Abortion: Right to Life vs. Right to Choose

music This program is made possible by a grant from this station and other public television stations. I want abortion to remain legal, but murder is murder, and I think it's wrong.

They are working to jeopardize our constitutional rights. We are against anyone's right to choose to kill another person. Good evening. I'm Marie Torrey. If we had to put a subtitle to this broadcast this evening, it would be the cause that refuses to yield. These are the facts. Six years ago, the US Supreme Court made abortions legal, but that was hardly the end of the issue. If anything, it was the beginning of a new conflict involving not only Americans with strong emotional feelings on both sides of the spectrum, but also politicians, clergymen, social workers and members of the medical profession among others.

What has taken place in Cincinnati this week is a reflection of the abortion controversy. Cincinnati has been the side of the national right to life convention which ended this afternoon. In other parts of the city, it was freedom of choice week involving Americans who would give women the right to have an abortion if they wanted. During the next 90 minutes, we want to report more than just the events of both conventions. The goal of this special broadcast produced by WCET and the public interest video network is to be a sort of a town hall meeting on the subject of abortion. Whitney is Daniel Shore, our senior car respondent who began the job at his home base, which is Washington, DC, and who concluded this afternoon at the right to life rally at Fountain Square. Dan, whether any surprises for you at the rally this afternoon. Marie, I don't know what should surprise me. I've never been at a right to life rally before. I found myself being singly impressed with a sense of zeal and commitment that seemed to run through that crowd.

It was one of the larger rallies of the right to life movement, but the numbers as usual are in dispute ranging from four to 8,000 depending on whom you talk to. But perhaps the character of the meeting was more significant than numbers. This was a rally of believers, people utterly convinced that they are right and that those who think differently are very, very wrong. The banners, the slogans, the fetus photos have become rather familiar now, though they were repeated or waived as the case may be with a fresh sense of conviction. What was new though was the sense of victory. The right to life has already succeeded in denying abortion to thousands who depend on federal assistance. Their hero is a man best known for an amendment, representative Henry Hyde of Illinois. It was the Hyde Amendment in 1976 that first banned the public funding of abortions with a few loopholes that he's now trying to close. And today, riding the country's most emotional single issue, Congressman Hyde is somewhat astonished at his own success. The issue is not a heavy one so much, why are you pressing on to tighten up the Hyde

Amendment? Well, I don't know that we have one so much. We won't win until we get every unborn child protected from being exterminated because his mother doesn't want him or her. And that means a human life amendment. We have a long ways to go. We need two-thirds of the house and two-thirds of the Senate until we achieve that. I sense a greater enthusiasm. There's a real winning optimism here in the crowd. You mean more so than in other times? Yes. I think I noticed this since St. Louis in 1978. Do you interpret this to mean that the movement has gotten more momentum? Oh, definitely. We've turned the corner in the movement. There's no doubt about it. November of 1978. I mean, do you say that just on the basis of this kind of reaction or has anything to do? Oh, no. There's just the mood as change since the election. We believe now that we can do it and we can do it rapidly. I think before there was a feeling of 100 years, like St. Manor took the abolitionist

to overcome slavery. But we realize now that we can turn this thing around. And I really meant it when I said 1982. On the June 9th edition of the Saturday Review, Senator Dick Clark, former Senator Dick Clark, of the state of Iowa was quoted as follows. For candidates like me with a clear cut voting record on abortion, I see nothing but trouble ahead. He continued a while back. I wouldn't have thought their constitutional amendment had a decent prospect. Now I wouldn't underestimate its chances. Dan, you know I'm hired from Washington. Do you have a sense as to how far he thinks he can go with this abortion issue?

Well, he expressed himself to me as being rather surprised at how far he's already gone. He introduced it in 1976. He thought it was just a small issue and he suddenly finds himself on top of something that is much larger than he could ever have expected to become. What's very interesting though, Marie, is that when I said to him, you know, why are you pushing so far with this? Secretary Califano at HW reports that already 99% of federally financed abortions have already been cut out. Why devote all this energy to the last 1%, and he said, well, first of all, he doesn't accept those figures. He thinks they're exaggerated and secondly, because as long as there is one tenth of 1%, so I think you have here not so much a person who is an opportunist, but one who's taken an issue, which he believes in, but what he suddenly finds is an issue that is caught fire. Also with us this evening is Mary Jane O'Donnell, who anchors the evening news on the station

WCET. Mary Jane, why was the conventions held here in Cincinnati, is there a reason for it to be here? Well, the two co-sponsors in the convention are the Northern Kentucky Right to Life Organization and the Cincinnati Right to Life Organization. There are two particularly strong right to life organizations. There are strong in terms of organization and structure, and in terms of the number of people who support them. I've been told that here in Cincinnati they send out as many of 75,000 newsletters a month. Mary Jane, of course, has been covering the conventions all this week, and we sort of looked to her to give us a background on what has happened. Our moment in 1973, it seemed as though it was settled. That was the year the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal. But here it is 1979, and the 1,500 people who registered here at this Northern Kentucky Convention side proved that the fight to prohibit abortion is at as high a pitch as ever.

The Right to Life movement, these people represent, began in the late 60s in response to the liberalization of abortion laws in several of the states. Colorado was the first state to allow abortions. That legislation was passed in 1967. By 1973, 17 states had passed laws permitting abortions. During that time, the movement was composed of loosely organized people who fought any efforts by their various state legislators to ease restrictions regarding abortions. With the Supreme Court decision in 1973, their arena became a national one. That year, the National Right to Life Committee was formed. This is the largest and most formidable right to life organization. Their ultimate goal is the passage of a human life amendment. This amendment would prohibit abortions in the United States. In addition, right to life supporters are making relentless efforts to erode wherever

and whenever possible, the guarantees of the Supreme Court decision. In Congress, for example, their greatest victory was the passage of the high amendment in 1976. This prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions in all but the most extraordinary of cases. Political action committees have been established to work for those candidates who support the Right to Life position and to defeat those who don't. On the local level, they were responsible for the passage of the Akron ordinance. This ordinance, which has been copied elsewhere, requires that the parents or husbands be informed of the decision to have an abortion, requires a waiting period of 24 hours before an abortion is performed, and requires a physician to describe in detail to the pregnant woman the stages of fetal development with accompanying pictures. No right to life organizations orchestrate pickets and sit-ins at clinics that perform abortions. Some of these efforts have taken violent turns that range from harassing patients to the

occasional bombings of clinics. As they see it, the purpose of these many efforts is to protect the life of the unborn child. Their opponents see it as an attempt to deny a woman her freedom to choose, and they're fighting back. Last week, Planned Parenthood announced a million-dollar public relations campaign to defend this freedom to choose. The National Abortion Rights Action League is a leading pro-choice organization. They've established their own political action committees and are organizing on the grassroots level. Their main goal is to preserve the guarantees of the Supreme Court decision, and they'll have some help from now, the National Organization for Women. They've said that reproductive freedom is one of their top goals. Both sides claim victories and public support, but the true test of each will come from the decisions in the courts, the votes in Congress, and the winners of the 1980 elections. One of the aims of this special report is to know the hearts and minds of the people

who are on both sides of the abortion issue. The device that we're going to use this evening is one we call portrait. We are going to see two women who are indeed on both sides of the abortion issue, and we're going to look in on them throughout this broadcast. They appear in reports that have been prepared for us by our next two guests who are on the course, who is a video documentary, and John Filiatro, who is a columnist for the Louisville Courier Journal. Did you get any new impressions on the abortion issue as a result of this effort, John? I think the major impression was the exemplatory of the people who took part in those discussions. The workshops were skill-oriented, and the people apparently planned to make a big move in the political sphere, and I had the impression they were very definitely getting their act together in that respect.

