN: Abortion? I had to face this problem as Governor.
I'd never given it much thought--I guess like a lot of people.
Nine years ago there hadn't been much of a problem where I was
concerned and I hadn't given it any thought. When I had to
face the proposal as to signing or not signing legislation I
probably did more soul searching and more study than I've
ever done on anything in my life, and I've come to the
conclusion that the interrupting of a pregnancy is the taking
of a human life and you can only take that human life in the
same context that you can take any other human life. We
recognize in our Judiac-Christian tradition, for example,
that you can take a human life in defense of your own.
Therefore, I believe that the mother--prospective mother, has
the right to defend her own life even against her unborn child.
But beyond that--just to take a human life on a whim because
you made a mistake or that it might be inconvenient--no, that
is taking a human life and you can't do it on that basis.
questio n- your personal opinion about abortion
I have never given that subject much thought until I became Governor.
As Gov. I found myself faced with legislation- bitterly contested-
state divided between the pros and the cons and the Senator who was
proposing almost abortion on demand sent word down that he would amend
his bill to anything that I felt like I could sign. and that set me on
a course of study and more soul searching than I have ever done in
my life. And I have come to the belief that the interrupting of a pregancy
can only be justified is on the same basis that it was justified in
our prevailing Christian tradition. but yes a mother does have a right
to defend her own life against
unborn child.
fill
THE WHITE HOU
WASHINGTON
January 16, 1976
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
JIM CANNON
FROM:
JIM CONNOR f
SUBJECT:
Abortion
The President reviewed your memorandum of January 15 on
the above subject and approved Statement 1 as amended:
"As President I am bound by my oath of office to uphold
the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court
in its 1973 decisions on abortion. In those decisions the
Court ruled 7-2 that States could not interfere with a
woman's decision to have an abortion the first three
months.
As a matter of personal philosophy, however, my belief
is that a remedy should be available in cases of serious
illness or rape. Personally I do not favor abortion on
demand.
I feel that abortion is a matter better decided at the State
level. While House Minority Leader, I co-sponsored
a proposed amendment to the Constitution to permit the
individual States to enact legislation governing abortion. "
Please follow-up with appropriate action.
:
FORD
cc: Dick Cheney
9ALD
CBS REPORT ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
STANDS ON ABORTION
bib
Wednesday, January 28, 1976
WALTER CRONKITE:
In the presidential primary campaign, abortion has suddenly
risen as a significant issue. It was credited with having some
part in Jimmy Carter's victory and Birch Bayh's defeat in the
Iowa caucuses and now the anti-abortion, right-to-life groups
are raising the issue in New Hampshire, the first primary state.
Ed Bradley reports.
ED BRADLEY:
From the start of this campaign anti-abortion tickets made
Birch Bayh a special target because of his leadership role on the
subcommittee that killed the constitutional amendment that in most
cases would have outlawed abortion. Bayh admits he'll probably
lose some votes because of his out-front stand and his camp is upset.
Because they feel Jimmy Carter has been deliberately ambiguous on
abortion. Ed Rabel to state his position.
JIMMY CARTER:
I think that abortion is wrong. I think that the government
ought to do everything it can to minimize abortion. I think that
the Supreme Court has ruled that women have complete control
over that process the first 13 weeks. I do not favor the Supreme
Court ruling nor do I favor a constitutional amendment to change
that. I have never favored a constitutional amendment to give
FORD
unrestricted abortions, nor to give states local options.
BIRCH BAYH:
I'd rather not judge Jimmy Carter and what he has said or
2
hasn't said. I can say without fear of qualification or contradiction
that anybody who believes that you can appeal to those people who
want absolutely no abortions without supporting a constitutional
amendment is either unfamiliar with what the Constitution and
the Court has required or is not honestly representing what can
happen.
WALTER CRONKITE:
Abortion is a topic that is bubbling near the surface of
this campaign, threatening to boil over as an outstanding issue.
The Right-To-Life movement has built a grass-roots organization
in an effort to make their issue the focal point of the campaign.
Barbara Watts has a Right-To-Life movement in New Hampshire that
is backing the candidacy of Ellen McCormack.
BARBARA WATTS:
Our main goal is to get radio and television time about the
pro-life issue. We're not able to buy this time just as right-to-
life or pro-life groups. We have Ellen McCormack running for
President so that we can purchase television time and radio time
to have on a regular pro-life message to everyone in the United
States.
TEXT OF A RIGHT-TO-LIFE TELEVISION MESSAGE:
Did you know that the heart of an unborn baby begins to be
formed at 3 weeks after conception? Did you know also that a
million babies have their hearts stopped each year in a very painful
way by abortion. I'm Ellen McCormack, a Democratic candidate for
President
3
ED BRADLEY:
Ellen McCormack is a one-issue candidate who has raised more
than 135,000 dollars and is soon expected to qualify for federal
matching funds. And with Secret Service protection will take her
campaign across the country, partially funded by the taxpayers.
She spoke with David Cohane.
DAVID COHANE:
You don't see anything unfair about taking public funds, as
you will be, in this kind of one-issue campaign?
McCORMACK:
It's only one issue to proponents of abortion, because I do
answer to the other issues. They use that issue just to pretend
that it isn't an important issue, but it is an important issue.
DAVID COHANE:
If some other group that was concerned about some other single
issue wants to campaign and got matching funds, you wouldn't see
anything wrong with that?
McCORMACK:
Well, who will determine what the important issue is? You see.
The people should decide what is important and the country might
be good speaking out on it.
ED BRADLEY:
We asked some of the other candidates what they thought about
the abortion issue. Morris Udall and Fred Harris shared Sen. Bayh's
position. They agree with the Supreme Court that the right to have
an abortion should be left to the woman and her position. Sen. Henry
4
Jackson and Sargent Shriver agree with Jimmy Carter. They are
against the Supreme Court's decision but do not support a
constitutional amendment. Ronald Reagan and George Wallace also
oppose the Supreme Court decision and they favor a constitutional
amendment that would curb the Court's ruling. A spokesman for
President Ford would not reveal the President's position on abortion.
It's a tough issue, he said, and deserves a lot of thought.
Ed Bradley, CBS News, New York.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
U.S. C
LITION FOR LIFE, P.O. BOX
15,
EXPORT,
PA.
15632
RANDY V. ENGEL
OFFICERS
RANDY V. ENGEL
Randy Engel
PRESS RELEASE
PRESIDENT
MARY WINTER
Executive Director
VICE PRESIDENT
THOMAS F. POLICASTRO
U.S. Coalition for Life
SECRETARY
PATRICIA POLICASTRO
Export, Pa. 15632
Wednesday, January 28,1976
TREASURER
BARBARA RUTKOWSKI
412/327-7379
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
SECRETARIAL STAFF
327-8878
For Immediate Release
MARGARET B. JORDAN
PATRICIA S. MALAY
INTER-GROUP LIAISON
EILEEN VOGEL
LEGAL COUNSEL
WILLIAM C. STILLWAGON
NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
GEORGE BARMANN
DAYTON, OHIO
JAMES H. FORD, M.D.
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
FRANCES FRECH
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
PAUL B. HARING
PROLIFE MEETING AT WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
U.S. SENATOR JESSE HELMS
NORTH CAROLINA
JOHN V. HINKEL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
BRINGS CALL FOR AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
PROF. ALBERT KAPUSINSKI
CALDWELL, NEW JERSEY
WILLIAM LYNCH, M.D.
BROOKLINE, MASSACHUSETTS
TO HALT FEDERAL ABORTION PROGRAMS
CONNAUGHT COYNE MARSHNER
WASHINGTON, D.C.
WILLIAM H. MARSHNER
WASHINGTON, D.C.
PAUL MARX, PH.D.
COLLEGEVILLE, MINNESOTA
DR. NATHAN WRIGHT, JR.
In an abrupt turnabout face barely 24 hours before
ALBANY, NEW YORK
ROBERT L. MAURO
the March for Life on the White House and Capital Hill
LONG BRANCH, NEW JERSEY
ONALEE McGRAW, PH.D.
marking the third anniversary of the January 22, 1973
CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND
JAMES J. McGUIRE
Supreme Court decision on abortion was to begin, key
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT S. MENDELSOHN, M.D.
members of the Ford Administration agreed to meet with
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
HERBERT RATNER, M.D.
a small group of prolife leaders for a mid-morning brief-
OAK PARK, ILLINOIS
CHARLES E. RICE, ESQ.
ing with representatives of the Domestic Council, HEW,
NOTRE DAME, INDIANA
DANIEL A. TORISKY
and the Justice Department.
MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
K. D. WHITEHEAD
NEW ROCHELLE, NEW YORK
UNITED NATIONS DELEGATES
The prolife delegation included Nellie Gray, Chairman
LILLIAN KOEGLER
of the March for Life Committee, Randy Engel, Executive
NEW YORK
ELLAMAE DICKINSON
Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life and Dr. Harold
NEW YORK
Brown. of the Christian Action Council.
INTERNATIONAL
ADVISORY BOARD
REV. RUFUS BENEDICT
Representing the Ford Administration was Dr. Philip
CEYLON
JOHN BERGIN, M.D.
NEW ZEALAND
Buchen, Council to the President ; Marjorie Lynch, Under
JOHN J. BILLINGS, M.D.
AUSTRALIA
Secretary of HEW ; Sarah Massengale, Associate Director
PHYLLIS BOWMAN
ENGLAND
of the Domestic Council; Judy Wolf, an attorney for the
COLIN G. CLARK, PH.D.
AUSTRALIA
Civil Right Division of the Justice Department and other
JOSE LUCIO DE ARAUJO CORREA
BRAZIL
Presidential assistants and aides.
CHRISTOPHER DERRICK
ENGLAND
SIEGFRIED ERNST, M.D.
WEST GERMANY
The major areas of discussion centered around the
REV. JOSEPH FIDELIS
INDIA
growing subsidy of the abortion establishment with tax
HAMISH FRASER
SCOTLAND
dollars by Federal agencies within the Executive Branch,
JOHN E. HARRINGTON MSW, ACSW
CANADA
VICTOR J. F. KULANDAY
stated Randy Engel, the Director of the U.S. Coalition
INDIA
R. A. GALLOP, PH.D.
for Life which specializes in federal anti-life programs.
CANADA
NORA LEACH
IRELAND
SIR WILLIAM LILEY, KCMG
Mrs. Engel and Miss Gray called upon President Ford
NEW ZEALAND
RT. REV. JOHN NJENGA
to issue an Executive Order directing all Federal agencies
KENYA
ANTONIO DE SOROA Y PINEDA, M.D.
within the Administration's jurisdiction, to halt the
SPAIN
REV. PEDRO RICHARDS, C.P.
tax funding of abortion and other related anti-life
URAGUAY
REV. OSCAR A. RODRIGUEZ, S.D.B.
and anti-family programs and policies.
GUATEMALA
EMMANUAL TREMBLAY, M.D.
FRANCE
REV. MICHEL WELTERS
(MORE)
HAITI
ANTHONY ZIMMERMAN, S.V.D.
JAPAN
PHONE (412) 327-7379
ADD 1 - Prolife-White House Meeting
All the members of the prolife delegation urged support for a manda-
tory Human Life Amendment.
Speaking for the U.S. Coalition for Life, Mrs. Engel emphasized the
responsibilitity of the President to curb the promotion and funding of
abortion and the Sangerite mentality within Federal agencies, particuarly
the Department of HEW and the Defense Department.
" The Ford Administration's silence in light of the Federally-
supported abortion carnage and in light of such unscientific and shoddy
research works as the Civil Rights Commission Report on the Right to
Limit Childbearing, " Mrs. Engel said, " spoke louder than any public
relations quip about the President's former support for a states rights
amendment to the Constitution when he was House Minority Leader. This
is especially true because the majority of grassroots people in the
Prolife Movement will not support a Constitutional Amendment where the
right to life is dependent upon state geography. "
In response to the Administration's claim that it was merely up-
holding the Supreme Court decision, Nellie Gray, a prolife attorney
noted the Court's declaration on the alledged right of abortion as
a 'private' action could not be used to justify the use of tax funds
and public policies and programs to support the abortion establishment.
Mrs. Engel stated that Federal programs directed at the poor
should be orientated in the service of life and not death.
At the conclusion of the forty-five minute meeting, the prolife
delegation urged the Administration to improve its communication with
the prolife community. Mrs. Engel noted that her agency, the U.S. Coalition
for Life would continue to meet with the Administrative representa-
tives throughout the year to discuss a wide variety of prolife issues.
As an effective followup to the White House meeting, the U.S.
Coalition for Life has called upon prolife groups and individuals
around the country to support the drive for an Executive Order by
President Ford to halt the tax-supported abortion program of the
Federal program, Mrs. Engel said.
* Attached Copy of USCL Letter to President Ford.
- 30 -
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
U.S.
CALITION FOR LIFE, P.O. BOX 315, EXPORT, PA. 15632
RANDY V. ENGEL
OFFICERS
RANDY V. ENGEL
PRESIDENT
Gerald R. Ford
MARY WINTER
VICE PRESIDENT
President of the United States
THOMAS F. POLICASTRO
SECRETARY
The White House
January 27, 1976
PATRICIA POLICASTRO
TREASURER
BARBARA RUTKOWSKI
Washington, D.C.
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
SECRETARIAL STAFF
MARGARET B. JORDAN
PATRICIA S. MALAY
Dear Mr. President,
INTER-GROUP LIAISON
EILEEN VOGEL
On the morning of January 22, 1976 the third anniversary
LEGAL COUNSEL
of the March for Life commemorating the death of ons of
WILLIAM C. STILLWAGON
unborn children following the Supreme Court decision on
NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
GEORGE BARMANN
abortion, a prolife delegation was invited by the White
DAYTON, OHIO
JAMES H. FORD, M.D.
