Abortion and Public Policy: Review of U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Teaching and the Future

This paper was presented for publication when Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was pending before the United States Supreme Court. If the Court’s 1973 abortion decisions, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, and the Court’s 1992 re-do of the abortion right in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were to be overruled, in whole or in part, the question of the pro-life movement’s future public policy goal to secure full protection in law for the unborn and all vulnerable human life would need to be reviewed and updated. The paper postulated that a place to start would be to examine the development of U.S. Catholic bishops’ policy on these matters since the 1960s. After such a review the paper concluded with some reflections on a world without Roe and Casey.

Of course, on June 24, 2022, the Court handed down the Dobbs decision in which it held that Roe and Casey should be overruled and that the abortion issue should be returned to the people and their elected representatives for policy determination. The main part of the paper, I believe, continues to serve its purpose well. In the wake of Dobbs, the reflections in the paper’s closing section have been adjusted, even if only in a preliminary way; included are updates to public policy developments as of the June 24 date.

The following comments give special attention to a constitutional amendment. Explicit reference to support for an amendment by the U.S. bishops is found from 1973 forward, with their 1981 congressional testimony expressing support for a specific amendment then under consideration.¹

The Church’s opposition to abortion and promotion of respect for all human life, from conception to natural death, is deeply rooted in the teachings of sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition.² The U. S. bishops’ pastoral concern with these teachings, in its contemporary phase, emerged with its own distinct features in the 1960s and from then to the present day has matured in response to significant moral, social, cultural and legal challenges. The U.S. bishops, in their dioceses and as a national conference, increasingly began to take action and speak out, a process that was intensified in 1973 after the Supreme Court asserted a fundamental right to abortion under the United States Constitution.

Some important teachings related to pro-life policy will be briefly reviewed as they come up in documents but will not be considered in depth, for example, the consistent ethic of life,³ pastoral concerns related to Catholic public officials who support policiespromoting abortion,⁴ or the important question of citizens properly forming their consciences when voting.⁵

Before Roe: 1968 to 1972⁶

The several statements issued by the U. S. bishops during the pre-Roe years clearly and concisely articulate the Church’s teaching in opposition to abortion and set forth this teaching in the context of support for all human life, born and unborn, with specific reference to assisting women with problem pregnancies. The statements especially reflect a growing concern with the push in the public policy arena to go beyond the modification of state abortion laws to their complete repeal, a fundamental change that started in earnest in the early 1960s with the introduction of the first American Law Institute (ALI) model abortion bill in the California legislature.⁷ But only in 1967 did the ALI proposal become law in three states (California, Colorado, and North Carolina), with ten more to follow in short order.⁸ Four states adopted abortion-on-demand policies as such in 1970 (Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington)⁹

Statements during these years include the “Further Threats to Life” section in the American bishops’ Pastoral Letter Human Life in Our Day (November 15, 1968), the NCCB Statement on Abortion (April 17, 1969), the NCCB Statement on Abortion (April 22, 1970), and the NCCB Declaration on Abortion (November 18, 1970).¹⁰

The 1969 statement ended with an expression of confidence that discussion on ethical questions like abortion “will lead to a deeper understanding of the eminent value and inviolability of human life.” With the abortion debate intensifying, the bishops pointed to honest dialogue among reasonable people as the way forward.

It can be argued that the abortion law “reform” movement peaked in 1970.¹¹ As Clarke Forsythe observed: “If the courts had not stepped in, the issue would have continued to be debated in the states, with an eventual resolution in which most states, perhaps, retained their criminal prohibitions but some experimented with broad exceptions.”¹²

The Year of Roe: 1973

In its 1973 abortion decisions the Supreme Court altered the constitutional landscape and the rules of public debate. All state laws restricting or regulating abortion were rendered unconstitutional. A matter that had been the primary responsibility of the legislative branch of government in its policy making role now came under the direct control of the Court. Democratic processes could no longer resolve the issue, short of accomplishing very difficult tasks such as amending the Constitution. It is astonishing that the Court in all this was disposing of the fundamental matters of child bearing and family life, allowing, with governmental approval, the direct killing of innocent unborn human life and treating mothers and fathers as individuals isolated from each other, their offspring, and society.

Statement of the NCCB Committee for Pro-Life Affairs (January 24, 1973)

The U.S. bishops issued at least five statements during 1973, the first just two days after the Court’s Roe and Doe decisions. The statements “were direct, forceful and uncompromising.”¹³

Msgr. McHugh called the January 24 statement a new step for the American bishops, “urging rejection of the law rather than accommodation or toleration.”¹⁴ The Committee made four recommendations:

• “Every legal possibility must be explored to challenge” the Court’s opinions.
• All State legislatures were urged to protect the unborn child “to the fullest extent possible” and “to restrict the practice of abortion as much as they can.”¹⁵
• The Church pledged “all its educational and informational resources” to a program that would present the case for the sanctity of the unborn child’s life.
• The bishops expressed confidence that Catholic hospitals “will do all in their power” to be places “where good morals and good medicine will be practiced,” and that they and the health care personnel “will be identified by a dedication to the sanctity of life, and by an acceptance of their conscientious responsibility to protect” mother and child.