How do you feel about giving what we could call a personal approach to such an issue? Well, we chose our subject, the woman not so much to be representative of a typical pro-choice kind of organizer, but rather just almost at random. So, we really didn't get that far into our personality, it was an attempt to find a person who was deeply involved in the issue, so that she would then lead us through the events of the pro-choice people, the events that were organized in response to their convention. So I'm not sure if we really got to know her all that well. That's interesting, but do you feel it is just a difficult thing to try and do normally or because she wouldn't let you get too many? It wasn't a matter of her not letting us, but the issue is very complicated, and the focus really wasn't on the pro-choice people so much, and I guess myself, I kept thinking about

the pro-lifers, I guess I was really fascinated with the pro-lifers, and it was more of a device in a sense, although we do get to know her, and we do get to know her family, and certainly got to know, well, it hits the average person's involvement or average person's view of it, but I guess that was as close as I've ever come. In these first two portraits, we meet Sugetti and Carol Miller, as we said, these are women with deep personal commitments to opposite sides of the abortion issues, and they share with us some of the very reasons that they are both committed to their stands as each prepared for the week's events in Cincinnati. I'm an individualist, I care very much about all people, and I try to see the good in them but sometimes it's hard, but I do know we are a mixture of good and bad, and I try to feel the good way out, I feel like a radicalist, but I have had people call me this and accuse

me of things that I had no intention, or that I never even entered my mind. The pro-lifes issue, you're doing something, not for yourself, you're doing something for the elements that are being killed in the womb, and this really makes you feel good inside, you know, you're doing something good. I had a miscarriage when I was two months pregnant, and it was a baby, it had a face, it had hands and fingers and feet and toes, and I knew it was more than just a bunch of selves. And I also have had experiences of wondering what that baby would be doing now, and I know the people that have had abortions and have literally taken a life have to be having thoughts about that child, because if you didn't think about it when it was an accident, you have to think about it when you've done it on purpose.

I became involved in the right-to-life movement after we attended a banquet with Ellen McCormick as the guest speaker. We were curious because she was running as a candidate for president, and we were curious what her platform was and what she had to say, and so we went and listened, and one statement that she made at the end of her talk was that she is only one person, but she can do at least a little, and then it made us realize that we weren't even doing the little that we could do, and that we should get busy doing the little that we could do also. I don't think I'm very different than a lot of the other people, let's say in the neighborhood or down the street or in the city, I have been married for 15 years. I have two kids. I have also a profession outside the home. I'm a freelance interior designer, which I work at. I kind of like that field because I can work at my own pace.

I don't have to have a nine to five job, which would be tough for me. I'm very dedicated to the pro-choice point of view. How did I get involved? I guess it just, to me, is another issue that involves women, and I happen to be very involved in the city, in the women's movement, specifically with the national organization for women. I don't know anybody that's pro-abortion. The idea of abortion is just not particularly appealing to anybody, but I think the issue goes beyond that in that it, once again, comes back around to freedom of choice. Right now the law is on the side of the Supreme Court ruling, gives a woman the right to an abortion, and I think the majority of the American people sort of sit back and say, you know, I don't have to be on a picket line. I don't have to join the people out there because I have my right. I think more than anything that, until it's taken away from them, then you might see just hell break loose.

The abortion issue is a major thrust for a growing movement that's being called the new right. The movement is characterized by a stunning of party lines in favor of concentrating on single issues such as gun control, the equal rights amendment, and abortion. The weapons of the new right are new technologies, computers, and mass media, for example, used in fundraising and campaigning. Leaders of the new right proclaim the movement to be of no compromise conservatism, aggressiveness and preserving traditional family values. Spearheading the new right is the committee for the survival of a free Congress. I talked with the committee's executive director, Paul Wyric, and asked him just who makes up the new right. Leaders of the new right are committed to free enterprise, to strong national defense, to limited government, and to traditional family values.

The new right is very much interested in a restoration of power to the family. I'm afraid that everybody from McDonald's to the federal government has begun to take the functions away from the family. These forces that you say are hurting the family, what are they? Those educators, those preachers, those attorneys, those politicians who believe in the social gospel, who believe that by reforming man's environment alone, you reform man. Instead of believing the truth, which is by reforming man, you can then reform his environment. Abortion is one of your issues. It's a deep personal commitment with me. Just about everybody in the new right feels the same way, but it's a religious slash moral commitment to my part, not a political commitment. Thea Rossi Barron also came to the anti-abortion movement because of moral rather than political

beliefs, but there the similarity with Wyric ends. Even while serving as chief lobbyist for the right to life movement, she made no effort to hide her own personal liberalism by working for the Equal Rights Amendment. This displeased many new right leaders. Eventually she found herself out of a job. Liberal, you are a successful attorney, you're certainly independent. How do you come by being anti-abortion? Well, it's basically Marie, my interest in the issue. I look on it, not as a conservative issue, the way sometimes the media tries to portray it, but as an issue that is a civil libertarian issue. And I found a lot of people who think the same way that I do, average mothers and fathers of basically family people that are interested in making a better world for their children. The new right, as I indicated before, has certainly been involved with the anti-abortion

issue. Why? What I think is, the new right has a good deal of money, has apparently a very great ability in raising money. They seem to have organization. I think they lack people. And that's exactly what the right to life movement would give them. I see it, for example, on the right to life issue, not in the interest of the right to life at all. There's some parts of any movement or appealing. I think what's appealing about the new right is its basis, apparently, in tradition. It believes very strongly in the family. Your departure from the right to life committee was sort of timed with the growing involvement of the new right. Do you, as a result, harbor any bitterness toward the new right?