House to meet with Administrative spokesmen to discuss
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
FRANCES FRECH
our common concerns related to federal anti-life policies,
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
PAUL B. HARING
programs and funding and which reflect this Administrations
WASHINGTON, D.C.
U.S. SENATOR JESSE HELMS
formal and informal policies related to abortion, population
NORTH CAROLINA
JOHN V. HINKEL
control and broader areas of family life and health.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
PROF. ALBERT KAPUSINSKI
CALDWELL, NEW JERSEY
WILLIAM LYNCH, M.D.
BROOKLINE, MASSACHUSETTS
Speaking on behalf of the United States Coalition for
CONNAUGHT COYNE MARSHNER
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Life, an international prolife movement, I wish to thank
WILLIAM H. MARSHNER
WASHINGTON, D.C.
you for the cordial welcome shown to myself and to Mrs.
PAUL MARX, PH.D.
COLLEGEVILLE, MINNESOTA
Nellie Gray of the March for Life and Dr. Harold Brown of
DR. NATHAN WRIGHT, JR.
ALBANY, NEW YORK
the Christian Action Council. Each of the agencies represent-
ROBERT L. MAURO
LONG BRANCH, NEW JERSEY
ed at the White House meeting are independent prolife organ-
ONALEE McGRAW, PH.D.
CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND
izations who share a common concern for the unborn child and
JAMES J. McGUIRE
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
indeed all human beings whose right to life is threatened
ROBERT S. MENDELSOHN, M.D.
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS
by the penumbra of the Supreme Court edict of January 22, 1973.
HERBERT RATNER. M.D.
OAK PARK. ILLINOIS
CHARLES E. RICE. ESQ.
NOTRE DAME, INDIANA
DANIEL A. TORISKY
This letter will summarize the major concerns of the
MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
K. D. WHITEHEAD
U.S. Coalition for Life and confirm our request for the
NEW ROCHELLE, NEW YORK
issuance of a Presidential EXECUTIVE ORDER to halt - immed-
UNITED NATIONS DELEGATES
iately the nationwide abortion carnage currently subsidized
LILLIAN KOEGLER
NEW YORK
by Federal agencies within your jurisdiction.
ELLAMAE DICKINSON
NEW YORK
INTERNATIONAL
ADVISORY BOARD
Specifically we are calling upon you to end the mounting
REV. RUFUS BENEDICT
campaign by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (
CEYLON
JOHN BERGIN, M.D.
an agency which spends over 118 billion dollars a year)
NEW ZEALAND
JOHN J. BILLINGS, M.D.
against the unborn child via abortion and the American
AUSTRALIA
PHYLLIS BOWMAN
family via the promotion of antilife policies and programs,
ENGLAND
COLIN G. CLARK, PH.D.
including the subsidy of fornication among young unmarried
AUSTRALIA
JOSE LUCIO DE ARAUJO CORREA
persons through federal support of Planned Parenthood Fed-
BRAZIL
CHRISTOPHER DERRICK
eration of America and its affiliates at home and abroad.
ENGLAND
SIEGFRIED ERNST, M.D.
WEST GERMANY
REV. JOSEPH FIDELIS
INDIA
These Federal agencies have taken such action dispite
HAMISH FRASER
SCOTLAND
the fact that Congress has never authorized nor appropriated
JOHN E. HARRINGTON MSW, ACSW
CANADA
a single cent for elective abortions and furthermore Congress
VICTOR J.F. KULANDAY
INDIA
has on specific eccasions approved of anti-abortion riders
R. A. GALLOP, PH.D.
CANADA
to both foreign and domestic family planning programs.
NORA LEACH
IRELAND
SIR WILLIAM LILEY, KCMG
NEW ZEALAND
You are aware I am sure of the current prolife drive for
RT. REV. JOHN NJENGA
KENYA
a mandatory Human Life Amendment in Congress. We desire however
ANTONIO DE SOROA Y PINEDA, M.D.
SPAIN
that you also recognize your obligations as President and
REV. PEDRO RICHARDS, C.P.
URAGUAY
REV. OSCAR A. RODRIGUEZ, S.D.B.
that you possess the power of Executive Order to halt the
GUATEMALA
EMMANUAL TREMBLAY, M.D.
promotion and funding of elective abortions by the Federal
FRANCE
REV. MICHEL WELTERS
HAITI
ANTHONY ZIMMERMAN, S.V.D.
JAPAN
PHONE (412) 327-7379
Page 2/
Government. With one swoop of your pen you can save the lives of hundreds
of thousands of preborn children and restore the role of the State to
that of protector of all innocent human life.
In addition the U.S. Coalition for Life seeks to open channels of
communication between your Administration and the Prolife Movement both
in the United States and abroad. We seek a greater voice in the areas
of family life policies, public health, population, abortion and mater-
nal and child care and rights and responsibilities. For too long,
anti-life Sangerite-Malthusian advocates have had the run of the
White House and numerous Federal agencies. It is time to let in a
little fresh air.
In the coming weeks and months we hope to improve our communications
with the White House by initially meeting with members of your Adminis-
tration who were present for the January 22nd meeting at the White House
including Dr. Philip Buchen and Marjorie Lynch.
Lastly, we trust that you will consider for future appointments
to Presidential and agency positions well qualified prolife men and
women. The Coalition will be happy to submit the names of such
individuals upon request - individuals who/recognized national and
international authorities in public health, constitutional law,
demography, and family life to name just a few areas of concern.
On January 22nd more than 50,000 prolife came to the steps of
the White House and the Capital to express their concern for the unborn
child and to pledge their support for a mandatory Human Life Amendment.
I am aware that while Minority Leader of the House you co-sponsored a
States Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In the coming political
campaign it would be I beleive valuable for you to understand that
the millions of grassroots prolifers will not support anything but
a mandatory Human Life Amendment and will reject any attempt to make
the right-to-life a matter of state geography, and which will insti-
tutionalize the taking of innocent human life in the Constitution.
Simply stated - a States Rights approach is not acceptable.
During the White House meeting I noticed that Ms. Bobbie Kilberg, your
Assistant Council was sporting a large campaign button to re-elect
Betty Ford's Husband. In considering our agency's requests, I hope
that you will look beyond your role of husband and father to the role
of President with the duty and responsibility to uphold the basic
rights guaranteed in the Constitution - the most important of which is
THE RIGHT TO LIFE.
Sincerely,
RandyEngel
Randy Engel
National Director
U.S. Coalition for Life
U.S. COALITION FOR LIFE
Export, Pennsylvania 15632
EXPORT JAN 28 A
U.S.A.
PM
1976
United States 13e
15032
Press Secretary
Office of the President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
20001
HOUSE & SECURITY
Processed JAN 30 DVS 1976
February 3, 1976
What is your position on abortion?
I'm in a moderate position in that area. I do not believe in
abortion on demand. I do not agree with the Court decision
of 1973. On the other hand, I do not
agree that a
I think we have to recognize that
Constitutional amendment is the proper remedy.
there are instances when abortion should be permitted.
Incest
The illness of the mother, rape / or any of the other unfortunate
things that might happen
so there has to be some flexibility.
I think the court decision went too far. I think a Constitutional
amendment goes too far. If there was to be some action in this
area, it's my judgement that it ought to be on a basis of what
each individual state wishes to do under the circumstances. Again
I should add, even though I disagree with the court decision,
I have taken an oath of office, and I will, of course, uphold
the law as interpretated by the court, but I think there is a
better answer.
decision
Doesn't the Supreme Court/itself seem to move against anv
possibility that the state can take any local action?
That is correct, but if there is to be a Constitutional amendment
and there are some suggestions in the Congress now that would
permit each state on its own through a vote of the people or
state
through its/legislative branch to adopt its own state regulations.
If there is to be one, I think that's a preferable answer rather
than the one that's recommended. by others.
But under the Supreme Court decision, that would presumably
take a Constitutional amendment to let the states do that.
That is correct.
and the parties and the poucies.
sical, intuitive and social. The North,
fore, will align the old pre-TV genera-
teleyision
The main characteristic, of (an in-
on the other hand, is strongly, allied
tion against the young of the TV world.
formation environment is the prolifera-
to
the
le
hen
here of the brain--
tion of attractive images and promises.
lineal, connect literate and goal-
Another feature of the len elec-
Marshall A
It is a. world of public relations and
oriented."
tronic ground that will affect the de-
Centre for
Decent Is as
Decent Does
Law. Mr. Ford never criticized the
one side in the Angolan civil war and
Sensitive?
By Anthony Lewis
violations of law disclosed in investi-
wanted to increase that intervention
The reco
gations of the C.I.A. and F.B.I., and
when Congress said no.
be the centi
to date no legal action has been taken
Sensitive? Wise? Decent?
BOSTON, Sept. 22 Some liberals
It is the na
who uneasy about Jimmy Carter
against any official of those agencies.
Arms. Escalating American arms
of a narro
or one reason or another have taken
Shortly before Richard Nixon's resig-
sales to such countries as Iran and
ought to pl
, speaking of resident Ford's "de-
nation, when in addition to the public
Saudi 'Arabia have aroused concern
interest in H
ency." That overworked word, cover-
record Vice President Ford had been
among many students of international
care about
a variety of rationalizations, has-
privately advised of Mr. Nixon's crim-
security aftairs. When Jimmy Carter
law, who be
ken on a code significance, A Cali-
mality, he said in a speech: "I can
suggested that the policy was danger-
crecy, who
nia Democrat said: We don't
say from the bottom of my heart, the
ous, Mr. Ford told a Jewish organiza-
or forget re
lly know Carter. And Ford's not so
President of the United States is inno-
tion: Does the gentleman want Soviet
war, and SO
the's decent."
oent and he is right."
arms to have a monopoly in the world?
Sensitive? Wise? Decent?
Does he want our adversaries to arm
But for li
personal relations Gerald Ford
not only the radical Arabs but the
accept that r
ubtedly is à considerate person:
Secrecy. The other day Mr. Ford
more moderate Arabs?"
It is indecer
cannot imagine him being unkind
praised a new "sunshine law" for Fed-
Sensitive? Wise? Decent?
about sensiti
ildren or dogs or neighbors. But
eral agencies as he signed it before
Amnesty. As an act of mercy," Mr.
politics to ta
cy in political leadership must
the cameras. But one of his early
Ford in 1975 created a program of
Gerald Ford.
one than that. It connotes a
actions as President was to veto an
"clemency" for Vietnam draft evaders
ivity.,Ao human needs, a breadth
improvement of the Freedom of Infor-
and deserters. Because he was 6p-
dom and humanity.
mation Act 20 widely accepted that
posed to a blanket pardon, men were
$ Mr. Ford measure up to the
Congress easily overrode the veto.
to be treated on à case-by-case basis.
nds of decency in political leader-
After the disclosure of abuses by the
But the program was so complex, the
His responses on a number of is.
intelligence agencies, Mr. Ford pro-
standards 80 vague, the administration
provide a fair basis for judgment
posed the toughest law in American
so quixotic that a former S. Attor-
Human Rights. In his two years as
history to conceal information related
ney in Utah, William J. Lockhart, has
resident Mr. Ford has taken по in-
to claimed intelligence methods.
spoken of the prócess he saw as
erest in the growing world problem
Sensitive? Wise? Decent?
"inevitably inconsistent and discrimi-
of official brutality: the use of torture
War. As the thir year war in Viet-
natory."
and other inhumanities by govern-
nam drew to a close in 1975, Mr.
Sensitive? Wise? Decent?
ments of the left and right. He has
Ford tried to keep it going with an
Abortion. A year ago, Mr. Ford was
strongly resisted Congressional efforts
urgent appeal for $1. billion more in
against a constitutional amendment, to
We
to secure human rights in countries
American arms. He took punitive
limit abortions. But as the chance for
suppor by the United States such as
and blundering-military action over
Catholic votes seemed to glimmer in
top
Chile.* snubbed the man who is the
the Cambodian seizure of the ship
the campaign, he said he was for let-
ca
foremo symbol of resistance to offi-
MayagUez, in the teeth of a law ex-
ting the states limit abortions as they
cial ty anny. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
pressly forbidding the use of U.S.
wisned--a step that would require a
top
Sensitive! Wise? Decent?
forces in Indochina. He secretly aided
constitutional amendment.
de
sta
THE BLACK FAMILY RECONSIDERED: II
FORD
ap
of
Durability on the Plantation
Durable Afro-American family or-
called themselves by kin titles: "Morn-
for
nanization developed in the United
By Herbert G. Gutman
in' brudder Lón'on." "Mornin' mi
th
States in the
Page 9
Walter Chron
Intervew
2/3/76
I have to add -- and I think it is important --
that as President I have to uphold the law whatever the courts
decide, and I will, having taken that oath of office.
MR. CRONKITE: What is your position on abortion?
THE PRESIDENT: I am in a moderate position in that
area. I do not believe in abortion on demand, I do not agree
with the court decision of 1971.
On the other hand, I do not agree that a Constitutional
amendment is the proper remedy. I think we have to recognize
that there are instances when abortion should be permitted --
the illness of the mother, rape or any of the other
unfortunate things that might happen -- so there has to be
some flexibility.
I think the court decision went too far. I think
a Constitutional amendment goes too far. If there was to be
some action in this area it is my judgment that it ought to
be on the basis of what each individual State wishes to do
under the circumstances.
Again, I should add even though I disagree with the
court decision, I have taken an oath of office and I will, of
course, uphold the law as interpreted by the court. I think
there is a better answer.
