file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1992: pln-0217.txt --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 2, No. 17 October, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life Issues. Questions to readers and articles for submissions are strongly encouraged. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve (frezza@ee.pitt.edu). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) PROPOSITION 110 - AN ARIZONA CITIZENS' INITIATIVE Here is the text of the initiative Arizonans will be facing on November 3rd. It was put on the ballot by voter petition. I'm sure it would never have reached the ballot via legislature action. I heard on the news once and only once, on the day the petitions were filed, that it had seven times the number of signatures it needed to get on the ballot, but as with all such favorable news, if you don't hear it the first time, you will never hear it again. (Am I cynical or what?) The following is from the study booklet of November propositions handed to me as I left the voting booth at the September primary: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- PROPOSITION 110 OFFICIAL TITLE -------------- A CITIZEN INITIATIVE The Preborn Child Protection Amendment To The Arizona Constitution. TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT -------------------------- Section 1. No public funds shall be used to pay for an abortion, except when that procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. Section 2. No preborn child shall be knowingly deprived of life at any stage of biological development by any person except to save the life of the mother. However, the Legislature shall provide for exceptions only in those circumstances where pregnancy results from an act of either reported sexual assault or reported incest. Section 3. This amendment shall not subject any woman to criminal prosecution or civil liability for undergoing an abortion. Section 4. Any court of competent jurisdiction, upon request, shall appoint a licensed attorney as a special guardian to represent preborn children, as a class, for the purpose of protecting their rights under this amendment from deprivation by any person. Section 5. This amendment shall not affect contraceptives or require an appropriation of public funds. ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ------------------------------- (In compliance with A.R.S. section 19-124) The Constitution of the United States has been interpreted to establish a woman's right to have an abortion, subject to limited exceptions. Proposition 110 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prevent all abortions in this state except to save a woman's life. Additionally, Proposition 110 would direct the Arizona legislature to adopt laws to permit abortions only where pregnancy is the result of reported rape or reported incest. Prop- osition 110 would also prohibit the use of public money to pay for an abortion, unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Proposition would require any judge, upon request, to appoint a lawyer to act as a special guardian to represent "preborn children" in protecting their rights. Proposition 110 states that it "shall not affect contraceptives." Proposition 110 would not subject any woman to criminal prosecution or civil liability for undergoing an abortion. The United States Supreme Court has held that, while a state may in some circumstances regulate a woman's decision about whether to have an abortion, a state may not generally prohibit abortions. The Arizona Constitution also contains a right to privacy. No court has addressed whether this provision in the Arizona Constitution protects a woman's decision to have an abortion. However, the right to privacy has been held to encompass an individual's right to refuse medical treatment. If passed, Proposition 110 would eliminate any argument that the "right to privacy" in the Arizona Constitution protects a woman's choice of whether to have an abortion. However, because the United States Constitution, as presently interpreted, protects a woman's decision to have an abortion, parts of this proposition would not be effective unless and until the United States Supreme Court decides that the "right to privacy" in the United States Constitution does not encompass the right to have an abortion. Other parts of this proposition may become effective immediately. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- What follows this in the booklet, is 11 pages of arguments "for" and "against" the proposition, first by legislative council, and then by various interested persons and organizations, ranging from Crisis Pregnancy Centers, to TV sportscastors, to hysterical members of the League of Women Voters and various "Choice" organizations. Deafeningly absent are any arguments by Arizona Right to Life. I can only guess that they either declined to participate, or were simply not invited. There is some dissension among Arizona pro-lifers as to whether any exception for rape or incest is acceptable. (A point of interest - the Arizona League of Women Voters is such an extremist group, that they made a public declaration this year that they will never again endorse any male candidate for any office. It is such an absurd position, that this is another little news tidbit that was dropped from the public eye like a rock.) - Suzanne Forgach ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) PROPOSITION 110 - THE MEDIA COMMENTARY I'll quote from a recent AP article: "...the Preborn Child Protection Amendment, would amend the state constitution to prohibit all abortions except to save the life of the mother. Although it would allow the Legislature to enact exceptions for rape and incest, opponents say there is no way to guarantee that the Legislature ever would act." There's also a portion that would allow for the appointment of special guardians to protect the rights of preborn children. While the AP reports have only contained the usual amount of slanted verbiage, the headlines by the local press have been ridiculous... quotes of PP folks and so forth. It makes me ill... I wrote 'em a letter on Saturday, not that it will do any good. The League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit to try to get 110 off the ballot, claiming that it violated the statute that says props have to be single-subject (the first part of the prop outlaws the use of state funds for abortion, the second part outlaws abortion). Presumably it was written that way so that even if the second part is found unconstitutional, the first part would stand. Anyway, the court threw it out due, I believe, to either lack of standing or the fact that they waited several months before they filed suit. It should be interesting.... -Gordon Zaft ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) BISHOP SPEAKS OUT ON LEGALIZED EUTHANASIA Dear Brothers and Sisters, There is no nation in the world or state in our union, which legally permits the taking of one's own life, or allows another to assist a dying person to to