I don't like what they replace me with and a sentence with what's wrong with what they replaced you with. I think they have damaged the credibility that it's taken us two and a half years to establish. To be specific about that. Number one, they've not worked with the coalition of Democrats and Republicans. This is all hearsay, but this is hearsay from members of Congress, who tell me that they're disappointed in the job that's being done on the Hill. They're holding against members of Congress their position, for example, on the Equal Rights Amendment. I think that's foolish. I think that's political suicide. My complaint with Thayer Rossi Barron was that she ignored the very base of strength that the right to life movement has, which is the people who are basically conservative. She wanted to work with all the liberals and wanted to excuse these liberals who had a pro-abortion voting record. And I think that it was outrageous that the right to life movement had her as a lobbyist just as it would be outrageous if George Meeney hired Reid Larson of the National Right

to work committee to lobby for him. Maybe it would make any sense. And it didn't make any sense to have somebody like Thayer Rossi Barron, who ignored the first rule of politics, which is working with your base of strength. You still have Congress dominated by Democrats and liberal or moderate Republicans. So if you want to get anything through there, you have to deal with those people. And it just makes sense that you can't come on strong and one issue and show an insensitivity and other issues because you will not have credibility with those people. You don't go to the outreach and not take care of the inner core because to do so, the movement falls apart, you see, because it doesn't have the inner cohesiveness that makes possible the political outreach. And that's a fundamental law of anybody who knows anything about politics. And I don't care what issue it is, left, right, you know, up, down, that's the way things operate.

Dan, there was a CBS poll taken last year to the effect, well, one of the results was that about 5% of the American people would let their feelings about abortion alone determine their votes. Isn't that an unusually high percentage? It is probably the highest percentage of any of the so-called single issues. There is no question that the issue of abortion choice has generated more emotion and more heat and probably less light than any of the many issues that has come along. And you can feel it very keenly if you go up on Capitol Hill and see the way Congress people react, not only in what they do, but sometimes in the ways they don't do things. For example, on Capitol Hill, the pressures over the anti-abortion pro-choice issue have become very intense. Last Monday, a coalition of 27 religious organizations came to lobby against the new and the more drastic version of the High Amendment, which is now under consideration in the House Appropriations Committee and may come up for a vote there next week.

Most of their supporters in Congress anxious to maintain a low profile on the sensitive issue stayed away from that rally. Only two members of Congress appeared on the Capitol's steps to accept their petition. They were Senator Robert Packwood and Representative Luis Stokes. My dear friends, we come together today to celebrate what we've been in age when we now have the power to create human life purposefully. We no longer have the right to turn precisely because the pregnant woman is a good and through discussion and education help us to clarify this. I see this legislation as being class legislation. I see it as being another attack against the poor and the disadvantaged.

You see in this country, a wealthy affluent woman can have a safe decent abortion. And it is only those who are dependent upon federal funds whom they are saying cannot have the same decent, safe conditions of abortion. Aside from the abortion issue itself, isn't there some bigger issue involved here? Single issue groups. I don't care. It's fluoridation of water supplies or anti-abortion, whatever, can draw a bead on you and they don't have to represent 50% of the vote. If in a close election, they can turn just one or two percent of the vote. That can be the difference, and that's where the danger comes, not that they are a majority, but they can be the tipping balance in a very close election. Would you comment on this growth and the coalescing of the single issue in politics in the world? Part of it has happened with the computer and the ability to mobilize 60, 70, 80,000 people who will immediately send six or seven thousand letters on the day or two's notice and get

the impression of millions of people. That the equipment that you have in this room would have occupied a substantially larger space. Oh, we can keep a million names almost on one reel of tape that would have 20 years ago occupied this entire realm. And on Monday morning, I can talk to a client and he says he wants to mail a million letters by Saturday, and we can do that with relative ease. We can print one letter per second on these machines so that we can produce maybe a hundred thousand computer letters every 24 hours here, or if we're producing labels, we could produce a million or two million labels per 24 hour period. In the last couple of years, it's become obvious to me and a lot of other people that there's a large movement out there that didn't exist a few years ago, concerned about abortion.

And I'd say that the activity, behalf of the anti-abortion movement today, you just can't be compared to what it was six, eight, ten years ago. Experience tells me that this issue is going to be well received by the conservatives. The conservatives, while it's not a conservative liberal issue, there are many liberals that are concerned about abortion from my perspective. They consider themselves anti-abortionist, so to speak. But the conservatives, I would expect, would support this issue very strongly. So we would start with our own list, but very quickly expand into, you know, testing probably literally hundreds of other mating lists. Conservatives hope to elect the president someday? Most definitely. A lot of people ask me, what's the difference between the new right and the old right? And I don't know if there's no short answer, but the one thing that is different about the conservatives today than the conservatives of some years ago, whether the conservatives

today believe that in the foreseeable future, they will help govern America. The difficulty with it is that if it's carried too far, we can fill up the United States Senate with brittle-minded right-wing reactionaries who will be right on that particular issue and wrong on everything else. There are some like Richard Vigory, for example, who can believe that these single-issue groups can be coalesced into a larger new right movement. Do you think that's happening? I think that's what gives a new dimension to the danger that some of the right to life people are now coaxing with right-wing elements on other issues, and they're ganging up on some of the most thoughtful and constructive members of the Congress. There's no doubt, in my mind, that they gave Dick Clark the treatment out in Iowa in 1978. I think they're going to try the same thing with me in 1980 and other senators.

Most single-issue groups, frankly, are from the far right. This group, at least, in terms of those people out across the countryside who supported or not of the far right, they cross party lines. They're very often moderate Democrats, and so that's, I think, really why they are so important to the far right in terms of changing the political structure of the country. I think one of the mistakes some of the senators may have made in the past is trying to step around the issue of abortion. I don't intend to do that. I intend to take it head on. I personally happen to have private convictions against abortion, but I don't think the way you deal with it is by making it unconstitutional. I'm worried about alcoholism, too, but I don't think it's going to cure it by making it unconstitutional. Senator McGovern, to no one's surprise, is one of 12 persons on the right-to-life movements so-called hit list, the deadly dozen, the ones that they intend to try to defeat in the next election.

We'd like to show you the other names on this hit list. You can see them there, Birch Bay of Indiana, and Frank Church, Culver, they McGovern, Packwood, and members of the House. Let me mention some interesting things about this list. One person who is on, and one who is not on, Senator Church, whom I talked to at lunch on Friday, found himself at first rather be surprised to be included on this list because as a matter of fact, his position against abortion goes rather far. He was willing he said to support a constitutional amendment which would ban abortion. He only would not go so far as to have that amendment apply to those who had suffered from rape or incest, and I would appear to be a relative in narrow point. He was nonetheless added to it, although in other respects, he seems to go their way. He believes that it's not just this issue, but that there are other issues on which he's regarded as vulnerable, which have to do with other matters and abortion, and it is one of the signs of the way these separate, single issues seem to be coalescing into a new

right movement. On the other hand, there's Senator John Tower of Texas, who in fact voted in favor and support of abortion several times, yet he doesn't appear on any hit list. He interviewed him and he said that was simply because he believes in Texas it wouldn't have make it very much point to have opposed him. So we're dealing here with a new kind of politics in which there's not one hit list for one single issue, but they appear to be polished and coalesced into something more than a hit list. It is a movement now for the next Marie. During the 30 minutes of this program has been in session, we have had many opposing views, but in tape reports, and this is after all a live broadcast, and we thought that we'd bring on two opposing views in live television. On my left is Karen Mulhawz. Ms. Mulhawz is executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League. My right is Darla St. Martin.