What the Court has done was “bad morality, bad medicine and bad public policy” and “cannot be harmonized with basic moral principles.”¹⁶ The bishops expressed the belief that “millions of our fellow Americans will share our reactions” to the Court’s opinions. The Committee concluded: “We have no choice but to urge that the Court’s judgment be opposed and rejected.”

Pastoral Message of the NCCB Administrative Committee (February 13, 1973)

The NCCB Administrative Committee then held a long discussion on the Court’s recent abortion decisions.¹⁷ In their statement the U.S. bishops again emphasized that the unborn child “is an individual human being whose prenatal development is but the first phase of the long and continuous process of human development that begins at conception and terminates at death.” The Court’s declaration that the life of the unborn child before viability “is not to be considered of any compelling value” and in the subsequent months is “of only questionable value” means the unborn child “will no longer be protected” (emphasis added) under the Constitution. As religious leaders and teachers, the bishops made several pastoral exhortations, including praising the efforts of pro-life groups and other Americans and encouraging them to:

1. “Offer positive alternatives to abortion for distressed pregnant women;”
2. Pursue conscience protection for institutions and individuals;
3. “Combat the general permissiveness legislation can engender;”
4. “Assure the most restrictive interpretation of the Court’s opinion at the state legislative level;”
5. “Set in motion the machinery needed to assure legal and constitutional conformity to the basic truth that the unborn child is a ‘person’ in every sense of the term from the time of conception.” Reversing the Court’s decision and achieving respect for the unborn “will require unified and persistent efforts.” The bishops made an urgent plea: “But we must begin now—in our churches, schools and homes, as well as in the larger civic community—to instill reverence for life at all stages.”

With this Administrative Committee statement, strong policy lines were emerging with ever greater clarity. They would only be more firmly defined as the year progressed.

NCCB Administrative Committee (June 20, 1973)

As 1973 unfolded, the U.S. bishops entered ever more fully into a debate about support for a constitutional amendment. Msgr. McHugh noted that at its June 20 meeting, the NCCB Administrative Committee “engaged in a long and detailed discussion” on the matter.¹⁸ After recognizing that amendments can be proposed either by Congress or by a constitutional convention, Msgr. McHugh continued: “Primary emphasis was given by the bishops to urging Congressional adoption of a specific amendment at this time, although from 1976 on, many pro-life groups also worked toward the calling of a Convention.”¹⁹ Twenty states issued such a call.²⁰

Msgr. McHugh observed that the bishops were under pressure to favor a particular amendment. They faced two questions: (1) how to formulate an amendment that was completely consistent with Catholic teaching, “that is, admitting no exceptions,”²¹ and (2) “how to avoid having such an amendment rejected as an attempt to force Catholic morality on the nation and thus become a divisive force among pro-life groups.”²²

At the conclusion of their debate, the Administrative Committee “voted to publicly endorse amending the Constitution without specifically supporting any particular amendment,” and to use proposals from the USCC Committee on Law and Public Policy to evaluate amendments submitted to Congress.²³

Statement of the NCCB Administrative Committee (September 18, 1973)

In a formally approved statement, the Administrative Committee affirmed “its commitment to a constitutional amendment in defense of unborn human life.” Abortion involves fundamental questions of morality and transcends the law, yet a constitutional amendment “is now the only viable means to correct the disastrous legal situation created by the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion.” Practical actions were advanced:

• The bishops commended the many members of Congress who had sponsored “numerous pro-life amendments” and urged early hearings in the Senate and House.
• The bishops recognized the need for grassroots organizations on behalf of an amendment. Local action represented an essential service, achieved, for example, through public information programs, contacts with members of Congress, and encouragement to state legislatures to petition Congress on behalf of an amendment. “Men and women of good will, regardless of creed, who support the cause of human life must prepare now to make an effective, united, long-term effort.”

The Administrative Committee acknowledged that the U.S. bishops’ conference was now studying the complex issues related to an amendment. “At present we do not single out any specific pending amendment. Our detailed views regarding the wording of an amendment will be stated at an early date, in the context of congressional hearings or some other appropriate forum.” The immediate concern was that Congress take action on this matter and that pro-life individuals and groups “prepare now” for the action necessary “to win congressional approval and ultimate ratification of an amendment.”

The NCCB Resolution on the Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment (November 13, 1973)

The discussion surrounding a constitutional amendment continued into the November 1973 Administrative Committee meeting and the U.S. bishops’ fall general meeting. “Clearly the majority of the bishops were strongly in favor of stating support for a constitutional amendment, but there was still considerable debate about endorsing any specific amendment.”²⁴

In their Resolution on the Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment the body of bishops recalled that throughout 1973 the bishops’ national conference had repeatedly expressed opposition to the Court’s abortion rulings. The decisions must be reversed. “The only certain way to repair effectively the damage perpetrated by the Court’s opinions is to amend the Constitution to provide clearly and definitively a constitutional base for legal protection of unborn human beings.” The bishops continued: “We wish to state once again, as emphatically as possible, our endorsement of and support for a constitutional amendment that will protect the life of the unborn.” They reaffirmed the September 18 statement by the Administrative Committee, which urged Congress to hold hearings and pass a pro-life amendment.

