Testimony on HB 4603 and SB 395 — Legal Birth Definition Act
Written Testimony of Michigan Catholic Conference
6 May 2003
House Bill 4603 and Senate Bill 395
House Family and Children Services Committee
Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul Long and I am the vice president for public policy at the Michigan Catholic Conference. The Michigan Catholic Conference is the public policy voice for the Catholic Church in this state. We thank you for the opportunity to offer our brief reflections on this legislation.
The sanctity and dignity of human life is a cornerstone of Catholic moral reflection and social teaching and at the heart of the Church’s public policy agenda. Human dignity stands at the heart of every issue we speak to. This is especially true regarding House Bill 4603 and Senate Bill 395. We are grateful to Representative Robertson and Senator McManus for sponsoring these bills.
In the thirty years since Roe v. Wade, the people of the United States have coexisted, always uneasily, with abortion on demand. As mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe, abortions are permitted at any time during pregnancy, for any reason.
Yet in the last several years, the abortion industry has shown itself capable of abusing even this widest of licenses. Public unease with abortion has always been at its most intense over late-term abortions, those in the second and third trimesters. With the late-term method known as partial-birth abortion, which destroys developed children in the very process of live birth, it was inevitable that the limits of public endurance would be reached and exceeded.
Twice before this Legislature has passed bills, subsequently signed into law that would prohibit the partial-birth abortion procedure. In both instances these laws were struck down in federal court after having been challenged by the abortion industry. The most recent of which, Public Act 107, was quite different than the first, quite different than bills that twice passed the United States Congress only to be vetoed by the 42nd President. The decision of the U.S. District Court to strike it down we believed then, and still do to this day was wrongly decided. We still believe that the attorney general should have appealed that decision. Unfortunately, it was not.
House Bill 4603 and Senate Bill 395, however, are different than those that have been referenced. They do not speak to the issue of abortion but to the issue of when a child is legally born. Thus, the appropriateness of these bills before this Family and Children Services Committee. For this Committee has, over the years, sought to protect children in all facets of life to the greatest extent possible. What could be more important than defining birth and protecting children who are in the process of being born?
House Bill 4603 and Senate Bill 395 address the very real need to protect children after they have been partially born. Surely, no reasonable person could disagree, that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of a born person.
These bills are not about banning all abortions. They are not about defining when life begins. They are about defining birth and what the obligation of the state is once a child has been born.
One final point Mr. Chairman, if I may, regarding the issue of finances. Three witnesses stated today that this legislation should not be pursued because it will cost the state money. Government has as its primary obligation the protection of human life. As its primary obligation we would submit that whatever the cost, the price of protecting life is worth every cent.
The Michigan Catholic Conference supports both of these bills and urges approval by this Committee and the full House.
Thank you.