Ms. Martin is a national director of the National Rights and Life Committee, president of the Minnesota Concerned Citizens for Life. How do you recruit for that, Ms. Martin? Well, we have a very broad base of people. In fact, I think it's very untrue to try to characterize the right to life movement as being just the new right. As the Aarasi Barron indicated, we have people who are very conservative, we have people who are very liberal, and in fact, I think it was a distortion to zero in on one person who was conservative and one person who was liberal and show only them because the broad base of the right to life people... I'm sorry. Who are you talking about here now? I was in what respect? No, you were just saying you thought it was wrong because you're in. I think it's wrong to zero in on just the extremes because most of the movement is very broad base can't be stereotyped. I think there's an attempt on the part of our opponents and on the part of the media to stereotype us, to say that we are just new right. For example, we have people of every sort with many different points of view.

We can neither be stereotyped as to religion or as to political philosophy. Let me ask you, though, when people spend as much time as perhaps you do, Miss Martin, at this issue, would you not say that it is a reflection of extreme thinking on the subject? No, I don't think it's extremist to be for human right, and that's what we are doing. I don't say it's extremist to be for human rights. To devote the kind of time that you do to it. I believe that, basically, there are many people throughout this country who are concerned about human rights and who are willing to give of their time and energy, whatever they can, to fight for the right to life or whatever basic. Right now, I feel that the big human rights issue, perhaps even of this century, is the right to life. Well, would you say that you have more of a cross-section of people than Miss Mo'House and I certainly do, don't you agree with that?

I have not seen an analysis of the membership of the National Right to Life Committee. We have an analysis of our membership, and it does show a spectrum in age, fairly well educated people have joined the organization. I think it is what we have just heard is that it's not appropriate to focus on the right wing connection between anti-abortion and right wing. It is something that's fairly new on the scene, and it's very clearly documented overlapping personnel between the anti-abortion movement and the right wing movement, and it is, it I'd say clearly it's not the only, it's because it's also very clear that the anti-abortion movement gets a lot of support from the Catholic Church, and there's a marriage there with the anti-abortion movement. Working forces with the Bishop's pastoral plan for pro-life activities, which has created pro-life committees in every congressional district. The narrow membership is made up of many different kinds of people.

We are at this point organizing a very defined grassroots organization that we call Impact 80 to recruit. But is your membership as well varied as Miss Martin, St. Martin says hers is? For sure, we have, we have a spectrum and age, diversity of religions, Democrats and Republicans. A number of our members say very clearly that to be pro-choice is to be American because it is part of the American way to not impose religious dogma through secular law, and they see that to write anti-abortion law into the Constitution is to put a religious view that we impose it on. Are you saying that Miss Martin's group is not pro-American? No, I am saying that it is American to be for choice, and in fact it is a very conservative position to insist that the government not be involved in such personal decisions that should be left behind.

What are you saying that she's on American? I would particularly. To impose a particular religious and moral view on others is on American. That's what I would like to answer. This is not one religious and moral view. I myself, I'm a Protestant, I'm a liberal. I was a delegate to our Democratic convention in our state. But what I would like to point out also that our Catholic Church has not given one penny of money to the National Rite of Life Committee, as you say, authorize, respect life collection. But we sacrifice it to the top. But this is something that is right behind. I like to point out, this is something within the Catholic Church, that they do to educate their own people. I just wanted to give a bit of the flavor of the opposition that does exist on the subject of abortion. And I thank you both for it because you really have succeeded in doing that, Karen Lohaus and Darrellene St. Martin. Thank you very much. As we've just said, the success of any movement depends on the strength of its grassroots political support.

And in this second part of our portrait series, Sugetta attends a pro-choice rally while Darrell Miller makes friends at the Rite of Life Convention workshops. There were readings today on case histories of women that have had abortions in the last month, here at the abortion clinics in the city. They're very dramatic showing some of the needs that women have to have abortion safe and legal. Here a group of great many of men and women, and there's a lot of children that were just here for lunchtime, listening to what was going on, and they applauded greatly when it was over, I feel that it showed a momentum of people that totally agree with this point of view. So is a random crowd, or people who came here specifically for this, would you say? I think it was totally random. I believe people should have the right to make their own decisions, especially the important matter like this. Okay. What about you? I agree. I think it is a moral issue. I think people should have their own viewpoints and their own choices in matters such as that. I mean, in some cases, I'm against it, in some cases, I'm a board, but as a whole, I

think they should be allowed to make their choice. I think abortion is nothing more than a euphemism for murder. It is a capital crime, it should not be allowed to take place. And I think that anyone who I don't really can understand how anyone can see abortion is anything other than murder. One of your wife was raped in Pregnant. How would you feel about that? I think both my wife and agree with my wife and I would agree that rather than abort the child, we would, she would carry it and put it up for adoption. As a woman, knowing that that doesn't happen to you, I find that frightening because I think that has to be one of the most frightening things that could possibly happen to a woman. Well, I still disagree with you. Whoever these people are, they're just around here listening. They have a right to their viewpoint. And I think that's part of America, that is American, that you feel your way and I feel my way. I think it's really important. And that's what we're talking about here. Civil rights, a civil issue that I have the right to stand here and speak to you and say, this is how I feel.

It's important. I'm a woman. This is an issue that involves me personally. The people that involved in a pro-life movement are very friendly and, in fact, is one, I went to the IWI meeting a couple years ago in Lexington, Kentucky and the atmosphere was of hostility and hatred and you can almost cut the ear with the hostility and then the very next weekend we went to the right to life convention and everybody was shaking hands and smiling, hugging each other and it was a difference between heaven and hell, almost, the contrast. You know, when the history of our era is written, the age of Auschwitz and Duke involved and the Gulag and when the toll of human suffering is added up, the refugees in Malaysia, in Thailand and the both people that are risking drowning to find a place to survive somewhere, I think the most chilling chapter in the entire book will refer to this society's not just toleration

of abortion, but it's justification and it's justification by even the elect. Really, really takes an effort not to be bashed. You almost got to force yourself to look at the other side and it's helped a hard sometimes enough. And I think when you talk to people, you got to think these people in these terms. Sometimes I get a little frustrated when I can't find the right answer that I'm looking for. I feel kind of weak sometimes when I see these other people get out and they can spill off the words and they can speak real well and maybe they can't quite get the words of that mispronouncement or not quite get the right word. I might think about two weeks ago, I shouldn't have said that, I didn't have to write words. That's one of the reasons we come to these conventions to try to update our vocabulary and our terminology so that we do feel more comfortable discussing the issue. In case you've just joined us, we're broadcasting live from Cincinnati, Ohio, a documentary on abortion, the right to life versus the right to choose.