MR. CRONKITE: Doesn't the Supreme Court decision itself
seem to move against any possibility that a State can take local
action?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct, but if there is to
be a Constitutional amendment or and there are some suggestions
in the Congress now that would permit each State on its own through
a vote of the people or a vote of its State legislative branch
to adopt its own State regulations -- if there is to be one I
think that is a preferance rather than the one that is
recommended by others.
MR. CRONKITE: But under the Supreme Court decision
that presumably would take a Constitutional amendment to let
the States do that.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
News Confere Feb 8, 76, Durham, New Hampshire
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1976
154
the law, they, of course-or their decision is subject to
PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
court involvement.
The worst thing would be for a President or his people
Q. Mr. President, I am Fred Kocher from WMUR-
TV in Manchester, New Hampshire.
to unethically or illegally get involved in that process.
The Federal District Court in Concord just recently
That would really slow the matter up.
here in New Hampshire ruled that a State law here in
Now, if a Governor wants to get involved, or somebody
on the outside, they do it at their own risk. But this Presi-
New Hampshire allowing voluntary prayer in public
dent isn't going to do anything illegal or unethical con-
schools was patently unconstitutional.
certing that project. I have strong feelings, as I said a
My question to you is, do you agree with that kind of
court decision, because there are people in this State and
moment ago, that we need 200 more nuclear power
plants, and I hope the Nuclear Regulatory Agency [Com-
in many States that feel that voluntary prayer is a basic
mission] moves as rapidly as it can on all of them. But
constitutional right?
that is their decision, and I am not going to try to tell
THE PRESIDENT. Some years ago there was a United
States Supreme Court decision as to whether or not a
them how to do it.
woman in Baltimore, as I recollect, had a child who ob-
Q. Well, the Governor made this claim a couple of
weeks ago. Had you heard about it at all? Had you heard
jected to the nondenominational prayer that was conduct-
that he said he had been told by an aide?
ed in that community.
THE PRESIDENT. I read it in the newspaper, but I don't
That court decision, in effect, said there could be no
think that any person on my staff should try to tell the
prayer in public schools in the United States. I read that
NRC when and how they ought to make the decision.
decision very carefully. I read the dissenting opinion of
Q. Did you check out, Mr. President, whether anyone
Justice Potter Stewart very carefully. I subscribe to Justice
on your staff had had communication with Governor
Potter Stewart's dissenting opinion and, therefore, I dis-
Thomson on this matter?
agree with the Supreme Court decision which precludes
nondenominational prayers in public schools. I agree with
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I will try to do that.
the Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who said the
ABORTION
court was wrong.
So, I regret the court decision. I agree with the minor-
Q. Mr. President, Rick Beyer, WDCR News.
ity, and I think it is most unfortunate that under reason-
I would like to know, was your recent change of heart
able limitations-I think it is regrettable that under rea-
on the Supreme Court ruling on abortion basically a polit-
sonable limitations, there can't be nondenominational
ical move to improve your position in New Hampshire?
prayer in public schools.
And, if not, I would like to know why you feel that a new
Q. What course of action would you suggest at this
constitutional amendment of the kind you advocated for
point, let's say, to the Congress or to any group who dis-
State control of abortion regulations is necessary.
agreed like you do?
THE PRESIDENT. My decision, adverse to the Supreme
THE PRESIDENT. The most extreme course of action
Court decision, goes back some time. I felt at the time the
would be a constitutional amendment. When this matter
decision was made that it went too far. I publicly ex-
came up, I was the Republican minority leader in the
pressed that view at that time. And while I was a Member
House, and Senator Everett Dirksen was the Republi-
of the House of Representatives, after that decision I
can minority leader in the Senate. He was a firm advocate
made a decision to oppose the constitutional amendment
of a constitutional amendment to remedy this situation.
that would preclude any Federal executive, legislative or
I talked with him many, many times about it, because
judicial action against abortions. And I felt then-and it
that was one thing he wanted to do because he felt so
is on the record at that time-that I favored an amend-
strongly about it. In the process of my discussions with
ment that would permit individual State action.
him, I subscribed to an amendment of that kind.
That record was laid out long before I became Vice
President or President, so it has no application whatsoever
FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION
to the current situation.
Q. Mr. President, Mike D'Antonio from The New
Q. Why do you think such an amendment is
Hampshire.
necessary?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that it would be very
Any cuts in aid to education may make entrance to
helpful in clarifying and giving to the individual State-
universities impossible for low- and middie-income people
we have 50 States, and if they want to make a decision
who cannot pay the entire bill without assistance. Will you
one way or another, if you believe in States rights, I think
please comment on that?
it is a very proper, very logical conclusion.
THE PRESIDENT. Well, the primary responsibility for
Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
the financing of a State university comes from the State
Peoria, Illinois
Peoria, immors
The President's Remarks to Reporters Upo
rrival at
The President's Remarks an
Question-and-Answer
the Greater Peoria Airport. March 5, 1976
Session at Bradley University Everett McKinley
Dirksen Forum. March 5, 1976
THE PRESIDENT. It is great to be in Peoria. I have been
here a number of times. In fact, Bob Michel reminded
THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very, very much Dr. Abegg,
me of the time quite a few years ago-I won't tell you how
Congressman Bob Michel, Congressman Tom Railsback,
long, but it was a great occasion, and it's nice to be back
Congressman Ed Madigan, my outstanding Secretary of
Agriculture, Earl Butz, Mayor Carver, friends of the
in 1976.
Everett McKinley Dirksen Chair, students, faculty, and
Q. What is your current stand on the right-to-life
guests of Bradley University:
amendment in the Constitution?
At the outset, let me say I don't think we would have
THE PRESIDENT. My stand today is the same as it has
scheduled this tonight if I had known that Chet Walker
been for some time. I think the Supreme Court went too
was being honored last night. [Laughter] I probably
far. I think the amendment that bans all abortion goes
would have been here last night if I could have, because
too far. I think that there is a reasonable and responsible
I am a great fan of his, and I am a great fan of all that
middle ground, and that's the position that I take.
Bradley University stands for in the field of basketball, as
Q. Mr. President, if you win the primary, will you be
well as academic standing, and I congratulate you. And
able to beat out either Teddy Kennedy or Hubert
I'm darn glad and lucky to be the recipient of the Everett
McKinley Dirksen Honorary Chair here tonight. I thank
Humphrey?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that our chances in
you very, very much.
Bob Michel was much too generous and far too kind,
November are very good, regardless of the Democratic
but it's nice to hear in 1976. And I thank Bob for not
candidates.
only his kind words, but his long friendship. And I could
Q. How about the current status of revenue sharing as
reciprocate in kind for the outstanding job that he does
far as you are concerned? Are you satisfied with the prog-
for all of you in the Congress of the United States.
ress of that bill through Congress?
Obviously, it's a great pleasure and privilege and a very
THE PRESIDENT. Not at all. I have recommended to
high honor for me to be here tonight, not only in Bradley
Congress a 53/4-year extension of general revenue shar-
but in the city of Peoria. And I thank Mayor Carver for
ing-last July, as I recollect-and Congress has not gotten
his warm and very kind reception at the airport.
the legislation out of subcommittee yet. Congress has been
I have been here-yes, back in 1949, but I have been
very, very dilatory. The majority party doesn't seem to
here subsequent to that, and I am impressed with your
have much inspiration to pass the legislation. I hope that
people, your administration, and the objectives and the
kind of morale that you have here in Peoria. You set a
we can push-with the help of Governors, mayors, and
high standard for other communities around the country.
county officials-this legislation can be vitally important
The trustees of this University have been very kind and
to all units of government.
honored me in a very personal way with an honorary
Q. Do you think it is going to pass?
appointment to the Everett McKinley Dirksen Chair of
THE PRESIDENT. I'm always optimistic, but the time
Government and Public Affairs. And I am deeply hon-
delay is very bothersome. All I can say is that we're work-
ored, because Everett Dirksen was one of the finest public
ing very hard to get some Congressional action before it's
servants I have ever known, and history will record him
too late.
as one of the most gifted and beloved men ever to serve
Q. Is it going to pay in Peoria? Are you going to win
in the Congress of the United States.
in central Illinois?
Ev and I became especially close during the years when
THE PRESIDENT. I'm very optimistic with my prospects
he served as the Republican leader in the United States
Senate and I was his counterpart in the House of Repre-
as far as Peoria is concerned. Illinois has always been a
sentatives. Ev Dirksen was more than a statesman, more
good State. I had many opportunities to visit it. I have
than a master of legislative process, more than a never-
virtually been all over the State. I think I have a friend
to-be-forgotten speaker. I knew him as a good friend, a
or two, and I think they will be helpful.
wise counselor, and-an inspiring teacher.
REPORTER. Thank you very much.
He taught us one of his most unforgettable lessons on
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:45 p.m.
the memorable day in 1963 when the Senate was debating
Volume 12-Number 11
field
Ma
28,1973
93D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. J. RES. 468
CHEMO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 28, 1973
Mr. WHITEHURST (for himself, Mr. ARCHER, Mr. ВЕѴӀБЬ, Mr. BROYHILL of
Virginia, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. DERWINSKI Mr. GERALD R. FORD, Mr. HASTINGS,
Mr. HUBER, Mr. HUNT, Mr. KETCHUM, Mr. MAZZOLI, Mr. PARRIS, Mr. SIKES,
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona, Mr. WON PAT, and Mr. ZION) introduced the fol-
lowing joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
1
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
2 the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow-
4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution
5 of the United States, to be valid only if ratified by the
6 legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within
7 seven years after the date of final passage of this joint res-
S olution:
1
93n CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. J. RES. 468
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States.
I
2
"SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall bar
3 any State or territory or the District of Columbia, with
4 regard to any area over which it has jurisdiction, from
5 allowing, regulating, or prohibiting the practice of abortion."
By Mr. WHITEHURST, Mr. ARCHER, Mr. BEVILL,
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia, Mr. BUTLER, Mr.
DERWINSKI, Mr. GERALD R. FORD, Mr. HAST-
INGS, Mr. HUBER, Mr. HUNT, Mr. KETCHUM,
Mr. MAZZOLI, Mr. PARRIS, Mr. SIKES, Mr.
STEIGER of Arizona, Mr. WON PAT, and Mr.
ZION
MARCH 28, 1973
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
1
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 6, 1976
Ron,
For your information.
P. Buchen
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
INFORMATION
February 6, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
PHIL BUCHEN T.W.B.
FROM:
BOBBIE GREENE KILBERG
bet
SUBJECT:
Proposed Constitutional Amendments
on Abortion
Max Friedersdorf has asked me to prepare for your information an
analysis of the various constitutional amendments that have been
introduced in the 94th Congress on abortion.
There are three basic types of constitutional amendments dealing
with abortion:
(1) a right to life amendment which would prohibit state
action in the area of abortion;
(2) a right to life amendment which would prohibit both
state and private action in the area of abortion; and
(3) a states' rights amendment which would give each
state the authority to allow, regulate or prohibit
abortions.
The Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee of the Senate
Judiciary Committee considered a number of anti-abortion
amendments in 1975 and voted not to report any out of the
Subcommittee. The Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held two days
of hearings on anti-abortion amendments on February 4 and 5
of this year, but it is most unlikely that any amendment will be
reported out of the Subcommittee.
Below is a description of each of the basic types of anti-abortion
constitutional amendments, more than 50 of which have been
introduced in the House and the Senate:
-2-
(1) Right to life constitutional amendment which would prohibit
state action in the area of abortion
Congressman Erlenborn (R., Ill. ) has introduced H.J. Res. 99, a
state action amendment prohibiting both abortion from conception
and euthanasia. No explicit exception is made in the abortion pro-
hibition to protect the life of the mother. The proposed amendment
reads as follows:
Section 1. Neither the United States nor any state
shall deprive any human being, from conception, of
life without due process of law; nor deny to any human
being, from conception, within its jurisdiction, the
equal protection of the law.
Section 2. Neither the United States nor any state
shall deprive any human being of life on account of age,
illness, or incapacity.
Section 3. Congress and the several States shall have
power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The Fourteenth Amendment definition of state action would apply to
this amendment. Among H.J. Res. 99's co-sponsors are Congress-
man Delaney (D., N. Y.), Congressman Eilberg (D., Pa.), and
Congressman Mazzoli (D., Ky.). According to the minority counsel
of the House Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights Subcommittee,
the state action approach was not seriously focused upon in the
Subcommittee's hearings.
(2) Amendment to prohibit all state and private action in the
area of abortion
H.J. Res. 311, introduced by Congressman Latta (R., Ohio), is
typical of this type of amendment. It states as follows:
Section 1. With respect to the right to life, the
word 'person' as used in this Article and in the Fifth
and Fourteenth Articles of amendment to the Constitu-
tion of the United States applies to all human beings
-3-
irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of
dependency, including their unborn offspring at every
stage of their biological development.
Section 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of
life by any person: Provided, however, that nothing
in this article shall prohibit a law preventing only
those medical procedures required to prevent the
death of the mother.
Section 3. The Congress and the several States
shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
This amendment forbids euthanasia as well as abortion, and it does
contain an exception to protect the life of the mother.
Among the Congressmen who either have co-sponsored H.J. Res. 311
or have introduced similar amendments are Madden (D., Ind. ), Quie
(R., Minn.), Erlenborn, Delaney, Smith (R., Nebr.), Hyde (R., III.),
Goldwater, Jr. (R., Calif.), Oberstar (D., Minn.) and Lagomarsino
(R., Calif. In the Senate, Senator Buckley has introduced two con-
stitutional amendments, one of which is identical to the Latta wording
and both of which contain the same intent. The Buckley amendments
were S.J. Res. 10 and 11 which were re-introduced as S.J. Res.