The bishops reminded “our people” that passage of the amendment will require “concerted and continued efforts” to convince Congress and the public of the amendment’s “absolute necessity.” They were forthright on the need for action: “In all of this, well-planned and coordinated political organization by citizens at the national, state and local levels are of highest importance. Our system of government requires citizen participation, and in this case, there is a moral imperative for political activity.” (Emphasis in original).

The bishops commended and encouraged pro-life groups that had already initiated programs of political action.²⁵ Without specifying a particular amendment, they urged “continued and unified” efforts toward convincing Congress to hold hearings. The bishops invited the collaboration of other religious leaders in pursuing passage of an amendment.

In conclusion the bishops expressed the wish to make it clear “beyond doubt” that they considered the passage of a pro-life constitutional amendment “a priority of the highest order,” a priority “to which we are committed by our determination to uphold the dignity of the human being and by our conviction that this nation must provide protection for the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all human beings, before as well as after birth.”

The statement was short, firm, and clear.

By the end of 1973 the U.S. bishops had laid the foundations for all future action and for what would become the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities.

Intense Debate in Congress, and Approval of Long-Term Plan: 1974 to 1983

Testimony of USCC on Constitutional Amendment Protecting Unborn Human Life before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (March 7, 1974)

This testimony represented the U.S. bishops’ most extended statement on abortion up to that time in the ongoing debate. By the submission of their testimony the bishops were participating in the democratic process. As moral teachers they intended to articulate “their reasons and the bases of their reasons for legally protecting the unborn” (Introduction).²⁶

The testimony had six sections: the scientific evidence underpinning the human dignity of the unborn child from fertilization, the protection of human rights in law, development of the rights of the unborn in American law, a critique of the Court’s opinions in Roe and Doe, a proposal for a constitutional amendment, and concluding remarks.

In the section on a constitutional amendment the bishops singled out two essential goals: reverse the Court’s decisions, and provide a constitutional basis for the legal protection of the unborn. “After much consideration and study, we have come to the conclusion that the only feasible way to reverse the decision of the Court and to provide some constitutional base for the legal protection of the unborn child is by amending the Constitution.” Passing an amendment “is a moral imperative of the highest order.”

At this point in the developing debate on a constitutional amendment, the bishops described the “so-called ‘states’ rights’ approach” as unacceptable. Simply leaving the recognition of the unborn child’s right to life as optional for each state “is repugnant to one’s sense of justice.” Further, the Court’s removal of the unborn child from the protection of the United States Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn child now be restored and affirmed through an amendment. “Federal constitutional rights, improperly, but substantially denied, must be substantially affirmed.”²⁷

Even so, the bishops commended the Senators for the various amendment proposals they had sponsored. They recognized that the purpose of these hearings was to assist the committee in formulating precise language to be brought before the Senate. At this time, the bishops wanted “to articulate the values that we believe should be encompassed by an amendment,” and, they added, “we hope to provide a more detailed legal memorandum at a later date.”

The bishops presented four points that “any consideration of a constitutional amendment” should include:

1. “Establish that the unborn child is a person under the law in the terms of the Constitution from conception on.”
2. “The Constitution should express a commitment to the preservation of life to the maximum degree possible. The protection resulting therefrom should be universal.”
3. “The proposed amendment should give the states the power to enact enabling legislation, and to provide for ancillary matters such as record-keeping, etc.”
4. “The right to life is described in the Declaration of Independence as ‘unalienable’ and as a right with which all men are endowed by their Creator. The amendment should restore the basic constitutional protection for this human right to the unborn child.”²⁸

The bishops placed their emphasis on affirming the right to life of the unborn child in foundational United States law. The focus now was on what was needed to begin the process to achieve this. As the debate matured, the prospects for developing and clarifying strategic paths would evolve. “However long the road,” the bishops stated in their concluding remarks, “we must begin now with what is the necessary first step, the enactment by Congress of an appropriate constitutional amendment.” 

Ideally, as the bishops expressed here, passage of an amendment would come at the beginning of the broad historical project to protect unborn and all other vulnerable human life, laying the proper foundation for the necessary follow-up actions, but just as well it could come in the middle of the process, or even at the end as the summation and affirmation of all that has gone before.