Coming up, William Russia, publisher of the National Review, and Boston Globe reporter Ellen Goodman in a debate on the proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. Later, we'll examine the social, religious, and political issues surrounding the abortion controversy. Also, we'll be following the millers and the getties, two families for whom the issue of abortion has touched on a personal level. Pro-choice advocates are trying to change the Constitution to ban abortion. Conservative publisher William Russia hails this so-called human life amendment, but commentator Ellen Goodman does not. I would certainly favor legislation or constitutional amendment for that matter, that in the average and typical case prohibited abortion. Now, as I said, myself would think that where the mother's life is endangered, that the abortion would be both moral and legally, it should be legally justifiable.

In some of the other cases, again, I think there was room for compromise and consideration. In the average, typical case, the mother just doesn't want the baby. Some women feel that enforcement of an abortion law would be an invasion of privacy. I take it that we would be, in one way or another, seeking to prevent illegal abortions. And I say that is true. I think there would be, to some extent, an invasion of the woman's privacy, although I guess what I was adding was the irony that the woman herself seems to be invading, in a sense, the privacy of the growing life within her. And nobody objects too deeply to that. One of the most attractive parts of the conservative philosophy in this country is the right of the individual to make their own choices about their life free from government interference. And on the other hand, there is building a coalition between the anti-abortion people and the conservative right-wing forces in this country.

But the right-to-life amendment would precisely let the government invade the home and make decisions for every single family. The government would be deciding whether your 15-year-old child had to give birth to a child. The government would be deciding whether your 50-year-old sister with a failed kidney and seven children had to have her eighth child regardless of her health. The government would be deciding whether a family, which had given birth to several births defective children, had to give birth to the next one. The government would be making a host of decisions, which I feel strongly should be left up to the family. Even before abortions became legal in 1973, women who had money could get them. Low-income women faced either back alley or self-induced abortions, but minority groups have not made abortion a priority, partly because other concerns complicate the issue.

Reporter Beverly Hall took a closer look. The high-demandment cut off 99 percent of the federal funds for abortion. Most of that money went to low-income white teenagers. 48 percent went to minority women, blacks, Hispanics, and Indians. That gives minorities a critical stake in the debate. But it conventions like this, minority faces, this aren't very visible. But elsewhere, minority women are speaking out. Very much against the high-demandment and organizationally, uh, plan parenthood is against the high-demandment because we think that it really sets up a two-class system of medical care in this country, um, basically it cut the heart out of the 73 Supreme Court decision. The lack of abortion services or the lack of abortion rights really pushes people into making the decision of sterilization. At this point in time, when the United States is unwilling to fund abortion services and so that we're not getting any federal dollars for abortion services, they're still funding

sterilization. There's a responsibility on the part of minorities and particularly minority women to bring these issues not only to the attention of the larger overall women's movement, but to bring these issues to the attention of our community and our community leaders. There is no debate in the minority community and the black community, uh, in terms of the pros and cons of these issues. There are other issues as well. Many blacks, especially men, feel that abortion, genocide and forced sterilization are one and the same. Right now, the abortion issue remains within the white middle class. Minorities just aren't pushing very hard. One way or the other on the abortion issue. I'm Beverly Hall for Public Interest Video Network in Cincinnati. As we said before, this being a live broadcast, we want to bring some of this controversy to you live, not just in prepared tape pieces. We're going to continue that with our next two guests.

On my left is Margaret Willis. Miss Willis is chairperson of the Ohio Consumer Education Association, which is a welfare rights organization. She's also a coordinator of the Ohio Poor People's Campaign and she fights for poor people's causes such as adequate housing and health care. She happens to be very angry about, well, what has been happening in the area of abortions. On my right is Jose Grande, who is president of pro-life minorities of California, that's an organization that was formed just last year in 1978. And he represents primarily Mexican, American, Latin and Native American organizations. I sensed a bit of contention when you both sat down, especially on the part of you, Miss Willis. You were so, you wanted to know that to make sure that you had equal time and that Mr. Grande didn't get a moment more than you did. Well, I thought I heard it's a response that he would like to go first and I was just reacting to a women's feminist as equal time for equal rights and that's what it's all

about. It's a constitutional right for a woman to choose what she would like done for the government to decide over her body. And as a minority woman, one of the things that recipients like myself around the country and the nation is having people have meetings, decide things about our choices. I have nothing against pro-life, pro-lifers, but I do have a reason to have pro-lifers decide about how I want to do and make decisions on my life. What can you tell us about what has happened since the High Amendment? I think since there's no government funds for abortions for poor people. I think it's the exploitation of the disinvantage. I think people do that to exploit their own political interests. I think the High Amendment is the mood of the racist attitude this country has given to poor people, not only in the minorities, such as the gentleman on my left or myself on the right. I think it's more of a conservatism, racism, dividing among blacks and minorities and I think the country need to wake up and realize that we are citizens, whether they choose to

decide we are not. And I think that we ought to have a voice in this constitutional amendment. But Mr. Grande also represents minorities for people and I respect that. Can you give us your view, Mr. Grande? Yeah. First, I think you didn't hear. I was just asking what place I would go. I will. I will. I will. I'm glad to be here and I'm glad to say to this country that the pro-life minorities represent the Mexican-American and Indian organizations, which the Indians are not even Catholic. So we are very happy to see that the religious bigotry that is perpetrated here is not simply not true. And please explain that, the religious bigotry. Because they always say that this is a Catholic issue and we are just, we are here not to discuss your side.

My side is a poor person and disadvantaged and religion has to be separated through the state of the Constitution to say that I have a choice and I can't mix religion in my beliefs and I'm not exploring religion, but religion issues, I didn't bring up the religious issues you did. I just want to answer the question if you allowed me to. The abortion issue is not a question of religion, it's a matter of life and death. And I think we should give the opportunity to the unborn child to speak for himself. And for example, here we see the reality. I refuse to have them do that on a side of me because I didn't bring any pictures with me and I refuse to have that show and explain how you feel about your personal point of views. I think I have a right to sit here and debate you, but I will not allow you to discuss with me and show pictures of how you feel as a person. I know that when I have a person that comes to me with rape and have those nightmares, those same nightmares you're trying to exploit to the public, you will not be allowed to do it with me.