140 and 141 in October, 1975 after the former resolutions were voted
down in Subcommittee by votes of 2-to-5. The co-sponsors of the
Buckley amendments are Senators Bartlett, Curtis, Eastland, Garn,
Hatfield, Helms, Proxmire and Young.
All of the right to life bills in this category, except one introduced by
Congressman Delaney and one introduced by Senator Helms, contain
a provision to save the life of the mother. The Helms amendment
was voted down in Subcommittee by a vote of 2-to-5. One resolution,
H.J. Res. 451, introduced by Congressman Blouin (D., Iowa) and
co-sponsored by four other Democrats, requires that while protecting
the life of the mother "every reasonable effort" must be made to
preserve the life of her unborn offspring.
Another variation in the right to life amendments is a resolution
introduced by Congressman Karth (D., Minn.) (H. J. Res. 197)
-4-
that contains an exception to allow termination of a pregnancy of no
more than ten days' duration which resulted from rape. No distinc-
tion is made between statutory and forcible rape.
None of the state action or private action right to life amendments
contain an exception for the mental illness of the mother.
(3) States' rights amendment which would give each state the
authority to allow, regulate or prohibit abortions
The basic states' rights amendment has been introduced in the House
as H.J. Res. 96 by Congressman Whitehurst (R., Va.) and in the
Senate as S.J. Res. 91 by Senator Scott of Virginia. The Whitehurst
amendment was co-sponsored by you when you were in the House and
is presently co-sponsored by Congressmen Rhodes, Steiger (R., Ariz.),
Treen (R., La.) and Wampler (R., Va.), among others. Senator
Scott's resolution was voted down in the Senate Subcommittee by a
vote of 3-to-5.
The basic Whitehurst provision reads as follows:
Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall bar
any State or territory or the District of Columbia,
with regard to any area over which it has jurisdiction,
from allowing, regulating, or prohibiting the practice
of abortion.
This states' rights amendment does not specifically provide an excep-
tion to save the life of the mother.
The minority counsel of the House Judiciary Civil Rights and Consti-
tutional Rights Subcommittee is of the opinion that the language of the
Whitehurst and Scott amendments could be interpreted by the courts
as being consistent with the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decisions
and thus defeat the intent of the amendments. Other lawyers disagree
with this opinion, and cite as especially important a clear legislative
history.
Another states' rights approach is illustrated by S.J. Res. 143, an
amendment re-introduced by Senator Burdick after his amendment
was not reported out of Subcommittee by a vote of 4-to-4. An iden-
tical amendment was introduced in the House by Congresswoman
-5-
Sullivan (D., Mo.). Burdick's amendment is both anti-abortion and
anti-euthanasia and reserves to the states and to the Congress within
Federal jurisdictions the affirmative power to protect life.
The Congress within Federal jurisdictions and the
several States within their respective jurisdictions
shall have power to protect life, including the unborn,
at every state [sic] of biological development irre-
spective of age, health, or condition of physical
dependency.
The Burdick amendment does not contain an exception to save the
life of the mother.
****
Right to life and states' rights amendments which do not provide an
exception to save the life of the mother would create a condition of
competing fundamental rights if ratified. While the unborn child's
right to life would be constitutionally protected, so would the mother's
right to life under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. While it
could be legally logical to hold that the ratification of the new amend-
ment would supersede the right of the mother to life under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments, it is inconceivable to the Solicitor
General and to most other attorneys that the Supreme Court would
ever in fact rule that the mother's life must be sacrificed for the
unborn child's life.
The following are the positions on the issue of anti-abortion consti-
tutional amendments of the House and Senate Republican leadership:
Congressman Rhodes: co-sponsor of Whitehurst states' rights
amendment to give each state the authority to allow, regulate
or prohibit abortions.
Congressman Conable: has generally stated that he is not com-
pletely happy with the Supreme Court decision, and he had asked
the Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee to hold hearings so
that all views could be fully aired. Congressman Conable has
not come out in favor of a constitutional amendment.
-6-
Congressman Michel: opposes abortion on demand and abortion
as a contraceptive device. However, he favors abortion when
a pregnancy is a danger to a mother's life, or when a woman
has been raped. He does not favor abortion in the case of
mental illness. The Congressman also does not favor a con-
stitutional amendment on the issue but feels that it may be
possible to present the Supreme Court with arguments that
might cause it to reconsider its 1973 decisions. He is pres-
ently looking into this possibility.
Senator Scott: presently does not favor a constitutional
amendment.
Senator Griffen: has not supported a constitutional amendment.
Senator Tower: would consider the possibility of supporting
a states' rights amendment.
The following are the positions on the issue of anti-abortion constitutional
amendments of the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates:
Reagan: favors state action and private action right to life
amendment except where necessary to save the mother's life
or to end a pregnancy caused by rape.
Carter, Jackson, Shriver: believe abortion is wrong; do not
favor Supreme Court fuling; do not favor either right to life or
states' rights amendment.
Bayh, Harris, Udall: agree with Supreme Court decision.
Wallace: favors right to life amendment.
PRESIDENT'S REMARKS TO THE
41st INTERNATIONAL EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS
PHILADELPHIA
AUGUST 8, 1976
1.
-- YOUR EMINENCE CARDINAL KNOX, PAPAL LEGATE FOR HIS
HOLINESS, POPE PAUL
-- YOUR ENIMENCE CARDINAL KROL --
-- DISTINGUISHED CLERGY FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
-- DEAR FRIENDS--
2.
I AM DEEPLY HONORED BY YOUR INVITATION TO BE WITH YOU
FOR THE CONCLUSION OF THIS 41st INTERNATIONAL EUCHARISTIC
CONGRESS, AND TO REITERATE, ON BEHALF OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OUR MOST HEARTFELT WELCOME TO OUR GUES
FROM MANY OTHER COUNTRIES.
3.
IT IS AN INSPIRING DEMONSTRATION OF ALL THE WORLD'S HUNGER
FOR PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE CONGRESSES ARE ABLE TO
UNITE CITIZENS OF MORE THAN 100 NATIONS IN COMMON PURPOSE
AND COMMON PRAYER.
4.
IT IS FITTING THAT YOU GATHER HERE IN THE CITY OF BROTHERLY
LOVE, WHERE 200 YEARS AGO MY COUNTRY DECLARED ITS NATIONAL
INDEPENDENCE "WITH A FIRM RELIANCE ON THE PROTECTION OF DIVINE
PROVIDENCE."
5.
THAT RELIANCE HAS NEVER FAILED US, AND HAS BEEN REINFORCED
BY THE EQUALLY FIRM DEVOTION OF AMERICANS TO FREEDOM OF WORSHIP
AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FOR ALL WHO HAVE COME TO US THROUGH
THE CENTURIES.
6.
THESE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ARE NOT ONLY WRITTEN INTO
OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR LAWS, BUT THEY ARE WRITTEN IN OUR
HEARTS AS WELL.
7.
ON THIS OCCASION WE CELEBRATE THE CHURCH'S CONTRIBUTION
TO BUILDING A MORE PEACEFUL WORLD.
WE SALUTE YOU FOR GIVING
DEPTH AND DIRECTION TO THE WORLD COMMUNITY IN EVERY AGE.
8.
FOR MILLIONS OF MEN AND WOMEN, THE CHURCH HAS BEEN THE
HOSPITAL FOR THE SOUL, THE SCHOOLROOM FOR THE MIND, AND THE SAFE
DEPOSITORY FOR MORAL IDEALS.
IT HAS GIVEN UNITY AND PURPOSE
TO THE AFFAIRS OF MAN.
IT HAS BEEN A VITAL INSTITUTION FOR
PROTECTING AND PROCLAIMING THE ULTIMATE VALUES OF LIFE ITSELF.
9.
WE ARE RIGHTLY CONCERNED TODAY ABOUT THE RISING TIDE OF
SECULARISM ACROSS THE WORLD.
I SHARE YOUR DEEP APPREHENSION
ABOUT THE INCREASED IRREVERENCE FOR LIFE.
10.
THE SUPREME VALUE OF EVERY PERSON TO WHOM LIFE IS GIVEN BY
GOD IS A BELIEF THAT COMES TO US FROM HOLY SCRIPTURES --- ONE
CONFIRMED BY ALL THE GREAT LEADERS OF THE CHURCH.
11.
OUR COMMITMENT TO THE UNIQUE ROLE OF THE FAMILY RELATIONSHIP
IS ALSO BASIC TO OUR FAITH.
12.
THERE ARE NO ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTES FOR FATHER, MOTHER, AND
CHILDREN BOUND TOGETHER IN A LOVING COMMITMENT TO NURTURE AND
PROTECT.
NO GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER HOW WELL INTENTIONED, CAN
EVER TAKE THE PLACE OF THE FAMILY IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS.
13.
THE FAMILY CIRCLE SUGGESTS A ONENESS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE
CHURCH FAMILY AND THAT WHICH WE STRIVE TO ACHIEVE IN THE HUMAN
FAMILY.
14.
I REMEMBER A POEM THAT MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME AS A BOY, BY THE
GREAT AMERICAN POET EDWIN MARKHAM, WHICH BEAUTIFULLY EXPRESSE
THE DETERMINATION THAT WE MUST MOVE BEYOND TOLERANCE TO LOVE.
15.
IT GOES LIKE THIS:
"HE DREW A CIRCLE THAT SHUT ME OUT - -
HERETIC, REBEL, A THING TO FLOUT.
BUT LOVE AND I HAD THE WIT TO WIN:
WE DREW A CIRCLE THAT TOOK HIM IN."
16.
I AM MOVED THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT ME WITHIN THIS GREAT CIRC
TODAY AND BY THE SPIRIT OF LOVE AND SERVICE THAT ANIMATES IT.
I HOPE THAT WE ALL, WHATEVER OUR COUNTRY OR CREED, WILL CONTINU
TO DRAW LARGER AND LARGER CIRCLES UNTIL THAT DAY, IN HIS GOOD TI
WHEN ALL GOD'S PEOPLE ARE ONE.
17.
AS WE WORK TOGETHER FOR A BETTER WORLD WHERE OUR BROTHERS
AND SISTERS ARE FREE FROM HUNGER AND FEAR, LET US KEEP OUR HEART
FREE FROM PRIDE AND HATE, IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS OLD FAMILIAR
PRAYER OF THE GOOD ST. FRANCIS:
18.
LORD, MAKE ME AN INSTRUMENT OF THY PEACE,
WHERE THERE IS HATRED, LET ME SOW LOVE,
WHERE THERE IS INJURY, PARDON,
WHERE THERE IS DOUBT, FAITH,
WHERE THERE IS DESPAIR, HOPE,
19.
WHERE THERE IS DARKNESS, LIGHT,
WHERE THERE IS SADNESS, JOY.
GOD BLESS AND MAY YOU HAVE A SAFE JOURNEY TO YOUR
HOMES.
END OF TEXT
17. (ALTERNATE ENDING)
ON THIS CLOSING DAY OF THE 41st EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS,
I INVITE YOU TO UTTER IN YOUR HEART A PRAYER FOR GOD'S CONTINUED
GUIDANCE AND PROTECTION FOR ALL THE WORLD --A PRAYER THAT,
WHEN ANSWERED, WILL BLESS NOT ONLY US BUT PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.
THANK YOU.
END OF TEXT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 9, 197
MAIL AND TELEGRAM UPDATE ON ABORTION AFTER
THE PRESIDENT MADE HIS POSITION KNOWN IN THE
CRONKITE INTERVIEW:
PRO - 90
CON - 543
COMMENT - 16
UPDATE ON THE MAIL RECEIVED SINCE THE FIRST
OF THE YEAR ON THE ABORTION ISSUE IN GENERAL:
PRO - 31
CON - 1,023 (these are the people who
want the Supreme Court decision
changed)
MAIL AND TELEGRAMS ON THE CONCORDE DECISION:
PRO - 19
CON - 387
COMMENT - 3
These figures are as of 11:30 this morning.
This Copy For
NEWS CONFERENCE
#555
AT THE WHITE HOUSE
WITH RON NESSEN
AT 12:05 P.M. EDT
AUGUST 9, 1976
MONDAY
MR. NESSEN: I don't have anything.
Q
Good. Thank you, Ron.
MR. NESSEN: Okay, thank you, Dick. (Laughter)
Q How is the President celebrating his second
anniversary in office?
MR. NESSEN: Working.
Q
What is he doing?
MR. NESSEN: He has some staffer meetings.
He has an NSC meeting this afternoon and he is working
on his acceptance speech.
Q
What drafts are we on, on the acceptance
speech, now?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know.
Q
Any plans for a press conference today or
this week?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q
Can you find out what draft it is at some
point, or how far along he is?
MR. NESSEN: I will try.
Q
What is the subject, abortion? (Laughter):
MR. NESSEN: No, we hope it is not.
Q
Ron, the Washington Post reports that
an unidentified White House staffer is saying that it was a
common interpretation that the President was talking about
abortion yesterday when he referred to "increased
irreverence for life." Is that true?
MORE
#555
- 2 -
#555-8/9
MR. NESSEN: I don't know who that staffer was.
Q
The question is, what was the President
talking about when he said "increased irreverence for
life"?
MR. NESSEN: I won't elaborate on his words.
Q
Is this the reason Mrs. Ford did not go with
him?
MR. NESSEN: No, it isn't.
Q
Or was Mrs. Ford not invited by the Bishops?
MR. NESSEN: I will have to look at my letter from
Cardinal Krol, but I don't think Mrs. Ford was invited.
Q
When he said "increased irreverence for
life," certainly that doesn't mean the restoration of the
death penalty, does it?