The NCCB Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities (November 20, 1975)

In May 1975 Cardinal Terence Cooke, Archbishop of New York, became the new chair of the Ad Hoc Committee for Pro-Life Activities, a position he held until his untimely death October 6, 1983.²⁹

In August 1975, the Ad Hoc Committee, under the leadership of the Cardinal, held a series of regional meetings to consult with the U.S. bishops “on anti-abortion strategies and to inform them of the effort to obtain a constitutional amendment.”³⁰ As a result of input from the bishops at these meetings, the Committee decided to propose a plan “that would unify existing efforts, encourage people to continue what would be a long-range effort, and give direction to agencies within the Church.”³¹ At its September meeting the Administrative Committee approved the development of such a plan and its presentation for adoption at the November 1975 General Meeting. A draft was mailed to the bishops a month in advance for their comments. An extensive discussion of the draft document took place at the November Administrative Committee meeting. After further discussion, the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities was adopted with a unanimous voice vote at the fall General Meeting.³²

The Pastoral Plan was re-issued with updates November 1985, and re-issued with further updates November 2001.

With its primary purpose as programming direction, the 1975 Pastoral Plan sought to activate the full pastoral resources of the Church in three areas: education, pastoral care, and public policy. The Plan called upon all Church-sponsored or identifiably Catholic national, regional, diocesan and parochial organizations and agencies to pursue the three-fold effort. Special emphasis was placed upon dialogue and cooperation, not only within the Church but in various forms of outreach into society—in professional fields, academia, and interfaith relations.

The Plan stated upfront that the most effective, and thus most important, structures for implementation are in the diocese and the parish.

The broad outline of the three program areas can be described as follows. The educational effort was to be directed both to the general public and to the Catholic community. Pastoral care encompassed three facets: moral guidance and motivation, service and care for women and unborn children, and reconciliation. In its turn, the public policy program had four must-include elements:

• “Passage of a constitutional amendment providing protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.”
• “Passage of federal and state laws and adoption of administrative policies that will restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible.”
• “Continual research into and refinement and precise interpretation of Roe and Doe and subsequent court decisions.”
• “Support for legislation that provides alternatives to abortion.”

The first element affirms the commitment of the U.S. bishops to passage of a human life amendment protecting the life of the unborn child. As Msgr. McHugh stated: “These priorities, unified and formalized in the Pastoral Plan, had been enunciated separately in earlier statements.”³³

Pursuing these public policy goals would require well-planned and coordinated action by all citizens at the national, state, and local levels. As religious leaders the bishops “see a moral imperative for such political activity.”

In a final part of the Pastoral Plan, the bishops addressed the Means of Implementation. With accompanying descriptions, they urged the establishment of the State Coordinating Committee, the Diocesan Pro-Life Committee, and the Parish Pro-Life Committee; and they addressed the pro-life effort in the congressional district. In all this the bishops’ Pro-Life Office and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment³⁴ are resources for and partners with the local church, with specific reference to the Diocesan Pro-Life Committee. These structures and relationships are reaffirmed in the two subsequent updates of the Pastoral Plan.   

The focus of the effort in the congressional district was to be the passage of a constitutional amendment. If members of Congress are to be persuaded to vote in favor of an amendment, “it is absolutely necessary to encourage the development in each congressional district of an identifiable, tightly-knit and well-organized pro-life unit.” Such a unit “can be described as a public interest group or a citizens’ lobby.” Its task is to organize people to persuade their elected representatives; its activity is focused on passing a constitutional amendment. The congressional district unit “is an agency of the citizens, operated, controlled and financed by these same citizens.” The bishops emphasized that it is “not an agency of the Church, nor is it operated, controlled, or financed by the Church” (emphasis in original)³⁵

The Pastoral Plan took care to define with some detail 12 program objectives of the congressional district group, for example, “To conduct a continuing public information effort to persuade all elected officials and potential candidates that abortion must be legally restricted,” or “To persuade all residents [in the congressional district] that a constitutional amendment is necessary as a first step toward legally restricting abortion,” or “To enlist sympathetic supporters who will collaborate in persuading others,” or “To work for qualified candidates who will vote for a constitutional amendment, and other pro-life issues.” These activities can be generated and coordinated “by a small, dedicated and politically alert group.” Some financial support will be needed but the “greatest need is the commitment of other groups” who realize the importance and potential of these activities and the absolute necessity of working together.

By specifying the objectives of the citizen group in such detail the bishops were indicating that the challenges arising from a permissive abortion policy were enormous but can and should be met. The process of restoring respect for human life at every stage “may be demanding and prolonged,” but it is an effort “which both requires and merits courage, patience, and determination.” The U.S. bishops expressed an awareness of the importance of this moment in history. “In every age the Church has faced unique challenges calling forth faith and courage.”

Testimony of USCC on Constitutional Amendments Protecting Unborn Human Life before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary (March 24, 1976)

The 1976 testimony builds on the earlier 1974 testimony, which was again submitted for the record. In five main sections the U.S. Catholic bishops explored ways the Court’s permissive abortion rulings were producing serious harm to the country. The bishops discussed the law and the incidence of abortion, the social implications of permissive abortion, threats to the lives of children, the impact of Roe and Doe on American life and law, the issue of religious freedom, and a concluding section on the need for a constitutional amendment. The bishops presented these reflections “as evidence of the breakdown of commitment to human rights, particularly the right to life, and as reasons in favor of an amendment to the Constitution that will protect human life at every state of existence . . .” (Introduction).

