Disclaimer: pages.slu.edu is a service of Saint Louis University, Saint Louis University does not control, monitor or guarantee the information contained in these sites. For more information »
John Danforth, the Attorney General of Missouri from 1969-1977, presumably presented the following speech to a "right-to-life" audience in 1974. The lawsuit Danforth mentions, Rogers v. Danforth, was filed in 1970 and contended that Missouri's abortion law violated the individual protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution. [23] Danforth was ardently opposed to abortion, and also spoke at the October 21, 1973 "pro-life" old courthouse rally (see Document 9). Thus, he did not desire to have Missouri's anti-abortion laws refuted. After Danforth claimed that abortion is not a "religious issue solely," he ended his speech by quoting St. Paul in the Bible.
JOHN C. DANFORTH - Attorney General of Missouri
As your Attorney General I have been in court for, I guess, four years now in a case called Rogers vs. Danforth which is the Missouri case challenging our State Anti-abortion statute. Because I'm a lawyer and because that case is still in court - that is, we are trying to get it into the Supreme Court of the United States - we've appealed it to the Supreme Court of the United States - I don't believe that it is proper for me to make to you or anybody else an emotional speech about a case that is before the Court, except to note that it is the duty of the Attorney-General to defend all Missouri statutes that are attacked on the basis of unconstitutionality, whether he agrees with the statute or does not agree with the statute. I happen to agree with the philosophy behind the Missouri Anti-abortion statute. However, that should be beside the point, in so far as my legal duty is concerned, because it is my responsibility to defend statutes whether I happen to agree with them or not.
Now, when we appealed this case to the United States Supreme Court, I was accused of being involved in something that was simply a delaying tactic in order to keep our Missouri statutue going for a little bit longer. But it was not a delaying tactic, because I think it is unethical for a lawyer to simply have a case in Court in order to delay something. This is not a hopeless case. I believe that we are making profound arguments which should be addressed by the Courts, and what we are seeking to do is what never has been done in any Court before, and that is to present medical evidence which, I believe, if presented to a Court, would demonstrate, quite strongly, that an unborn child is, as a matter of medical fact, human life before it is born.
Now, the odds are against us in this case. Whether we win it or lose it, I do not believe that we should, any of us, engage in emotional attacks against our Courts. We are a people of law, despite what you've been hearing from some others, and it is our duty, I think, to respect the Courts even if we don't agree with them.
Now, when it became known that I was coming down here I received a few telegrams and letters from people who said, "Look, it is your duty to be the Attorney-General, not to speak out and give us your own philosophy on this subject." But, I think, I am more than an Attorney-General.....I am also a man. And, as such, I have my own views. And I believe that abortion is wrong! I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life and, as such, is morally wrong. And, granted that when a person has an unwanted pregnancy it can be a very sad situation for that individual; however, no sadness in any human situation justifies the taking of human life, and that's what's involved.
It has been said that this is purely an issue of the Roman Catholic Church, but this is a solely sectarian matter. I am not a Roman Catholic....I am an Episcopalian, and I believe that abortion is wrong. This is not a Catholic issue solely or a Christian issue solely or a religious issue solely, this is a human issue because what's involved is human life.
Now, if we lose in Court, we have lost the battle but we have not lost the war, because we must still continue to work for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the unborn. And, as part of that effort, we must also work to educate our fellow-citizens, and especially younger people, on the value of human life and the fact that the unborn is human life. And that it is never permissable....it is never a permissable exercise of human freedom...to kill what annoys us and what causes us trouble.
I have received more mail on this issue than I have on any other issue since I have been in public life. And it is clear that there is a great deal of bitterness and hatred and hostility on the part of advocates on both sides. But we are fighting a moral battle. We are standing on principle, and it is a moral principle and, therefore, let's make our case in a moral and decent and humble way. And let us not ourselves, in excesses of zeal, be hateful or nasty to those who disagree with us. We believe they're wrong and we should state that quite forcefully, but let us never do so out of bitterness or hatred.
St. Paul wrote to one of the early churches in the first century, A.D. the following words which I think we might take as our charge in the effort that we are involved in, "Bless those who persecute, bless and do not curse them, rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep, live in harmony with one another, do not be haughty but associate with the lowly, never be conceited, repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of it all. If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: pages.slu.edu is a service of Saint Louis University, Saint Louis University does not control, monitor or guarantee the information contained in these sites. For more information » |