Usually the other side usually gets upset when the truth is shown and it's not the matter of truth. We had just have lived the unborn child the opportunity to speak and that's the only picture that I would show to the public. I'm not here to exploit anything but to say that this was a picture of a minority baby who was killed by abortion and in here we are to express to this country that we will oppose abortion funding because it's a systematic way of eliminating poverty by eliminating the poor. I wish we had more time to further debate this but unfortunately we can't. Thank you so very much and we are shortly going to go into our audience, we do have a live audience for this telecast and we're going to have a bit of a discussion with them too. We're, as I said before, we have a live audience for the

evening since this is a live telecast on the subject of abortion and one of the questions that we'd like to have the audience think about and answer has to do with the government's role in the whole area of abortion. I know that some of you have been thinking about it. Do you have a, I do have a concern. My understanding about one of the reasons that there was a revolution and we split away from England was because we wanted religious liberty and it seems to be rather clear that there is an effort to deprive and the point was made by the woman from the welfare

rights organization that she really wanted a right to choose as a woman. She didn't want the government nor a man to tell her what to choose and I would be very interested to know how the governmental issue of separation of church and state can be protected in the proposed legislation that the opposition is thinking about. Any other comments on that? Yeah, we're kind of far away up there. Let's get a microphone closer to you. Yes, first of all, I'd like to answer the question it is on the screen. What is the proper role of government in the abortion question? I think the main question should be what is the proper role of government and the proper role of government is to protect the weak from the strong and the weakest and the least defensive of all children are the unborn children and that is who the government is responsible

to protect. The question that I asked to be addressed is the question of the separation of church and state in America under the Constitution which we formed. Not any other question, it's a simple question of separation of church and state. That must disagree with it's not a question. Would you get close to the microphone and apologize while you disagree? It's not an issue of separation of church and state, it's more an issue of human rights. The government is always involved, the Carter administration is pushing human rights in all other countries but not human rights in this country when dealt with the least able to protect themselves in our whole society. Do you want to make a comment? Would you come over here please? We can't seem to extend that microphone over to you. What did you want to say about it?

I just wanted to say that the proper role of the government is to protect the woman and I think that the woman needs to be protected by being allowed a safe legal abortion, needs to be allowed to use intrauterine devices which the so-called human life amendment would disallow, should be allowed to use birth control pills which that amendment would also disallow. I think that if a woman has no alternative but to use either no method of contraception or an effective method of contraception where we alternative then is a safe, is an unsafe illegal abortion and I think the government needs to protect the woman. Just a few seconds, I think it's interesting the gentleman's comment about human rights when the lady up there was talking about herself as a welfare recipient. The fact is that welfare recipients then are to be disallowed their human rights because they cannot make the decision that other people can and I think that's very interesting.

Thank you very much. We do appreciate the comments from our audience who are here not only to listen to us this evening but also to give their views on the subject of abortion which as you gather is a very controversial one. Having this convention the right to life movement has claimed historical ties to the abolition movement. Some scholars refute the claim. Dr. David Musto for one suggestion might be more accurately compared to the prohibition movement. Wrong and more depends on one's own predilection as to whether it's right or not. And so in a way both the temperance movement and the right to life movement are protests against a decline in visible, clear moral standards that apply to everyone or whether they like it or not. State after state the anti saloon league and other temperance forces would deal directly with politicians in the most practical and skillful way in order to gain their support

for such measures as a local option. So the drama of a reform movement is the pictures that we imagine. It is the color. It is what arrest popular interest but the power of course is in the direct practical political maneuverings and legal maneuverings to achieve a moral end. You have people who deeply believe in what they are doing. There is no financial gain for them in this whatsoever and they are greatly hoping to achieve through legal and constitutional means a general rule which would apply to all people. Abortion is but one issue involving morality and the family that is being debated here in Cincinnati and around the country too.

Sex education and homosexuality have also become entangled in the abortion controversy. Sex education can either be the strength and the help for families being weakened by the kind of assault the families are being weakened by today or it can be the absolute season for abortion but it is up to parents to see what kind of sex education is being given in the school. You can. The separation of church and state published or paid for the federal money is a picture of Mary the mother of Christ with the face of the mad magazine character Alperty Nguyen surrounded by Cherub's with the caption to me that she is pregnant. What? You paid for this trash with your federal money. Sex is a great and moving for us in life and in order to equip people to deal with it it is a good idea for them to know something about it.

Consequently sex education is probably the best road to morality we could possibly choose. What is their goal? What is this human life amendment? The innocence of the fetus is the crusade banner and is the modern day guys for punishing our sexuality and for obstructing our ability to be free in the most fundamental sense and there is no other explanation for foolish lastly being at the right to life convention as an honor gift. We are working for the social, the economic and the moral integrity of the family. I believe that the equal rights amendment takes the rights of the life to be supported by our husband. It takes away the right of a child to have a mother in the home. I look upon the abortion movement as anti-family. I look upon the movement to give homosexuals the same dignity as married couples as basically an anti-family movement.

So we are a pro family. If we lose the abortion issue we are going to lose the contraceptive issue and then what we are going to find are laws being passed that make a fornication or a premarital sex a felony. So what is at stake is not only the right of self-determination of women to be mothers by choice, but it is also our civil and human rights to freedom of religion, to freedom to believe in a different moral system than what the Roman Catholics or other fundamental Christians would have as belief. Now we will return to our portraits, sugetties and the millers with their daughters Marie and Judy. What you should do to my children, you have met them at the Kentucky when you were at that banquet. Right. We had the children at that. She was about six years over the time. Oh, hi. I was so impressed with Kentucky and South Dakota in the different states. We were really impressed.

Well I was impressed with how many people came as families. The children are capable of learning. They see the picture of the baby and they understand it, they see the picture and their mind isn't filled with a lot of reasons that the pro abortionists give for abortion being a good thing to do and they see it as a baby and they say, why can't that baby that? Oh, we've been taking them to the banquet with us every year. Judy's been going since she was six. Some people try to hide the ugly pictures from their children. But Judy is 10 now. She's been looking at them since she was six and she doesn't seem to be harmed anyway. I haven't seen any harm that has come to her and she is very well educated on the subject and she has been able to talk intelligently with some of her friends that were really surprised as she knew as much as she did. They went to camp like summer and two of the girls that they were rooming with were for abortion. But they didn't even know what an abortion was and when Brian Judy explained to him what an abortion was and what it did to the baby.

It wouldn't remind my religion that motivated me or what was happening to the baby or motivated me. If it was just a religious issue, I don't think I'm going to be in it. I don't think I can be in a civil right issue. And in some moral issues because law is based on a rat, it makes it the way the legal protection of the unborn. The human eye for amendment is really not changing anything. It's just putting the Constitution back to where it should be. It's the courts who have misinterpreted the Constitution. They've put something in the Constitution which shouldn't be there and we wouldn't have to do it if they hadn't done it. We'll be walking through the downtown area to the St. Peter and Chains Cathedral and we will be affixing on the door a proclamation of religious freedom. It would seem like the right place to be protesting is it really the Catholic Church is so instrumental in all this dispose?