Support for an amendment was seen as growing. An analysis of public opinion polls showed that opposition to abortion on request has continued despite Roe. A De Vries & Associates poll published February 1975 affirmed that the majority of Americans were opposed to the abortion policy established by the Court.³⁶ Also, legal scholars, including some who favored a permissive abortion policy, increasingly opposed “the substance and the legal methodology” of Roe and Doe (Introduction).

In their concluding section the bishops acknowledged that before the Judiciary Committee were a large number of amendment proposals that express “fundamentally different approaches to protecting unborn life.” One category provided full constitutional protection for all human rights of the unborn and a second category essentially restored to the states the power to prohibit, restrict or regulate abortion. “However, this so-called ‘states rights’ approach does not require any state to enact a law, it does not create a model, and it is unlikely to achieve uniformity in the various states.”

The bishops then observed that a new formulation had been proposed “that explicitly affirms that the state shall have the power to protect all human life, including that of the unborn.” Unlike the states’ rights approach, this amendment “positively affirms the value of unborn human life, thereby creating a predisposition in favor of protecting such life.”

The bishops did not cite or name this new amendment formulation. The assumption is they were referring to the proposal drafted by John Noonan.³⁷

The bishops noted that they have repeatedly urged “the passage of a human life amendment,” adding, “and we restate that policy today.” They continued to decline to endorse any specific amendment. They recalled their 1974 testimony in which “we suggested four principles that we believe should guide the legislative process in formulating an amendment” to protect unborn human life. They restated “these four points” verbatim. The bishops were aware “that considerable controversy has raged” on the acceptability of the various amendment proposals. In the interest of protecting the fundamental right to life of all, the bishops strongly urged the Subcommittee to “approve and recommend” an amendment that embodies the values expressed by the four principles. 

By appearing before the subcommittee the bishops “take responsibility for being part of the legislative process,” something they viewed as a dialogue, a dialogue that is “based on fundamental principles of morality and law,” “that must take into account the destruction of the lives of almost one million unborn children each year,” “that carefully defines any possible conflict of fundamental human rights,” and “that admits and states the reasons for the limits of law in protecting fundamental human rights.”

The bishops said that the dialogue was not well served by the Senate Subcommittee’s failure in its September 17, 1975 closed markup votes to support any of the amendments it had under consideration. Also the subcommittee chairman’s explanation of what occurred “was deficient.” It failed to address the “substantive strengths and weaknesses of the various proposals,” or to give “reasons for refusing to recommend any of those proposals to the attention of the full Committee.”

The bishops reiterated that they testified because “we respect the democratic process.” They have submitted principles that agree with moral values and the Constitution, “and remain unconvinced by the arguments against protecting unborn human life.” They urged the subcommittee to approve “a constitutional amendment that restores the protections of the Constitution to the unborn, and provides for a legal structure that will specifically protect human life at every stage of its existence.” 

NCCB Testimony before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution (November 5, 1981)

In this testimony the U.S. bishops, when presented by the Congress with the text of a proposed constitutional amendment, formally responded with an expression of support.

Speaking on behalf of the NCCB, Archbishop John Roach and Cardinal Terence Cooke presented testimony with four parts: the human dignity of the unborn child, western traditions on human rights and the unborn child, the legal and social effects of Roe v. Wade, and the issue of law and morality.³⁸

In their introduction the bishops reviewed in summary the testimony submitted in 1974 and 1976. The developments over the past five years “strengthen the case on behalf of an amendment.” They noted that on March 24, 1981 the NCCB Administrative Committee reaffirmed the earlier testimony that the passage of a constitutional amendment is the only feasible way to reverse the Court and to provide a constitutional base for legal protection of the unborn child. 

In their conclusion, the bishops directly addressed the question of a constitutional amendment. After re-stating the four elements of the pro-life legislative program set forth in the 1975 Pastoral Plan, they affirmed that their “highest legislative priority is the passage of a constitutional amendment that will reverse the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions and restore legal protection to the unborn.” They again re-stated verbatim the four guidelines for an amendment first put forward in 1974.

They acknowledged their 1976 testimony on the point that some amendment proposals granting legislative authority to Congress and the states to protect unborn human life (a reference to the Noonan amendment) “were a significant improvement on the ‘states’ rights’ approach.”

Recently the bishops’ Administrative Committee had expressed “great interest” in a new amendment proposal:

Similarly, on September 22 of this year [1981] we expressed great interest in the new ‘human life federalism amendment’ recently proposed by Senator Hatch of Utah, which expressly overturns the right to abortion created by the Supreme Court in 1973 and gives concurrent power to Congress and the states to restrict and prohibit abortion.³⁹

On September 21, 1981 Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) had introduced his Human Life Federalism Amendment (HLFA) (S.J. Res. 110).⁴⁰

In their November 5, 1981, testimony, the bishops again claimed “no special competence at legislative draftsmanship,” offering their guidelines as “contributions to a dialogue.” Members of Congress are considered “the appropriate agents for the actual drafting of an amendment to be presented to the state legislatures.”