MR. NESSEN: I will not elaborate on his words,
Les.
Q
Why not, Ron?
MR. NESSEN: Because I try not to elaborate on the
President's words. He can speak very clearly for himself.
Q
When the Washington Post reports that a
spokesman for the White House said this could be inter-
preted as abortion, why is it you won't clarify it? Is
it abortion or not?
MR. NESSEN: The audience seemed to understand
him, Les.
Q
Did they have a correct assumption of what
the President was talking about?
MR. NESSEN: I won't elaborate on the audience
response, either.
Q Besides, Les, I wouldn't pay much attention
to what the Washington Post says. They didn't run our
interview. (Laughter)
MR. NESSEN: The letter of invitation from the
Cardinal indicated that the Board of Governors of the
Eucharistic Congress were joining with Cardinal Krol in
"extending to you a cordial invitation to the Eucharistic
Congress." So it appears that the invitation did not
extend to Mrs. Ford.
MORE
#555
- 3 -
#555-8/9
Q
None of the Church officials brought their
wives, either. (Laughter)
Q
Ron, Evans and Novak say the President is
going to compromise on the cruise missile to get a SALT
agreement before the election.
MR. NESSEN: Well, I don't have anything specific
to say about the details of that column. First of all,
the President believes that a SALT II agreement, and what
it seeks to accomplish, which is a ceiling on offensive
nuclear weapons, is in the interest of the United States
and in the interest of the world. But he is not going
to conclude any treaty that does not fully protect the
interests of the United States.
There is no particular timetable for reaching
that treaty. If and when a treaty can be worked out with
the Soviet Union that does fully protect the interest of
the United States, he will agree to it, but not until
then. There is no timetable for one.
Q Has the United States made a response to
the latest Russian proposal on SALT?
MR. NESSEN: We have not.
Q
You have not?
MR. NESSEN: We have not, Jim.
Q
Is that what today's NSC meeting is about?
MR. NESSEN: We never tell what the subject is,
Phil.
Q
Did they get the information they were looking
for last week?
MR. NESSEN: The information for this meeting today is
now ready to go forward with the meeting, that is right.
Q What is it?
MR. NESSEN: I can't tell you, Fran.
Q
Ron, I am sorry, I have been out of the
country. Do you know yet when the President is going
to Kansas City, and if you don't know, when will you
know?
MR. NESSEN: He has not yet decided, as I think
he told Helen and Dick and the others over the weekend.
I don't expect a decision to be made really until the
end of the week.
MORE
#555
- 4 -
#555-8/9
Q
Ron, yesterday Elliot Richardson said that
the White House is asking for his financial information,
apparently because he is being considered for Vice
President. How many other people have been asked to
supply financial data to the White House?
MR. NESSEN: I was trying to follow my directions
and not give the number, but the President, I think,
indicated in response to a question from Dick over the
weekend that it was something more than a dozen.
Q
Can you elaborate on that any more?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q
It is true that Richardson is one of them,
then?
MR. NESSEN: I won't elaborate on names.
Q
Is there some sort of a packet of materials
that indicates what the President wants in the way of --
MR. NESSEN: I mentioned the other day that they
are really being asked to provide the same material that
any candidate for a top Presidential appointment is asked,
and I have the questionnaires that are required to be
filled out by candidates for top White House jobs. It is
not precisely the same questionnaire, but it is the same
thoughts. I also have the memo that Phil Buchen sends
to people who are being considered and if any of you
want to look at these after the briefing, I will be
happy to have you do that.
Q
Ron, don't you think it is a little bit
ludicrous for some of these people to be coming out and
saying they have been contacted and the White House refuses
to even confirm that? What is the purpose of that?
MR. NESSEN: It is the way the President wishes
to conduct this process of selecting his Vice Presidential
running mate.
Q
Is he unhappy because these people are disclosing
this?
MR. NESSEN: I didn't hear him say one way or the
other, Phil.
Q
Why does he prefer they not acknowledge that
they have been called?
MR. NESSEN: I think the President indicated he
would like to conduct this on some basis of confidentiality.
MORE
#555
- 5 -
#555-8/9
Q
Then why is he not unhappy when they come
out and say they have been contacted?
MR. NESSEN: They are all folks who are used
to dealing with the press.
Q
As you know, the President has said several
times the swine flu threat is very genuine, the most recent
time being last Friday. My question is, what medical evidence
does the President have for making that statement at this
point in time?
MR. NESSEN: This goes back to a series of
meetings he had just before the decision to go forward with
a national inoculation program. He gathered together medical
people from both inside the Government and outside the
Government, public health officials and drug company
officials, and they laid all the evidence on the table and
examined it, and then he asked -- I think I mentioned this
the other day whether there was anybody there who did
not agree or objected to the idea that there was a real
danger of a swine flu outbreak this winter, and nobody said
that they did not share that. Then he asked if anybody
disagreed with the idea of going forward with a national
inoculation program, and nobody there disagreed with it. It
was on the medical evidence.
The President, I think, has said, Walt, that
none of the researchers have said we are 100 percent sure
there is going to be a swine flu outbreak. They have said
there is all this evidence pointing in that direction, and
I think at the time the President either directly or through
me indicated that it was better to have the inoculation
program and thereby prevent any outbreak than to take a chance
and say, "Well, we are going to hope there won't be an
outbreak." Because, once an outbreak starts it is too
late to begin the program. I think he even used the
expression "this is an insurance policy" to make sure
there is no outbreak.
Q
My question was -- I think you heard it --
what medical evidence is there? So far you have not
provided any evidence.
MR. NESSEN: Let me get you together with
Dr. Cooper, the one who assembled the medical evidence that
was presented to the President, and he can lay it out
for you.
Q
Can you clarify one thing in the weekend
interview that doesn't come across clear to me? The President
stated he would make his selection known about 24 hours
before --
MR. NESSEN: I think the question was, when will
you make your final decision? And the President said he
would make it within 24 hours before he announced it.
MORE
#555
- 6 -
#555-8/9
Q
Can you clarify for us whether he will
make his decision known before or after the balloting
for the Presidency?
MR. NESSEN: No, I think he said last week, or
had me say on his behalf, that he would follow the traditional
method of announcing his choice for running mate, which is
after his own nomination.
Q
Back to the swine flu issue, does the President
or does the White House or does anyone in the medical
community of the United States have evidence of more than
one confirmed case of swine flu in the past 12 months in
this country, out of 215 million people?
MR. NESSEN: Walt, I am not a medical expert,
and you are quite right -- it is a medical or epidemiological
question, and Dr. Cooper is the one who assembled the
information that was persuasive to the President, to
Dave Mathews, to all the medical people who were at that
meeting, and I would like for you to let me put you in
touch with Dr. Cooper.
Q
I will be glad to if you will give me
the number.
MR. NESSEN: I will.
Q
Ron, there have been some differences of
opinion about how a vaccination program should be carried
on and as to whether a mass inoculation program is the
best thing to do. Has the President reviewed that with the
medical authorities since the last meeting?
MR. NESSEN: Dave Mathews has given the President
periodic reports as the testing and so forth goes on, and
I can't tell you exactly what the last finding was, but
HEW is concentrating on what the best method of a mass
inoculation is, and the President is being kept informed.
Q
Could I pursue this one step further? If
the threat continues to be genuine, as the President
persistently suggests, then why isn't the medical community
up in arms? Why is the chief promoter of this program a
political figure, being the President of the United States?
MR. NESSEN: Oh, Walt, I think I see what you
are suggesting, and I --
Q
I am not suggesting anything, really I am
not. I just want to know why it is that none of the doctors
you referred me to are up in arms saying, "Listen, the
President is right, we have to do something about this?"
The chief spokesman for the program continues to be the
President and not the doctors.
MORE
#555
- 7 -
#555-8/9
MR. NESSEN: I don't agree with that, but
I will make sure that you are shown the data that supports
the conclusion that the danger of a swine flu outbreak
is sufficiently great to warrant the program.
Q
Ron, has there been any thought given
to some sort of mass program for Victoria flu, which
actually killed 2,000 people last year?
MR. NESSEN: Not that I know of, but you ought
to ask at HEW what the reason for that is.
MORE
#555
- 8 -
#555-8/9
0
What is the President's reaction to all
this fuss that erupted over the Republican platform? The
conservatives complained about it.
MR. NESSEN: I was unaware of any fuss that
had erupted over the Republican platform.
Q
Apparently Jesse Helms and others are
leading a conservative drive and the whole thing that
is being talked about is a whitewash and that they are
not going to go along with it and will try to take it all
the way and try to get some definitive --
MR. NESSEN: I don't know. Bill Greener is out
in Kansas City and John Carlson will be there in a couple
of hours. They are certainly on top of the situation, Phil.
Q
Do you know whether or not the President
is aware of what Helms has said?
MR. NESSEN: Since I was unaware of what you
referred to as a fuss, I don't know how to answer the
question since there is no awareness of a fuss here.
Q
Maybe you wouldn't describe Jesse Helms'
comments as a fuss, but is he aware of what Jesse Helms has
said and that the conservatives are up in arms?
MR. NESSEN: The platform proceedings are just
getting underway. I think they hold hearings and then
sort of put it together later in the week, and I think it
is sort of premature to comment on how it is going to
turn out.
Q
Is the President taking an active or passive
role in the events of this week in Kansas City?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know what you mean by that,
John.
Q
Is he keeping close track of what is
happening. Is he sending word out to Bill Timmons and
others out there what he wants done, or is he giving them
carte blanche?
MR. NESSEN: He is keeping a close watch on
what is going on out there.
Q
The people know what he wants done?
MR. NESSEN: As you know, a good number of the
members of the Cabinet will be testifying before the
Platform Committee outlining the President's views on the
issues the Platform Committee is dealing with.
MORE
#555
- 9 -
#555-8/9
Q
Is he going to see any delegates this
week?
MR. NESSEN: I haven't seen any delegates listed
on his schedule for this week. Most of them will be out
there, I guess.
Q
What will the President be doing this
week? Can you tell us anything about the President's
schedule this week?
MR. NESSEN: Let me see the grid for this week.
I didn't look at it carefully this morning.
I know he will be working on the acceptance
speech.
Q
Does he plan any appearances anywhere?
MR. NESSEN: Let me get a hold of this.
Q
Ron, two or three years ago your predecessor,
terHorst, stated that the President had also been considering
a woman for the Vice President. Is a woman in the running
now?
MR. NESSEN: I won't comment on any specific
names, or sexes, or colors, or persuasions.
In answer to Bob's question about the schedule,
there will be a lot of time spent this week working on the
acceptance speech on his choice of running mate. He
obviously will follow the proceedings in Kansas City.
There will be some visitors eoming in, but not delegates.
Secretary Kissinger will report back when he gets back
on Thursday, I guess. But, there is no outside event
planned outside the White House.
Q
How about Tuesday afternoon?
MR. NESSEN: Tuesday afternoon? What is supposed
to happen Tuesday afternoon?
Q
The PGA.
Q
He said he was going to a reception.
MR. NESSEN: He is going over to a reception
Tuesday evening on the eve of the PGA golf tournament.
Q
Without mentioning any names, will he be
meeting with any of the people under consideration as a
running mate?
MR. NESSEN: Well, since we haven't said who
is under consideration, it is hard to say.
MORE
#555
- 10 -
#555-8/9
Q
Will he see John Connally tonight or in
the morning?
MR. NESSEN: John Connally?
Q
He is coming to town, isn't he?
MR. NESSEN: Not that I know of.
Q
Has the White House made contact with all
those that are being considered?
Q
You wouldn't tell us that anyway, would
you?
MR. NESSEN: I have always told when he has seen
John Connally.
Q
But not concurrently, would you say?
MR. NESSEN: No, I don't think that is right.
Q
Has the White House made contact with all
those being considered for the Vice Presidency?
MR. NESSEN: There are still a few more days
for recommendations to come in.
Q
On the President's list, his first list?
MR. NESSEN: The ones who have been recommended
and singled out by the President so far?
Q
Have they been notified?
MR. NESSEN: I am told there was some problem
reaching some of them on the phone, as you did, Phil.
To answer the last line of your story, I think the White
House switchboard did have some of the same problems you
did. So, with some people, there was an effort made to
contact them but they have not yet been contacted yet.
Q
Ron, on this trip Kissinger has been on,
his talks in Iran Connally referred to as negotiating
arms for oil, and that sort of thing. Just a general sort
of question. How does it square with the President's overall
goals of the U.S. becoming independent on unreliable
foreign sources of oil when you have Kissinger negotiating
long-term deals with Iran for oil?
MR. NESSEN: As far as I know, Secretary
Kissinger's talks in Iran had nothing to do with nego-
tiating what you referred to as arms for oil.
I think some of you have written that there are
those kinds of thoughts being given, but my understanding
is that since the arms sales are sales by private companies
and the purchases are purchases by private companies,
that whatever discussions have gone on in that direction
have been by private companies. It is not a Government --
MORE
#555
- 11 -
#555-8/9
Q
Ron, you mean oil didn't come up at all,
to your knowledge, in Kissinger's talks?
MR. NESSEN: I haven't seen the complete report
on the talks.
Q
Ron, it is reported that at Kansas City --
Q
On this subject, one question, Les. Inasmuch
as Kissinger is in Iran or plans to be there --
MR. NESSEN: No, he is gone from there now.
Q
All right. Did he make any effort to try
to persuade the Shah to reduce oil prices via OPEC? Has
the Ford Administration ever made any effort and used
its leverage, vis-a-vis the arms, to reduce oil prices?