Yes, this is one of the big places that one has to go because you're talking about denial of rights and a great deal of that comes from a religious morality. If you don't get your morality from religion, where do you get it? All of us, our morality has to come from within. My neighbor next door who's becoming a good friend of mine, very much shares my viewpoint and she happens to be a Catholic woman who has five children. It's very nice to have someone so very close to discuss the issue. It's difficult to pull away from something that you thought was truth even though I figured out in my own mind that this really was not truth for me. I couldn't have an abortion. I don't know at which time it's right or wrong. In your gut you just... No. Care. No. I think my whole internal consciousness would say, you can't do that, but there came a point when I realized that I do have a spirit within me and that I can tap into this and

I can make my decisions and I don't have to go out there and say, hey doctor, what should I do? Hey psychiatrist, what should I do? Hey priest, what should I do? I found that I could find answers within myself. Not instant answers. I had to search for them, think them through, feel them and come to conclusions on my own. And my conclusion is that abortion is not murder. Those people who are knowledgeable have such very opinions about it. Someone who is a theologian is going to have very opinions about it. I don't think any of them know, no matter how knowledgeable they are. I'm sitting here signing myself to it. Yes, yes, yes, and it makes me feel good. I like hearing it from someone I know and I like it and I really love what people agree with.

I'll find myself often in the company of those who don't. Aside from questions involving health and constitutional law, the abortion debate centers on sharp differences between religious denominations, most active and most visible is the Roman Catholic Church. We asked reporter Joe Fenton, himself a Catholic priest, to look into the church's involvement. Many of the demonstrators here at this right-to-life rally are Catholics. Official policy of the American Catholic bishops encourages their participation in pro-life activities. I talk to father Edward Bryce who speaks for the bishops on abortion issues about Catholic involvement in the right-to-life movement. Roman Catholic Church, at least, at the level of its hierarchy as far as their statements and at the level of its membership by looking at the numbers of people who are active in one or another aspect of pro-life movement that I would say it's a significant involvement.

I would say that as far as the hierarchy is concerned, they recognize the position of protection for the unborn as a gospel value. Some bishops question certain aspects of the church's alliance with right-to-life activists. I would say that sometimes what I feel very bad is when we speak with an un-Christian voice on a Christian object, when we become personal in our attack upon other people. I think when our approach to this becomes less than Christian, then our whole religious basis for our approach is less credible. I'm just saying some individuals in the movement who may be very emotional in their rendering sometimes make statements that are difficult for any person to support.

And it's vicious and it's leadership. Attorney Ron DeCopeland also says abortion is a religious question. She is concerned about the political impact of the Catholic bishops' pastoral plan. Basically, it says we are going to create a network of activist pro-life groups in every parish linked together in every congressional district and what we are going to say is that abortion is the one issue and that candidates I have to know that they will win or lose on that question. And the church has been politicking on that question in carrying out that plan and I think that that plan was the beginning of really the development of the right to life in this. Some Catholics are also in their position to the bishops' right to life stand. Again and again, we have to repeat and insist with these bishops that what they have done, we will forgive, God will forgive.

And they will only now answer to their gospel and to their people. They must no longer leave their women to die and lobby for that death to be public policy. They must, and I ask you all to insist that they change, they must now speak the truth that frees. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, amen. How many American Catholics do you believe share your view? Well the latest statistics say 50% explicitly support the Supreme Court decision. Now that's pretty incredible. I don't know whether you get 50% of Catholics degree on anything, any specific point of public policy. The role of the Catholic Church in the right to life movement is significant. And although Catholics are not unanimous on this issue, the church is clearly providing much of the momentum in the politics of abortion. Abortion, illegal issue, a medical issue, and a moral issue is now a political issue changing the shape of politics in America.

It's become an unavoidable issue for candidates for public office, even the highest public office. President Carter has found himself under intense pressure from Catholic bishops during the 1976 campaign. And the abortion issue has not gone away for President Carter as reported now by David Ensor. Abortion is not a comfortable issue for politicians, it's difficult to find middle ground, and yet the passion of both sides requires that candidates for President take a stand. And doing so means losing votes from one side or the other, it's a no-win situation. Candidate Carter looked for middle ground, he came down against abortion but with a caveat. I'm stronger against abortion, but I don't favor constitutional amendment on the subject. He told reporters he got more mail on the issue of abortion during the campaign than on any other subject. Once elected, Carter picked a man who shares his view to be Secretary of Health Education and Welfare, the federal department that had, until then, paid for many abortions. Joseph Califano, who is Catholic, said that he personally believes abortion is wrong.

Basically, Carter's cutback of the number of federally funded abortions is in response to Congress, the courts, and the growing power of the anti-abortion movement. If the other side were to gain influence and win some victories, the President would probably move in the other direction, despite his personal opposition to abortion. Jimmy Carter is a politician. He knows that on something as emotional as the abortion issue, it's safest to go quietly with a side that seems to be winning. I'm David Ensor at the White House for the public interest video network. In the media age, supporters of causes have learned to command attention by using visible signals, symbols, I guess I'm trying to say, and sometimes by disruptive tactics. These strategy of the civil rights activists in the anti-war protestors of the 60s has spread. In the 70s, it is more middle class groups who've adopted similar strategies, farmers with their tractors, and anti-abortion groups targeting abortion clinics. There have been unpleasant scenes at clinics in various states.

There was one here in Cincinnati yesterday morning. On their convention side across the river from Cincinnati, 50 demonstrators, among them, Sean Morton Downey, who was the right-to-life presidential candidate, came to the Margaret Sanger Clinic, waiting for them at the clinic or pro-choice defenders. We will challenge the conscience of those who are killing one of those. I'm there because babies are dying there. As far as the radicals are concerned in the 60s, I think I probably have more of an understanding now of why they did what they did and why they had to do it. I have always said that I would never deny anyone the ability to demonstrate their feelings or to pick it or whatever, and I've said that publicly when the picketers begin to harass

other people, then they are infringing upon their rights and their access to services. We're going to walk right up to the front of the clinic and we're going to have a silent video that will be no shouting at them, no calling them names. Not the church, not the state, women must decide their faith, not the church, not the faith. We have a silent video that will be no shouting at them, no calling them names. Women must decide our faith, not the church, not the state, women must decide our faith.