That being said, the bishops commented: “We take note of the fact that some recent testimony before this subcommittee indicates a possibility that the establishment of constitutional ‘personhood’ may not be necessary at the present time for restoring effective legal protection to unborn children, and indeed that it could fail through judicial interpretation to provide effective protection.”⁴¹ The bishops added: “We expect that the members of the subcommittee will take expert testimony of this sort into account, and also that they will consider the political possibilities for ratification of the various proposals which confront them.” The bishops’ fundamental commitment as stated in the 1975 Pastoral Plan “is to an amendment which will actually provide the maximum degree of protection for unborn human life that is possible.”

In their dialogue with the Senators at the 1981 hearing both Archbishop Roach and Cardinal Cooke indicated their support for the HLFA, without disparaging other approaches. As Archbishop Roach stated:

It is our belief at this moment, with deep respect for both the initiators and supporters of other amendments, that the amendment we are discussing at this point [the HLFA] is the amendment which we really ought to support.

We are not troubled by other amendments. We feel this is the amendment we want to support at this moment.⁴²

When a Senator asked whether it was correct the U.S. bishops “would ultimately like to have a constitutional amendment declaring a fetus a person from the moment of conception,” Archbishop Roach answered: “Yes; that would be an ultimate hope, correct.”⁴³

The bishops concluded by urging Congress to restore “to our legal system the power to protect human life at every stage of existence.”

In their testimony the bishops referred to effective legal protection. By this time in the debate arguments were being made by John Noonan and others that properly worded “states’ rights” amendments—they would call their proposals life affirming amendments—could in time lead to de facto full protection for the unborn.⁴⁴ These arguments involved their own prudential judgments about what was thought possible. The driving motive was to get Congress at that time to pass some kind of constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe and allow the states and Congress to begin the process of passing laws that de facto protected the unborn.

The concept emerged of pursuing full protection in law for the unborn in stages: first, undo Roe and allow the legislatures the option again to act; second, pass a constitutional amendment explicitly affirming the right to life of the unborn and all other vulnerable human life.

Also in the mix was the role of passing human life bills. As an institution sworn to uphold the Constitution, Congress could pass laws that asserted the right to life of the unborn under existing provisions of the Constitution, especially the 14^th Amendment.⁴⁵

The Court, of course, could strike down such laws as unconstitutional, or it could reconsider its abortion doctrine and uphold such laws.⁴⁶ Once Roe is overturned by constitutional amendment or overruled by the Court, then human life bills also could serve as a second step in the process of protecting the unborn, with a full human life amendment to follow as a third and final step in terms of constitutional law.

In the 1981 testimony Archbishop Roach referred to the prospect of passing a national abortion law following the ratification of an amendment. “When a constitutional amendment is ratified and hearings are held on a national abortion law, we shall again request permission to testify in order to urge Congress to enact laws to protect the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.”⁴⁷

Needless to say, in all this, the strategy of stages to achieve full protection for the unborn, however such might play out, refers to an historical process that could take many years.

As the debate in the early 1980s unfolded the Hatch HLFA would be reduced down to just the first sentence: “A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution.” It would be called the Hatch-Eagleton Amendment. In additional hearings in early 1983 Sen. Tom Eagleton (D-MO) testified that he thought that single sentence plainly reversing Roe had the greatest support in the Senate.  That single sentence was favorably reported by subcommittee and later, though on a tied voted, was sent by the full committee to the Senate floor, where on June 28, 1983, the Senate failed to approve the measure, 49-yes, 50-no, 1-present (2/3rds being required).

The pro-life movement was united in its commitment to provide protection in law for the right to life of the unborn. But the movement was deeply divided on the character of the legislative proposal best suited to achieve this goal. Some were opposed to human life bills as either unconstitutional or, in the face of a predictably negative Court, impractical and a waste of time. Others were adamantly opposed to states’ rights amendments in any form, and, granting the difficulty at that point of passing a constitutional amendment affirming the right to life of the unborn, thought that human life bills were the best option, at least in the short term.⁴⁸ The pro-life movement was strong, but unity was needed to press forward any proposal to protect the unborn. At the conclusion of the 1982 Senate debate on the Hatch HLFA Fr. Edward Bryce, the Director of the U.S. bishops Pro-Life Office, was quoted as stating: “With the support of a united prolife movement, the Hatch Amendment has solid prospects; without such support, its chances are doubtful.”⁴⁹

In the short-term, efforts focused on other strategies, such as appointing new Justices to the Supreme Court, who hopefully would be favorable to overruling Roe, or passing incremental legislation that would promote life values as much as possible and would be the basis for continuing challenges to the Court’s abortion holdings.

Continued Implementation of Long-Term Plan: 1984 to Present

Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities: A Reaffirmation (November 14, 1985)

The re-issued Pastoral Plan reaffirmed the basic program originally set forth, with updates that reflected new challenges and responses over the intervening ten years. The Plan continued to delineate three general program areas: Public Information and Education, Pastoral Care, and Public Policy.