MR. NESSEN: As I said, I haven't read the full
report on what Henry talked about over there. I know the
State Department was asked a very similar question the
other day, and Brown talked about it at some length. But,
let me look it up and see what I can find.
Q
Ron, just one minute. I am perplexed by
your answer that arms purchases by the Shah are strictly
a matter between the Government of Iran and private
companies in the United States since, as you know, and
everybody knows, these require export licenses, which
are Government matters.
Are you saying the United States -- that is to
say, the Government -- has no role whatever in the sale of
arms to Iran?
MR. NESSEN: The point I was trying to draw,
Jim, was I think there was a suggestion that Henry had been
there negotiating some kind of arms for oil deal, and I was
pointing out arms are sold to Iran by private companies
and oil is purchased by private companies. Obviously,
there is the requirement for approval before arms of a
certain sophistication or cost can be exported.
Now, there has been added to that the congress-
ional veto over arms sales. So, obviously, there is a
Government role.
Q
Taking it even further than that, is it not
the case that during this current visit by the Secretary to
Iran that they negotiated and probably signed a $50
billion trade agreement which included $10 billion in
additional U.S. arms? I think that was negotiated by
the Secretary and the Shah, was it not?
MORE
#555
- 12 -
#555-8/9
MR. NESSEN: It is my understanding Henry was
responding to a question in a very general way in saying
that, well, over the next five or six years it could well
be that the Shah might purchase another $10 billion in
arms. It was that kind of thing, not an arms agreement
that was signed there.
Q
Let me ask you a flat question. Did the
Secretary of State and the Shah of Iran in this last
visit, the visit just completed, negotiate a $50 billion
trade agreement between the United States and Iran in
which $10 billion was for military equipment?
MR. NESSEN: I am not fully briefed on the
results of Henry's stop in Iran, and I can't answer the
question.
Q
Ron, it is reported that at Kansas City
there will be 100 Ford campaign workers equipped with two-
way radios to a mission control center and assigned to
watch all the Ford delegates, with contingency telephone
plans if the Reagan forces try to jam their radio
frequencies.
Jack Anderson's weekly column says the President
himself has had this done, Is this true?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know. You will have to
ask Bill Greener. I don't know that much about the
details of Kansas City.
Q
You know of no such thing? Would Bill
Greener be the one to know or someone before Greener
went to that post?
MR. NESSEN: I think Greener will be able to
answer that question.
Q
Do you know how many White House people
have gone or are going to the convention and when? This
week and next week?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know how many have gone,
Fran.
Q
Will you find out for us?
Q
How many will be going?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know what the number is.
Q
Will you check and find out for us?
MR. NESSEN: Yes, I will.
MORE
#555
- 13 -
#555-8/9
Q
What is Greener's role in this?
MR. NESSEN: Bill is the Director of Communi-
cations at the President Ford Committee. While you were
away, lots of things happened.
Q
Ron, in the wire service interview, the
President, in response to a question, seemed to suggest that
Richard Schweiker would be too extreme in the political
spectrum to be a running mate. The "extreme" was the
questioners word. Yet, the President has always touted
Senator Edward Brooke as a possible running mate, and I
checked with COPE this morning and Schweiker and Brookehave
virtually identical voting records.
I am a little curious about the inconsistency.
They are only two votes off, to be exact, and I am wondering
why Schweiker is too extreme and Senator Edward Brooke
isn't?
MR. NESSEN: I don't think I can sort that
out for you, Walt.
Q
Ron, in the Camp David interview, the
President said, "We have been in communication with the
Soviet Union on the two underground explosions in July."
Was that direct communication from the President to
Brezhnev?
MR. NESSEN: No, it was not.
Q
Can you elaborate on the communication?
MR. NESSEN: No, I would rather not.
Q
Let me ask you a little more specific
question. Was it a request by the U.S. for data from
the Soviets on the size of the blasts?
MR. NESSEN: I think I would rather not describe
diplomatic exchanges, Russ.
Q
Do you know whether either of those blasts
exceeded 150?
MR. NESSEN: No, it will be a while before that
number is refined any further.
Q
Ron, on that general subject, may I ask
one or two questions on SALT which came up earlier? You
said the United States had not responded to the newest
Soviet proposal. Is it still the position of the United
States, or the position of the White House that the --
let me ask you first, do you have any time frame on when
you might respond?
MR. NESSEN: No.
MORE
#555
- 14 -
#555-8/9
Q
Is it still the case that the principal
problems are the Bison bomber, the so-called Bison
bomber, and the cruise missile?
Q
It is still the Backfire, not Bison.
MR. NESSEN: I think Henry Kissinger and others
in public statements have indicated that the areas of
difference have been reduced to a few and Backfire and
cruise are among the outstanding unresolved issues.
Q
Are they the only ones?
MR. NESSEN: No, they are not the only ones.
Q
Is any facet of MIRV still at issue?
MR. NESSEN: I don't think I better get deeper
into specifics at this point, Jim.
Q
Ron, can I go back to the talks about the
Vice Presidency? In the interview the President said
that Nelson Rockefeller has certainly not been excluded
from his consideration. I was under the impression for
weeks and months before that that the President was saying
that the Vice President had asked him not to consider
him, that he was withdrawing and that the President was
abiding by his wishes.
Was his answer in the interview a change in
his position?
MR. NESSEN: I just don't think I will elaborate
on any of that Vice Presidential part, Dick.
Q
I don't think I am asking you to elaborate.
In other words, is that consistent with the position he
has taken before?
MR. NESSEN: So far as I know, it is.
Q
So, in other words, Nelson Rockefeller
is under consideration?
MR. NESSEN: Whatever the President said the
other day.
Q
Is that not different from what you and he
have been saying previously?
MR. NESSEN: Not that I am aware of. He said
he hadn't excluded anybody. He said that for months now,
that nobody was excluded.
MORE
#555
- 15 -
#555-8/9
Q
There is a difference then between being
excluded and being under consideration. I suppose you
could draw a fine line, but is it not that you and the
President have been saying for months that the President
was not considering Mr. Rockefeller because he had asked
not to be considered?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know. I have to look up
what was said, but I know there has been no change in
position.
Q
Then is he under consideration or isn't
he?
MR. NESSEN: Whatever he said on Saturday, Dick,
I am not going to go beyond it.
Q
Then he is?
MR. NESSEN: Whatever he said on Saturday.
Q
Ron, did the President in any way mark
his second anniversary in office in any special way?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q
Did he fix his own muffins? (Laughter)
Q
Did he have a birthday cake?
MR. NESSEN: I don't think SO.
MORE
#555
- 16 -
#555-8/9
Q
Ron, I missed the first part of the
question about Philadelphia, but in any case did the
President -- how do you explain the propriety of the
President talking about a controversial political subject,
in what was a non-political invitation and I understand
he accepted it in the spirit of a non-political way in
Philadelphia.
Can you say it was non-political and yet
he did talk at what is very clearly a controversial
political subject. I am wondering how you rationalize
that?
MR. NESSEN: I am not familiar with the
controversial political subject.
Q
His remark yesterday about abortion.
MR. NESSEN: I don't think he talked about
abortion, did he?
Q
You deny he talked about abortion?
MR. NESSEN: I will not elaborate on the
speech.
Q
This is outrageous, Ron.
Q
Let Cochran finish.
Q
Ron, you said it was a non-political
invitation.
MR. NESSEN: That is correct, John.
Q
He accepted it in that spirit, too. Now
everybody in that stadium, the people stood up and applauded
because they thought he was talking about abortion. Anyone
with an IQ above 60 would think he was talking about abortion.
Now you are going to tell me he was not talking about
abortion.
MR. NESSEN: John, I think -- well, let me pass
on the word "controversial" and talk about 125,000 people,
or however many there were, I don't know how many there
were, but people that came from all over the world to
attend this Eucharistic Conference. The President was
invited as the President, as you know and you have seen
the letter of invitation, I suppose. I think it is quite
natural that if you look at the text of the speech you
will see that it was in a tone and dealt with subjects
and concepts that would be interesting to those 125,000
people, or however many there were attending the Eucharistic
Congress.
MORE
#555
- 17 -
#555-8/9
After all, one of the themes of the
Eucharistic Congress, if I understand it right, was
hunger and preservation of life, and that sort of thing.
The President was addressing the subjects that those
people who attended are most interested in, as I think
you would expect him to do in any speech.
Q
What irreverence was he referring to,
suicide? (Laughter)
MR. NESSEN: I won't elaborate on the speech,
but I believe you were there, John, and I think if you
heard the speech in its entirety, you will know it was
a speech that dealt in a tone and in words that seemed
to me to be quite elevating and quite suitable for the
occasion.
Q
He spoke quite harshly when he spoke of
irreverence for life and got a standing ovation for it.
Now we can't get you or anybody from the White House to
say he wasn't being applauded for what indeed he was saying.
Maybe those people were applauding the wrong thing. Was
he not talking about abortion?
MR. NESSEN: John, I don't think that particular
remark or the speech, itself, needs any further elaboration.
Q
All right. Has the President's stand on
abortion changed since his last statement on abortion?
MR. NESSEN: No, it hasn't.
Q
Ron, I don't see how you can stand there
and tell us that in all honesty you can't say whether or
not he was talking about abortion.
MR. NESSEN: I don't think the speech in that
particular line needs any elaboration.
Q
You say the President can speak very clearly
for himself and yet he used a word he did not intend to
use when he delivered the line that we are questioning.
MR. NESSEN: Yes, he did.
Q
Now you had no reluctance in clarifying
or correcting that error.
MR. NESSEN: I would think you would want me
to, wouldn't you?
Q
Well, then, we are asking you to clarify
a point here.
MR. NESSEN: I don't see that it needs clarifi-
cation, Dick.
MORE
#555
- 18 -
#555-8/9
Q
Then you are acknowledging that he was
talking about abortion, are you not? That is the general
assumption in this room.
MR. NESSEN: Dick, I don't think the speech
needs elaboration and I am not going to elaborate.
Q
Ron, everybody in the room does now.
What is Cardinal Krol going to say this afternoon when
he learns from the wires that the Press Secretary,
when asked repeatedly, "Did the President mean abortion,"
refused. What is Cardinal Krol going to think?
MR. NESSEN: You will have to check with
Cardinal Krol's press secretary.
Q
Will you rule out that he was talking
about abortion?
MR. NESSEN: I won't elaborate on the speech,
Fran.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 12:28 P.M. EDT)
September 9, 1976
FOR NESSEN BRIEFING
The President's position on abortion has been, and remains, consistent.
He is concerned about an apparent increased irreverence
for life.
--
He thinks the Supreme Court went too far in its 1973 decision inval-
idating States' laws on abortion.
He disagrees with the recent Supreme Court decision undermining
parental authority and family values concerning abortion for minors.
He does not believe in abortion on demand.
He does not believe in a Constitutional Amendment banning all
abortions since there are instances, for instance, involving rape
and the health of the mother, where he feels abortion should be
permitted.
He does favor a Constitutional Amendment restoring the right of
the individual States to decide the issue and is on record as a
Member of Congress supporting this position.
Even though he disagrees with the 1973 Court decision, he has
stressed that as President he will, of course, uphold the law as
interpreted by the Court.
--
The plank of the Republican platform dealing with abortion is
consistent with the President's position. The platform states:
"The question of abortion is one of the most
difficult and controversial of our time. It is
undoubtedly a moral and personal issue, but it
also involves complex questions relating to
medical science and criminal justice. There are
those in our party who favor complete support of
2.
of the Supreme Court decision, which supports
abortion on demand. There are others who share
sincere convictions that the Supreme Court decision
must be changed by a constitutional amendment pro-
hibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a
position; or they have assumed a stance somewhere
in between the polar positions. We protest the
Supreme Court's intrusion into the family structure
through its denial of the parents' obligation and right
to guide their minor children. The Republican Party
favors the continuance of the public dialogue on
abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek
enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore
protection of the right to life of the unborn child. 11
Note that the platform first takes recognition of the complexity
of the problem and the diversity of sincerely held points of view.
The key sentence is the last which emphasizes the following
points:
The Party favors the continuance of the public dialogue
on abortion.
--
The Party supports the efforts of those who seek a
Constitutional amendment to restore protection of the
right to life of the unborn child.
The platform purposefully leaves open the question of precisely
defining and spelling out the terms and language of a Constitutional
Amendment. It does not say the party favors an amendment banning
all abortions. It does use the word "restore" which means to refer
back to a situation existing previously - and, the situation that
existed previously was a situation permitting individual states to
decide the issue.
***A241
R W BYLUI
VT
FAM - FORD - BISHOPS Влт-2 TAKES, 330-640
+BY HOWARD BENEDICT
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Six ROMAN CATHOLIC LEADERS SAID AFTER A 72-MINUTE
MEETING FRIDAY WITH PRESIDENT FORD THEY ARE ENCOURAGED BUT NOT
TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ON ABORTION.
TEN DAYS AGO: THE SAME GROUP MET WITH JIMMY CARTER AND EXPRESSED
DISAPPOINTMENT WITH HIS ABORTION STAND. THE ISSUE HAS DOGGED CARTER ON
THE CAMPAIGN TRIAL EVER SINCE.
THE 'SPECIFIC DIFFERENCE¹ IS THAT CARTER IS UNWILLING TO SUPPORT A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST ABORTION AND FORD IS WILLING TO
SUPPORT ONE TO LET EACH STATE DECIDE FOR ITSELF; THE GROUP'S
SPOKESMAN; ARCHBISHOP JOSEPH BERNARDIN: TOLD REPORTERS.