We are talking about attention-getting tactics, perhaps one of the most serious attention-getting tactics has been actual attacks on abortion clinics. Bill Bader who's here with me is a longtime pro-choice activist, he's the owner of an abortion clinic in Hempstead, Long Island, a clinic that was destroyed by fire in February 1978. Here, another dimension is Paul Brown, director of the Life Amendment Political Action Committee called LAPAC, supports the pro-life congressional candidates, is also involved in Shorn

Morton Downey's campaign for president on the Democratic ticket as I understand it. Let me ask you first, Mr. Brown, how far should a movement which will be the self-right party? How far should it go towards violence to make its point? I don't think we should have any violence. I encourage sit-ins, I encourage pray-ins by the people who want to stop the violence inside the clinic. So far as any other violence, we're certainly opposed to that. The only thing we do is we vote. Do you respect property rights? Totally respect property rights, but we also respect the right of the life, the child, to have his chance to life, and by sitting in and by praying in if somebody wants to do that. We think that's just a wonderful thing to do. It's bad you want to talk about your property rights? Sure do, I want him to know right off the bat, he does that to be an all-right war. I have turned the cheek for the last time that fire bombing was only this year, three months ago, one of the anti-abortion people saw fit in the name of his god, to walk in

with a gallon of gasoline, throw it on our patients, throw it on the wall, then throw it torch on it, igniting it, destroying a $100,000 clinic, but also putting the lives of 50 people in jeopardy where they could have been cremated. So I'm sorry if you noticed, Mr. Brown, under no condition we dare tolerate your invading private property, jeopardizing the lives of a staff while you're so-called citizens, which indeed are violent enough, the abuse and the heckling of patients endure, we will no longer tolerate. So let today be the day that you hear that, Mr. Brown. I think about running out of time, I think what's left belongs to you. First of all, to say whether or not you have not said you condoned. We oppose the citizens, we take our violence, the action we take is at the ballot box. We've been successful in 1978, we'll be successful in 1980. We approve the point that the public is with us, we will vote our rights. We have the right to vote and the babies have the right to life, and I can assure you we'll do very well about that.

How about the march on the Margaret Sanger Clinic, do you then find that improper? I wasn't at the Margaret Sanger Clinic. I'm involved in political action and we're more interested in elections, electing people to office. I have a feeling we haven't settled this issue, but we've not settled any issue today, so why should this be different, Murray? No, we have not settled any issues. We're also going to, well, we've been talking throughout the program about the getties and the millers, and we're going to see more of them. So now we are going to go into the streets and go down to the Serpentine Hall, and we're going to have a really big round of applause.

For the limited time in three centuries, we have we stand to life, to the right of women and for loss in freedom and not in sorrow and to bear children in joy and not in sorrow and to be a legacy of life for the women and men who will come from our world. Thank you. We the officers are in every opinion poll, we are the majority We, the majority of the American people, feel that a woman has the right to and her choice for an abortion under very circumstances. Every poll is showing. I am part of it. We are the majority. I think it is more than anything. What do I hope in this? I hope that the press has picked up enough that the real story is going to be out. The real story is showing both sides for what they stand for.

Well the pro-choice, I know that is a word that is the camouflage, where are they choosing? They are choosing to kill. They never finish the statement. God says I shall not kill and I believe in God and I wish rather believe God than some of the tales that I should tell my own child and he knows what is this for us. I know what is either life or death and there is no end between on abortionist or either going to be pro-life or already other side of it. I was going to join the Sierra Club, but the Sierra Club is for abortion. I can't work with them when they are for abortion. You have your ups and downs and all the moments and this is one of the ups.

If you only issue that would bring this type of people together, other issues like the anti-war issue are already involved in it, but this is so strong and emotionally it bonds these people together. That gives you a new surge of energy to go out and do some more because all the people and all the enthusiasm gets your adrenaline going and wants you to stay out of it. I really do hope that not go up with the abortionist stop. We are certainly appreciative to Sugettis and Carol Miller for letting us invade their private lives for the portraits that we have shown during this program, but I have a question. Here you are. There are some similarities between you, your wives, your mothers, your political activists, your career women. How does it happen that you are completely in opposite sides? Either one of you have a theory about that?

Sure. I think that is part of what this country is all about. We are made up of so many different people with so many different viewpoints. I am sure she probably agree. There are just lots of different people and you can be similar or be different. That is just part of life. Do you concur with that? Well, I do believe that we are different people, but I do think we ought to take life into consideration every life that we shouldn't just consider our own life, but we consider every life that comes into our existence, even our unborn children. Does it bother you not to hear that kind of talk? Oh, heavens no. I have reiterated and feel so very strongly about that. What we are talking about is just freedom of choice. She has a freedom to make the choice and statement, etc. For me, while we have these very great differences, we don't resolve anything either, do we? Well, maybe that is part of life too. In other words, I guess where I come from more than anything, which I have been stressing

is the matter that right to choice on just about anything, it is an issue of freedom to choose what they wish to be given the right to choose. Are they being considered? You want to answer that? Well, I have two lovely children that are here today, and I think there are many children sitting here also. One of the things, the last thing that was just on the tape said, I hope we have no more abortion. That is true. I don't think that either of our sides want the issue, like the issue at all. First of all, I don't feel it should be an issue period. I don't think the government should be in it, but it is a personal, intimate issue. But more than that, I think you have got to remember that the kids, nobody likes the thought of abortions.

What I am trying to say, what we need to do is both of us say here, what we have got to do is come to the conclusion that something must be done about the issue, whether that be family planning or sex education, there has to be a solution here in birth control. Well, again, I do want to thank both of you for letting us have some insight into what you think and how you feel, and I appreciate that. Thank you so very much. So, Gettys and Carol Miller, and now we are going to return to Dan. Dan? Yes, and just for a moment, I will try to say a few words while Marie Torrey makes her way across the set to join me with exchange closing thoughts. While she is on her way, merely let me say that I have personally a dismal sense that this issue has become so polarized that can be only expressed by both ties in terms of two slogans. The slogans never come nearer. You know, in a half, you get a sense of the depth of the polarization without having any idea of how we are going to come out of this split that seems to rend this country.

Don't you agree? Oh, my yes. The other thing about this, me very much, Dan, is that I just have the feeling that some people are involved in this whole issue for the wrong reasons. In other words, it's not because of strong personal convictions, but because of what battling for or against could mean to them either politically or monetarily or whatever it might be. And I hope that perhaps we can see through some of that. But the most serious side of that, I think, is the effect on the politics of this country. It is forcing us into constraints in which politicians can no longer look at large issues, perhaps look one after another at small and very emotional issues of which this is the most emotional. Meanwhile, we've tried to investigate this complex issue from many different points of view. And we hope that we've helped you better understand the subject. I hope you let us know just how you do feel about what you've heard, what you've listened to this evening. And send your comments and queries to public interest video network, which can be reached at post office, box number 19112, Washington DC, 20036.

And now for Daniel Shore and the public interest video network. This is Marie Torrey. Good evening. The sake of ourselves and our daughters to come, it is time for us to join in the right. And you can stand up, pain is worth deciding to defend our home and try to choose all my sisters, dear sisters, these are all we need. I've got a right to live, settle in the baby's voice, and they wrap them in the yard of gold, I've got a right to live, be a hero and I want the leader of a mighty home, I'm

going to have to say I've got a right to live, settle in the baby's voice, and they place his body on the floor, I've got a right to live, tell my farmer that the doctor only needed fun. This program was produced by WCET, which is solely responsible for its content. This program was made possible by a grant from this station and other public television

stations.