Under public policy, the 1985 Pastoral Plan, like its predecessor, included four elements, but with some refinements in expression, including referring to them as “long- and short-term goals.” 

That each goal has a short-term and a long-term aspect reflects historical fact. The pursuit of a constitutional amendment, by design quite difficult, itself is a goal in which either the short-term or the long-term aspects can predominate, depending on circumstances. The 1985 Pastoral Plan made more explicit what the bishops had always realized, that the passage of a human life amendment and the garnering of the needed public support would involve a long-term process.

Granting the failed 1983 Senate vote on the Hatch-Eagleton Amendment that exposed some deep divisions in the pro-life movement, the revised Pastoral Plan reflected the fact that other goals would become more prominent on the way toward the goal of passing some kind of a constitutional amendment.

For example, the goal of laws and administrative policies was not only to “restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible” but also to “eliminate government support of abortion.” The Plan was reflecting the bruising but effective battle starting in 1976 to pass the all-important Hyde Amendment that set the standard for the government not using tax dollars to pay for abortions. The goal of researching and limiting interpretations of the Court’s abortion decisions was expanded with a reference to the “ultimate reversal of decisions by the Supreme Court and other courts denying the right to life,” here reflecting the new hopes of the Court’s overruling of Roe and Doe and also perhaps a reference to undoing state supreme court decisions interpreting state constitutions to include a right to abortion.⁵⁰ The goal of supporting legislation providing alternatives to abortion was expanded by adding the nuance of supporting legislation “that provides morally acceptable alternatives to abortion,” reflecting concern for specific proposals that had come forward such as massive increases in government contraceptive programs supposedly to reduce “the need for abortion.”

Also, in the section on implementation the goals of the Pro-Life Effort in the Congressional District are expanded to include passage not only of a constitutional amendment but also “other pro-life legislation.”

Resolution on Abortion (November 1989)

This Resolution on Abortion, adopted by the U.S. bishops at their annual November meeting, was issued in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) decision.

The bishops reaffirmed their teaching opposing abortion and upholding the sacredness of all human life, expressing a special plea: “At this particular time, abortion has become the fundamental human rights issue for all men and women of good will.” They also reaffirmed the 1985 updated Pastoral Plan, including the Plan’s long and short range public policy goals, the first of which was the “constitutional protection for the right to life of unborn children to the maximum degree possible.” Public officials, especially Catholics, should advance these goals. The bishops stated the general principle: “No Catholic can responsibly take a ‘pro-choice’ stand when the ‘choice’ in question involves the taking of innocent human life.”

Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics (1998)

In 1995 Pope John Paul II issued his encyclical The Gospel of Life. In 1998 the U.S. Catholic bishops followed up with Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics. In this document the bishops addressed the life issues in broad historical and cultural contexts. Of particular note, they more carefully considered the theoretical framework for the consistent ethic of life and they discussed their responsibility to call all to conversion, including political leaders.

The Gospel of life, as a complement to American political principles, is not “a private piety” but something to be lived “vigorously and publicly” (emphasis in original) or “or we will not live it at all” (20). But bringing this message to practical politics “can be a daunting task” (21). Good people will disagree on some specifics. But there is a basic principle for all: “We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem” (emphasis in original) (Id.). No direct abortion. No euthanasia or assisted suicide. No direct attacks on innocent civilians in time of war. Today capital punishment “is unnecessary to protect people’s safety and the public order, so that cases where it may be justified are ‘very rare, if not practically non-existent’” (Id.).⁵¹

The Church upholds a consistent ethic of life, seeking to protect human life from beginning to end. The full range of issues that Catholics should engage and public officials must address include poverty, violence, injustice, war, capital punishment, racism, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. “Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference” to these concerns. “But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life” (emphasis in original) (23). The bishops explained the relationship in this way:

If we understand the human person as the “temple of the Holy Spirit”—the living house of God—then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation” (emphasis in original) (Id.).

Pope John Paul II referred to the command never to kill as a minimum. A “‘yes’” said repeatedly “‘will gradually embrace the entire horizon of the good’” (emphasis in original) (Id.).⁵²

The consistent ethic of life requires all Catholic believers to engage our culture of democratic pluralism with the fullness of the faith. It is a serious mistake to restrict religious beliefs to the personal realm, as when politicians say “they personally oppose evils like abortion” but “cannot force their religious views onto the wider society” (24). When life begins “is not a religious belief but a scientific fact,” and the sanctity of life is “part of humanity’s global ethical heritage and our nation’s founding principle” (Id.). A true pluralism in democracy “depends on people of conviction struggling vigorously to advance their beliefs by every ethical and legal means at their disposal” (emphasis in original) (Id.).

The bishops have a responsibility to call everyone to conversion. Earlier in the document this call was characterized as one in which persons recover “their identity as followers of Jesus Christ” (7). In particular the bishops’ call is directed to political leaders “who contradict the Gospel of life through their actions and policies” (29). In these cases the first step should be a “private call to conversion” (Id.). Some may refuse to open their minds to the truth. The bishops must “continue to challenge those officials on the issue in question and persistently call them to a change of heart” (Id.; also see 32). St. Thomas More was lifted up as an example for all public leaders to follow. Commendation is extended to those “who, with courage and determination, use their positions of leadership to promote respect for all human life” (31).