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF
CATHOLIC BISHOPS, ALSO REPORTED THAT FORD FEELS SOME GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS "GO BEYOND WHAT HE FEELS NEEDS TO BE DONE¹¹ IN THE
SPENDING OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTIONS,
THE BISHOPS ASKED ABOUT USING MONEY FROM MEDICAID AND OTHER HEALTH
CARE PROGRAMS FOR ABORTIONS AND ABOUT MILITARY HOSPITALS THAT PERMIT
ABORTIONS.
THEY SAID FORD INDICATED HE OPPOSES GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS
AND PROMISED A STUDY TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT FEDERAL FUNDS SPENT ON
ABORTIONS ARE RESTRAINED TO THE LIMITS SET BY A SUPREME COURT RULING
OF 1973.
THE COURT RULED THAT STATES CAN REGULATE ABORTIONS AFTER THE FIRST
THREE MONTHS OF PREGNANCY AND CAN PROHIBIT THEM IN THE LAST THREE
MONTHS. THE STUDY WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER FEDERAL FUNDS WERE BEING
SPENT ON ABORTIONS PROHIBITED BY THE STATES.
FORD HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY STATED A POSITION ON THIS MATTER BUT CARTER
HAS SAID HE OPPOSES SPENDING OF FEDERAL FUNDS.
DISCUSSING THE INCREASE IN FEDERAL OUTLAYS ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN
SAID IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO THE BISHOPS HOW MUCH FORD "15 PERSONALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. 20
RRCHBISHOP BERNARDIN SAID, "THE PRESIDENT MADE IT VERY CLER THAT HE
OPPOSES ABDRTION AND SUPPORTS THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM PLANK WHICH
SUPPORTS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROTECT THE UNBORN. :
#NORE
1616PED 09-10
****242
R W BYLUIVBYL
TAM-Ford BISHOPS, 1ST ADD, 310
WASHINGTON: ON ABORTION.
HE SAID FORD TOLD THE GROUP HE IS FOR AN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD LET
EACH STATE DETERMINE ITS OWN POLICY ON ABORTION.
"THE PRESIDENT CONSIDERS THAT A LEGITIMATE INTERPRETATION OF THE
REPUBLICAN PLATFORM: : THE ARCHBISHOP SAID.
HE SAID THE CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS FAVORS AN AMENDMENT FOR " MAXIMUM
PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN: 11 BUT WE HAVEN T ENDORSED ANY PARTICULAR
WORDING.
WE DO FEEL, HOWEVER THERE IS A BETTER APPROACH THAN THAT EMBODIED
IN WHAT IS CALLED THE STATES RIGHTS POSITION: = BERNARDIN SAID. **So
TO SAY WE ARE ENCOURAGED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION: THAT DOES NOT
MEAN WE ARE TOTALLY SATISFIED.
BUT HE SAID FORD'S ENDORSEMENT OF SOME SORT OF AN AMENDMENT IS A
STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 11
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DOES NOT COME UP OVERNIGHT: 11 HE SAID.
THERE HAS TO BE SOME INITIATIVE IF AN AMENDMENT IS TO BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS. AND THEN IT CAN BE DETERMINED WHAT TYPE. ; )
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY RON NESSEN SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS
PLEASED ABOUT THE MEETING'¹ WITH ONE CATHOLIC CARDINAL, THREE
ARCHBISHOPS AND TNO BISHOPS.
"HE FEELS IT WAS A FRANK EXCHANGE OF VIEWS AND HE LOOKS FORWARD TO
MEETING WITH THEM AGAIN IN THE FUTURE NESSEN SAID.
OTHER CATHOLIC LEADERS PRESENT WERE ARCHBISHOP JOHN CARBERRY OF ST.
LOUIS: VICE PRESIDENT OF THE GROUP) TERENCE CARDINAL COOKE OF NEW
YORK CITY, ARCHBISHOP JOHN J. MCGUIRE OF NEW YORK, BISHOP JAMES W.
MALONE OF YOUNGSTOWN OHIO, AND BISHOP JAMES S. RAUSCH OF WASHINGTON.
AT THE OUTSET OF THE MEETING BERNARDIN READ A STATEMENT SAYING:
"As YOU KNOW, WE ADDRESS OURSELVES TO ISSUES ONLY. WE NEITHER ENDORSE
NOR OPPOSE CANDIDATES OR PARTIES.
;
AMONG OTHER ISSUES DISCUSSED WERE EMPLOYMENT: FOOD, ILLEGAL ALIENS
AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN FOREIGN POLICY,
1622PED 09-10
AM-FORD SKED
10
BY CHARLES S. ALDINGER
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERRED WITH
PRESIDENT FORD FRIDAY AND MADE CLEAR THEY PREFER HIS STAND ON
ABORTION TO THAT OF JIMMY CARTER BUT ARE NOT "TOTALLY SATISFIED.
!!
IN R WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT RAN MORE THAN AN HOUR, SIX LEADERS
OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS QUESTIONED THE
PRESIDENT ON WHAT THEY CALLED "THE CENTRAL ISSUE IN OUR NATION AND
OUR WORLD" AND TOLD REPORTERS THEY WERE "ENCOURAGED" BY WHAT HE SAID.
"IN SAYING WE ARE ENCOURAGED, THAT IS NOT TO SAY WE ARE TOTALLY
SATISFIED" SAID ARCHBISHOP JOSEPH BERNARDIN OF CINCINNATI, WHO SPOKE
FOR THE GROUP.
BERNARDIN SAID FORD "MADE IT VERY CLEAR" HE FAVORS A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT GIVING EACH STATE THE RIGHT TO MAKE ITS OWN
LAWS REGULATING ABORTION -- FURTHER THAN CARTER WILL GO BUT SHORT OF
THE BISHOPS' DEMAND FOR AN AMENDMENT "THAT WOULD GIVE MAXIMUM
PROTECTION TO THE UNBORN.'
"WE FEEL THERE ARE BETTER APPROACHES* THAN THE STATES' RIGHTS
AMENDMENT, BERNARDIN SAID.
NEVERTHELESS, HE SAID, "WE ARE ENCOURAGED" BY FORD'S POSITION.
AFTER A RECENT MEETING WITH CARTER ON THE SAME SUBJECT, BERNARDIN
SAID THE THE BISHOPS WERE "DISAPPOINTED" BY HIS REFUSAL TO SUPPORT A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING ABORTION AND FOUND HIS PERSONAL
OPPOSITION TO SUCH OPERATIONS INADEQUATE.
ANTIABORTION DEMONSTRATORS HAVE SINCE DOGGED CARTER AT NEARLY
EVERY CAMPAIGN STOP.
BERNARDIN SAID THE BISHOPS ARE NOT ENDORSING OR OPPOSING THE
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDACY OF EITHER MAN.
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY RON NESSEN SAID FORD WAS "VERY
PLEASED" WITH THE "FRANK EXCHANGE OF VIEWS" HE HAD WITH THE BISHOPS.
"HE LOOKS FORWARD TO MEETING THEM AGAIN IN THE FUTURE,' NESSEN SAID.
BEFORE THE SESSION, NESSEN SAID FORD WOULD NOT CHANGE HIS
OPPOSITION TO A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING ABORTION OUTRIGHT
BECAUSE HE APPROVES OF IT IN CASES OF RAPE, INCEST AND DANGER TO THE
LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
BERNARDIN SAID THE BISHOPS ALSO ASKED FORD TO CURB FEDERAL FUNDING
OF ABORTIONS, SAYING THEY HAD RISEN FROM 586 000 IN 1972 TO "OVER ONE
MILLION" LAST YEAR AS A RESULT, IN PART, OF THE SUPREME COURT'S 1973
RULING ON LEGALIZED ABORTION.
HE SAID THE PRESIDENT GAVE THE BISHOPS "A PROMISE THAT R STUDY
WOULD BE MADE TO SEE WHAT COULD BE DONE ABOUT THIS.' 1:1
NESSEN SAID FORD WANTS TO ENSURE FEDERAL ABORTION SUBSIDY "IS
RESTRAINED TO NO MORE THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED" BY THE SUPREME COURT
RULING.
UPI 09-10 02:46 PED
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 10, 1976
Your Excellency:
I want to thank you and other leaders of
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
for visiting with me today to discuss
issues of mutual concern and interest.
Because many of these issues are highly
sensitive, I thought it might be helpful
to set forth my views on paper so that
others who could not be with us might have
a more precise understanding of my
convictions on these issues.
One of the most controversial issues of
our time and one in which we share a keen
interest is the question of abortion. I
have grave concern over the serious moral
questions raised by this issue, Each new
life is a miracle of creation. To
interfere with that creative process is a
most serious act.
In my view, the Government has a very
special role in this regard. Specifically,
the Government has a responsibility to
protect life -- and indeed to provide legal
guarantees for the weak and unprotected.
It is within this context that I have
consistently opposed the 1973 decision of
the Supreme Court. As President, I am
sworn to uphold the laws of the land and
I intend to carry out this responsibility.
In my personal view, however, this court
decision was unwise. I said then and I
repeat today -- abortion on demand is wrong.
2
Since 1973 I have viewed as the most
practical means of rectifying the
situation created by the Court's action
a Constitutional amendment that would
restore to each State the authority to
enact abortion statutes which fit the
concerns and views of its own citizens.
This approach is entirely in keeping with
the system of Federalism devised by the
founders of our Nation. As Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives, I
co-sponsored an amendment which would
restore this authority to the States, and
I have consistently supported that position
since that time.
My position has been based on three
fundamental convictions:
-- I am against abortion on demand.
The people of every State should
have the Constitutional right to
control abortion.
--- There is a need to recognize and
provide for exceptional cases.
I should also point out that the Republican
Platform which I support is fully consistent
with these views.
I recognize that this abortion question is
a matter of deep personal and moral conviction.
Honorable people may disagree, but all of
us must be concerned about an increased
irreverence for life within advanced societies.
Americans have benefited greatly by our rich
spiritual heritage. The sound, sensible
lessons of goodness imparted by religious
teachers and devoted parents have done more
than anything else to prepare our children
for life.
3
A second issue of mutual concern is the
future of non-public schools. Traditionally,
those schools have made a vital contribution
to our society, richly adding to the fiber
of the American experience. We are a Nation
that values competition and diversity. I
believe that diversity is as important in
education as it is in politics, business,
the professions, in our personal lives and
in our cultural traditions.
I know that these last few years have not
been easy ones for non-public schools. This
has been a period of self-examination. I
want you to know that as President, I am
totally committed to support your efforts to
provide the best possible education for the
approximately four million children enrolled
in Catholic institutions.
Earlier this year, I proposed to the Congress
a block grant program to combine 24 existing
programs for Federal assistance to elementary
and secondary education. This legislation,
which would make $3.3 billion available to
State and local governments during fiscal
year 1977, provides that non-public school
children will continue to be served equitably.
In all that I do as President, I will continue
my dedication to freedom of educational
opportunity in order to guarantee the
continued high quality of the educational
tradition in non-public schools -- a tradition
for which you deserve great credit.
A third issue of mutual concern is the policy
of the United States toward relieving hunger
and malnutrition in the world. The United
States, I am proud to say, has a strong
record of responding positively to this
matter, in keeping with both the tradition
of humanitarian concern of the American
people and the sense of responsibility which
we who are more fortunate feel toward those
with less.
4
We have tried to address the two main aspects
of the world food problem in the most
constructive way possible:
--- First, to alleviate an immediate need
for food assistance, the U.S. will be able
to furnish this year about six million tons
of food assistance, 6 million of the 10 million
ton annual food aid target set for all
countries at the World Food Conference in
Rome. Through our PL-480 program, we are
able to use the enormous productivity of the
American farmer to meet human needs with
grain which the poorer nations could not
otherwise afford to import.
-- Second, through our foreign assistance
program, we are seeking to curb some of
the underlying causes of the food problem
by working to improve agricultural production
in the developing countries, particularly
those which suffer major shortfalls in food.
This is of critical importance to the
prospects for economic growth.
Private voluntary agencies also play an
important role in the overall U.S. assistance
effort, and have made a major contribution in
alleviating world hunger, providing inputs of
both food and economic assistance -- an
inspiring demonstration of the humanitarian
zeal of the American people.
Last year this country proposed the creation
of an international system of nationally held
food reserves which would provide against the
human and economic disaster which could result
from a global shortfall in grain production.
We are continuing to push for conclusion of
an agreement on this proposal in the
International Wheat Council.
5
Let me add one final note. When I visited
the International Eucharistic Congress in
Philadelphia last month, I commented that
"for millions of men and women, the church
has been the hospital for the soul, the
schoolroom for the mind, and the safe
depository for moral ideals. It has given
unity and purpose to the affairs of man.
It has been a vital institution for
protecting and proclaiming the ultimate
values of life itself." That is a view I
have long held. It is one that I reaffirm
now.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to
meet with you today. I look forward to
future discussions with you and with others
of every faith.
Sincerely,
Herold R. Ford
The Most Reverend Joseph L. Bernardin
29 East 8th Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
September 10, 1976
Your Excellency:
I want to thank you and other leaders of
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
for visiting with me today to discuss
issues of mutual concern and interest.
Because many of these issues are highly
sensitive, I thought it might be helpful
to set forth my views on paper so that
others who could not be with us might have
a more precise understanding of my
convictions on these issues.
One of the most controversial issues of
our time and one in which we share a keen
interest is the question of abortion. I
have grave concern over the serious moral
questions raised by this issue. Each new
life is a miracle of creation. To
interfere with that creative process is a
most serious act.
In my view, the Government has a very
special role in this regard. Specifically,
the Government has a responsibility to
protect life -- and indeed to provide legal
guarantees for the weak and unprotected.
It is within this context that I have
consistently opposed the 1973 decision of
the Supreme Court. As President, I am
sworn to uphold the laws of the land and
I intend to carry out this responsibility.