take their own life. Yet, Proposition 161 on the ballot this Nov. 3, for the state of California, would legalize physician-assisted suicide. The initiative is entitled "Physician- Assisted Death. Terminal Condition." This proposition would violate the most fundamental value of our faith, namely the sacredness of human life. We believe that God grants us a gift of human life, and we are responsible as stewards of this precious gift, and therefore we cannot intentionally take our own life by suicide or take another person's life directly except in circumstances of self-defense, personal, or in some instances, defense of our country. But along with the fact that this proposition contradicts our most cherished human values, it is a poorly crafted law. It "permits" physician-assisted suicide under certain conditions, but the very thrust of the law will certainly move the "permits" to "should" and the "shoulds" to "must". The law would allow any doctor to do the assisting, has no provisions for adequate witnesses to the procedure, fails to provide for the most careful documentation, and, once passed, instantly becomes law and cannot be changed except by a two-thirds majority of both the houses of the legislature. I ask you to consider this legislation carefully and to exercise your voting privilege and obligations in this matter most conscientiously. If your own convictions resonate with the teachings of the church regarding the moral danger of this initiative, please speak to at least five other people you know about the initiative and its damaging impact on the sacredness of human life. In opposing this initiative we likewise dedicate ourselves to prevent people with terminal illness from suffering intolerably due to intractable pain, excessive economic costs, neglect by family or caretakers, or afflicted with a feeling of being a burden to others. We must support the quality care which the terminally ill need: family support, pain control, and the necessary hospital and hospice accommodations, along with adequate medical coverage for all peoples in our state and our nation. With every prayer for you and your families, I remain, Sincerely yours in Christ Sylvester Ryan [Roman Catholic] Bishop of Monterey [California] - Christopher Durham ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) FFL ORGANIZER LOOKING FOR HELP I am trying to start a Feminists For Life chapter in Illinois, so if any readers in Illinois are interested, please contact me: Jennifer Roth - jar41610@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) READER RESPONSES: Contrary to what some say [see v2n16], many pro-lifers oppose direct abortion to save the life of the mother. The reason is that one must not do evil in the hope that good will result. (This is popularly although imprecisely referred to as the end not justifying the means.) I specified "direct abortion" because indirect abortion to save the life of the mother is permitted. Examples are removing the cancerous uterus of a pregnant women even though the unborn baby will die and removing an ectopic pregnancy. In those cases the principle of double effect applies. The death of the baby is a foreseen but unintended side effect of the medical treatment. As any number of pro-life books point out, situations in which a direct abortion is medically necessary to prevent the death of the mother almost never occur, especially with modern medical technology. When pro-abortionists ask if you would permit abortion in the hard cases of preventing the death or the mother or pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, it is helpful to ask them if they would agree to banning all other abortions if exceptions are made for those cases. If they say, no, that indicates that they are just using those hard cases demagogicly for emotional effect. - Marty Helgesen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- RE: v2n16 - ProLife Companies It's Carl Karcher, who, in 1941, started selling hot dogs out of a cart. Thus, Carl's Jr. celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. Karcher is RC by religion, has 12 children, at least one of whom is a priest, and gives generously to conservative and pro-life causes. He is well known for this in Orange County and throughout California. Carl's Jr. is a publicly owned company, but most (or at least a very large portion) of the stock is owned by the family. Their CEO is (was?) Don Karcher (brother of Carl), whom I met at a Junior Achievers meeting, when my son was in that group. Carl's Jr. has no affirmative action program, but if you enter their stores, you'll see people of every race. They treat their employees well, and young people I know who've worked for them are very loyal to the company. Carl's Jr. has been under attack by the radical fringe for years ... I first recall seeing demonstrators in the early 1980s. While waiting in line one day at their store on the UC Irvine campus, I met a bunch of demonstrators accusing Carl's of being anti-female, homophobic, racist, and, silliest of all, "speciest." (That is defined as, I suppose, thinking that your species, Homo sapiens, is superior to other species.) He was accused, among other things, of donating money to candidates who are "anti-woman," i.e., pro-life candidates. Carl's has a store on the UC Riverside campus, where I am on the faculty. There was a serious effort to prevent this by some campus radicals, but it failed ... the company is pretty good at defusing these things, as they seem to know how politics works on campuses. When he arrived on campus to give a talk to a group of business students, demonstrators piled into the room and held up anti-Karcher signs. Carl K. is not really political, and he does not like this, so he left without giving his presentation. One newspaper reporter, at a Carl's that was being picketed, talked to a family inside. No, they didn't know that Carl was a supporter of pro-life causes. But knowing it sure made the food taste better. My family eats there whenever we eat fast food, and we stay away from MacDonalds. I don't know if such a closely held corporation has the capacity to expand to nationwide status without losing their soul, so don't expect them to appear on the East Coast or in Moscow anytime soon. - Larry L. Larmore -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Another for your list must be Domino's Pizza. Monaghan (I think that's how you spell it) the owner has a private chapel at his headquarters in Ann Arbor, MI; he attends Mass daily and is on NOW's list, I think. He's donated to pro-life causes and is active in the effort to build more churches in Africa. -Gordon Zaft ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "What is legally permissible rapidly comes to be seen as morally acceptable" - Cardinal Cahal Daly of Ireland +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 3 - From _The Observer_, newspaper of the Roman Catholic diocese of | | Monterey, California, October 1992 | |QOM- From Catholic World Report, October, 1992. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.