In my personal view, however, this court
decision was unwise. I said then and I
repeat today --- abortion on demand is wrong.
FORD i 07V838 LIBRARY
2
Since 1973 I have viewed as the most
practical means of rectifying the
situation created by the Court's action
a Constitutional amendment that would
restore to each State the authority to
enact abortion statutes which fit the
concerns and views of its own citizens.
This approach is entirely in keeping with
the system of Federalism devised by the
founders of our Nation. As Minority Leader
of the House of Representatives, I
co-sponsored an amendment which would
restore this authority to the States, and I
have consistently supported that position
since that time I believe it would return
us to the legal situation existing prior to
the 1973 Court decision.
5.
TL
belief
that
My position has been based on three
fundamental convictions:
-- I am against abortion on demand.
- The people should have the right to
determine laws on abortion.
- There is a need to recognize and
provide for exceptional cases.
I should also point out that the Republican
Platform which I support is fully consistent
with these views.
I recognize that this abortion question is a
matter of deep personal and moral conviction.
Honorable people may disagree, but all of us
must be concerned about an increased
irreverence for life within advanced societies.
Americans have benefited greatly by our rich
spiritual heritage. The sound, sensible
lessons of goodness imparted by religious
teachers and devoted parents have done more
than anything else to prepare our children
for life.
FORD & LIBRAR
September 10, 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE OF
ARCHBISHOP JOSEPH L. BERNARDIN
OF CINCINNATI
PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE
OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
THE BRIEFING ROOM
11:55 A.M. EDT
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: As you know, we met
with Mr. Ford this morning. We met with him primarily
in his capacity as the Republican candidate. I would
like to read to you --- this will be made available to
you later -- the introductory remarks that I made.
You already have that.
I am Archbishop Bernardin. I think I want
to read what I said and then I will give you a very
brief summary of the meeting itself.
First of all, we indicated our appreciation
of the opportunity to meet with the President, at his
invitation, to discuss a number of issues of concern to
us and the nation. I indicated that we met last week with
Governor Carter, the Democratic candidate, and I indicated
again that we adressed ourselves to issues only.
We neither endorse nor oppose candidates or
parties.
FORD
Then, I went on to say among these issues is
079532
abortion and the right to live. "On August 18, I issued
a statement in which I called the Republican platform
plank on abortion timely and important. We would welcome
a statement of your position on the plank, as well as
clarification concerning the kind of amendment you support
and are prepared to work for.
"We also wish to express deep concern over
the substantial increase in the Federal Government's funds
of abortion in recent years. We are anxious to know your
views concerning the propriety of continued use of public
funds for this purpose and also on the question of measures
to provide alternatives to abortion.
Page 2
"It is our prayerful hope that both major
parties, their leaders and candidates for office, will
adopt and pursue a consistent pro-life policy. We wish
to take this opportunity to repeat our concern with
respect to a number of other crucial foreign and domestic
issues in addition to abortion and the right to live."
I mentioned four in particular. First,
employment. "We urge appropriate Federal action including
legislation aimed at solving our nation's unemployment
crisis and providing a decent job for every person in
this country willing and able to work. Government must
recognize that opportunity for suitable employment is
fundamental to the human development of the person and
of the family."
Second, food. "We urge Federal action to combat
starvation, hunger and malnutrition in this country and
abroad.
"On the domestic front, while recognizing the
need for effective reform of the food stamp program, we
desire that the program be maintained and strengthened
as an effective instrument of assistance to the poor and
needy.
"Internationally, we desire practical,
generous measures to share the precious resources of
food with other peoples by such means as the creation of
food reserves.
"Third, illegal aliens. We support the
enactment of Federal legislation which will not only
prevent the recurrence of the problem, but will deal
constructively and humanly with the plight of illegal
aliens now in this country.
"A specific dimension of our concern over
this issue is its impact on families and family life.
Specifically, this requires a meaningful regularizing
of the status of illegal aliens.'
Page 3
Human rights in foreign policy was the fourth.
"We urge that the defense and promotion of human rights
be central to the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign
policy. We desire that this country seek consistently,
by legitimate means, to influence other governments,
including those friendly or economically important to the
United States, to respect the human rights of their
citizens.
"In concluding these comments, Mr. President,
I emphasize our conviction that the central issue in
our nation, in our world today, is the sanctity and
dignity of human life. The sanctity and dignity of life
are at stake in all of these issues and many others
besides.
"For example, the many problems and needs of
the American family: health care, housing, handgun
control, and nuclear arms limitations. Certainly the
sanctity and dignity of life are directly, massively
violated by legalized abortion in our country today.
This concerns citizens who are also moral and spiritual
leaders.
"We desire effective Federal action to
protect and foster the sanctity and dignity of life
in every stage of its development and by every appropriate
means available to our society.
"The Conference of Catholic Bishops intends
to speak to all the crucial issues as they enter and
move through the legislative process.'
As far as the meeting itself was concerned, the
meeting was courteous. There was a good exchange of
information on many issues. Relative to the abortion
issue, we are encouraged that the President agrees on
the need for a Constitutional amendment. We urged him to
support an amendment that will give the maximum protection
possible to the unborn.
We also discussed at some length the issues of
employment, food, illegal aliens and the defense and
protection of human rights as a key element in determining
U.S. foreign policy.
Page 4
On these issues we explained our position,
which generally calls for sensitivity to human needs and
an acknowledgement of the legitimate role of government
in a free society.
One final issue brought up by the President
was aid to non-public schools.
Page 5
Q
Archbishop Bernardin, are you saying the President
supports an amendment to prohibit abortion?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: He supports a Constitutional
amendment.
Q
To ban abortions or to just give it to the
States and let them make up their own rules?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: First of all, he made it very
clear that he supports the Republican platform, which calls
for a Constitutional amendment to give protection to the
unborn. As far as the kind of amendment, he is in favor of
a States' rights amendment which he considers to be a legitimate
interpretation of the Republican platform.
Q
Do you understand the President's position, and
are you comfortable with it?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: As I indicated in my preliminary
remarks on the meeting, we are encouraged that the platform
and the President are in agreement that there should be a
Constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. As you know,
we have not actually endorsed any particular wording of an
amendment. There are some 47 different versions, I understand,
that are now pending. We have consistently urged passage of
an amendment that will give the maximum protection possible
to the unborn.
We believe, however, that there is a better approach
than that embodied in what is commonly known or called the
States' rights amendment. So, we urge maximum protection
possible.
Q
Sir, unlike the meeting last week with candidate
Carter, I take it you are not disappointed with your meeting
today and with the President's position?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: As I indicated a moment ago,
we are encouraged that the platform calls for an amendment,
and the President made it very clear that he also supports
the idea of an amendment.
Q
I wonder if I could focus in on the word you
used a week ago when you did say you were disappointed after
your meeting with Mr. Carter?
Page 6
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: At that time, I said we
continued to be disappointed because the Democratic candidate
was not willing at that time to support an amendment to
the Constitution. Now we say that we are encouraged that
the Republican candidate is willing to support an amendment.
As to the kind of amendment, I have indicated to
you what kind of amendment he has proposed. He, himself, has
made this known publicly.
I also indicated that, while we have not taken
a position on any particular amendment, still we have enunciated
the principles that should be reflected in an amendment, and
we have consistently urged for an amendment that would give
the maximum protection possible to the unborn. And, as I
indicated -- and I will repeat -- we feel that there are better
approaches than the approach that is embodied in what is
commonly known as a States' rights amendment.
Q
Archbishop Bernardin, are you saying the
President's position is more satisfactory to you than Mr. Carter'
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: We are saying that we are
encouraged by any effort to support a Constitutional amendment.
Q
There have been several columnists in the last
week who have pointed out what they consider a gap between
the campaign position of the President and his actual
performance as head of this Administration, particularly
referring to the new position on abortion at military
installations, the change from the Nixon Administration, as
well as HEW's funding, and the Vietnamese refugee camps --
abortion availability. Are you disappointed at the President's
record and did you raise those specific points?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: As I indicated in my
introductory remarks, we did express to him deep concern
over the substantial increase in the Federal Government's
funding of abortion in recent years. In the discussion that
followed, we talked about that at some length. He indicated
that his personal position is against Government funding,
Government participation. He acknowledged that at times
some of the departments seemed to go beyond what he feels
should be done. He indicated that he would make a study of
the situation to determine what needs to be done on his part
in order to impose or being about some restraints.
Page 7
We expressed our grave concern about what is
happening. At the moment, it is not absolutely clear to us
how much he is actually personally responsible for this.
One of the things that we are concerned about is
the fact that the number of abortions has increased. In 1972,
there were some 586,000 abortions. In 1975, there were over
one million and, of course, the degree of involvement of the
Federal Government has increased.
Now much of this is due to the fact that in 1973 the
Supreme Court handed down two decisions, which has drastically
changed the situation. But our position is that the Executive
Department should do everything that it can, not to go beyond
what the Supreme Court requires, not to promote in any way an
interpretation of those decisions which would go beyond the
decisions themselves.
We made this very, very clear and, as I said, what
we got in answer to a statement of this concern was a promise
or statement that a study would be made to see what more
could be done about this.
Q
Archbishop Bernardin, I am confused over just
exactly what kind of feeling you are coming out of this conference
with, with the President. You said on two occasions here that
you think there are better approaches than one embodied in a
States' rights amendment. You also said that you were encouraged
by the meeting with the President in contrast to last week when
you were disappointed.
But when you say there are better approaches than
those embodied by the States' rights amendments, you are saying
there are better approaches than the one which Mr. Ford advocates;
is that correct?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: Yes. And I think you have to
remember that this goes in steps, that a Constitutional amendment
does not come about over night.
First of all, there has to be some support for the
concept. There has to be some initiative in order to convince
Congress that such an amendment should come into existence. Then,
after that, you begin to talk about the specific kind of amendment
So, in saying that we are encouraged, this does not mean that
we are totally satisfied.
Page 8
Q
Is it fair to say that, while you would
like to see the President take a stronger anti-abortion
stand, you find his views closer to your views than those
of Mr. Carter? Is that a fair way to sum it up?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: I would say that the specific
difference is an unwillingness at this time on the part of
the Democratic candidate to support any kind of Constitutional
amendment, and a willingness on the part of the Republican
candidate to support an amendment.
Page 9
Q
You said in your statement here, "We neither
endorse nor oppose candidates or parties."
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: That is right, and I
would like to repeat that.
Q Am I wrong in recollecting that in 1960
the Catholic Bishops of Puerto Rico, publicly threatened
with excommunication any Catholic who voted for Governor
Munos Morin because he supported the establishment of
birth control planks, that he won by about 90 percent and
then those bishops were transferred to the Mainland.
Am I wrong in my recollection there?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: We can only talk about
our own Conference of Bishops here in 1976 and I repeat
that we neither endorse nor oppose candidates or parties.
We address ourselves only to the issues and then the
people themselves must make their decisions.
Q May I ask a question? Some of us who
have been covering this issue here at the White House
seem to note some ambiguity in the President's position
on abortion and, if you would, I cite several positions.
One, he prefers the States! right Constitutional
amendment. Two, he does favor abortions in cases of
incest, rape, and where the mother's life is in jeopardy,
and there have been yet other positions that he states,
to wit, the no-interference with the military hospitals
and so on.
Did you determine that there is any ambiguity
in the President's position on abortion?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: I think that question
should be asked of the President.
Q Wasn't that a matter of legitimate
concern to you, as to whether you found his position
ambiguous or clearcut?
Page 10
Wasn't this a legitimate concern of yours as
you went into the meeting? If so, what did you find?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: I really think that
the statements tha+ I have made indicate to us what our
perception of the present situation is. I think that
you have got to keep two things in mind.
I know I am repeating, but I believe, in
a sense, that the question is repetitious. In regard
to a Constitutional amendment -- agreements that there
should be amendment -- while we have not endorsed any
particular kind of amendment, we feel that a better
approach is needed than the approach that is embodied
in the States' right amendment.
Regarding the involvement of the Federal
Government in abortion through funding and so on, we
expressed our deep concern about this and we were told
that this was a matter that would be looked into, a
matter that would be studied with a view toward exercising
a certain degree of restraint. Whether or not that
will happen, only time can tell.
Page 11
Q
Archbishop Bernardin, you told us that you don't
feel that the President's States' rights proposal is the
greatest in the world. Would you tell us what you would
prefer?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: We have consistently said that
we urge the passage of a Constitutional amendment that will give
the maximum protection possible to the unborn. We have not,
at this time, endorsed any specific wording.
Q
If I may follow that up, sir, you said the
President believes that his proposals fit under that definition
because -- you used the language almost the same that was
used in the Republican platform -- you said you are calling
for massive protection of the unborn. The Republican platform
calls for a Constitutional amendment that protects the rights
of the unborn. That is an ambiguous phrase. It encompasses
the President's plan.
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: The President said he considers
his position as being a legitimate interpretation of that. I
am not so concerned about what the platform says. I am more
concerned about the way the candidate interprets the platform.
Q
The President has said, I believe, the reason
why he does not support the sweeping Federal amendment but he
is for the States' rights amendment is because he feels abortions
in certain cases such as rape and incest -- he supports those.
How do you feel about that?
ARCHBISHOP BERNARDIN: We have said consistently that
we have not up to this point endorsed any particular amendment.
We simply urge the passage of an amendment that will give the
maximum protection possible to life. We have debated this
position to the Congress in our testimony. We stated our
position to the Democratic candidate, and also now to the
Republican candidate. But, I think you have to ask some of
these questions of the President.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 12:14 P.M. EDT)