Various groups are exhorted to live out the Gospel of life, with special encouragement for everyone to exercise their citizenship. The bishops concluded: “We urge all persons of good will to work earnestly to bring about the cultural transformation we need, a true renewal in our public life and institutions based on the sanctity of all human life (39).”

Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities: A Campaign in Support of Life  (November 2001)

For the second time the U.S. Catholic bishops re-issued the Pastoral Plan, again reflecting the latest developments in the public debate and incorporating the most recent Church teaching documents, principally The Gospel of Life, Living the Gospel of Life, andthe Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In the Introduction the bishops set the context for the reissued Plan by reviewing and updating some pressing issues of the day. They began with a full discussion of the consistent ethic of life, followed by a brief analysis of the continuing impact of Roe and Doe, in which they focused on the Court’s most recent important decisions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) (partial-birth abortion) as well as on the emergence of research that involves the destruction of human embryos. The bishops also discussed opposition to violence as a means to achieve pro-life goals, the relationship of abortion and contraception, and the latest Church teaching in opposition to the death penalty.

The three program parts of the 1975 and 1985 documents were expanded formally to include a fourth: Prayer and Worship.⁵³

The Public Information and Education section reflected in part the major public education campaign launched by the U.S. bishops with the support of the Knights of Columbus in the early 1990s.

The Pastoral Care program has subsections on pregnancy services and on post-abortion healing and reconciliation, but it also has two new subsections, one on care for those who are chronically ill, disabled, or dying and another on care for prisoners, those on death row, and victims of violent crime.

The Public Policy Program section began with an expanded introduction, drawing from teachings in the latest Church documents, including comments on the responsibility of public officials to promote respect for all human life. The bishops concluded: “It is imperative to restore legal protection to the lives of unborn children and to ensure that the lives of others, especially those who are disabled, elderly, or dying, are not further jeopardized.”

The comprehensive public policy program still included the “long- and shortterm goals.” As in 1975 and 1985 these included “a constitutional amendment that will protect unborn children’s right to life to the maximum degree possible,” here explicitly adding “and pursuit of appropriate strategies to attain this goal.” The wording carefully and clearly affirmed the established policy of the U.S. bishops. The goal “federal and state laws and administrative policies that restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible” and that “prohibit government support of abortion” are now also aimed against government support of “human cloning, and research that destroys human embryos.”

But the goals were no longer specific solely to the unborn but referenced a broader range of concerns. Three new goals were cited:

• “support for federal and state legislation that promotes effective palliative care for those who are chronically ill or dying”
• “support for efforts to prevent legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide by legislation or referendum”
• “support for efforts to end the death penalty”

The first and second of these new goals reflected the increasing effort to promote euthanasia and assisted suicide by legislation and especially by referendum with Oregon approving the first physician-assisted suicide law by referendum in 1994. The third goal reflected the teaching in the Catechism.

The public policy section ended with a new subsection on “Laws Less Than Perfect,” re-stating the teaching on this matter found in Pope John Paul II’s The Gospel of Life.

became its own separate program part. At the level of programming, prayer on behalf of life was being incorporated more systematically into the Church’s liturgical prayer (for example, prayers of the faithful at Mass) and was being expressed in special events, such as the annual National Prayer Vigil for Life at the National Shrine in Washington, DC in conjunction with the January 22 March for Life. The bishops concluded the 2001 “Prayer and Worship” section: “Only with prayer—prayer that storms the heavens for justice and mercy, prayer that cleanses our hearts and our souls—will the culture of death that surrounds us today be replaced with a culture of life.”  

The Implementing the Program section still contained subsections on the State Coordinating Committee, the Diocesan Pro-Life Committee, and the Parish Pro-Life Committee, but the earlier subsection on the congressional district was renamed the Public Policy Effort at the Local Level. As in the 1985 Plan, the goal was twofold, securing “federal pro-life legislation” or passing “a constitutional amendment.” The importance of organizing “on a congressional district basis” was affirmed but it was acknowledged that this objective can be reached in various ways, including through “effective parish efforts.” Specific mention was made of “building effective mechanisms” to lobby public officials. “These mechanisms might be telephone trees, postcard campaigns, fax and e-mail systems, letter-writing programs in the parish, etc. Collaborative work with other churches is highly encouraged.” Here the 2001 Pastoral Plan reflected “mechanisms” that were being developed and implemented at the Catholic parish level throughout the 1990s, which at times were adopted by congregations of other faith communities as well.

The Pastoral Plan was responding to the experience accumulated over the years, showing that decennial redistricting would often require regular re-structuring of the citizen-based “congressional district action committees.” This reality had undercut the usefulness of this structure for achieving long-term objectives. In most cases, organizational structure based on congressional districts is suited to the pursuit of specific short-term goals within any given ten-year redistricting cycle. As in the 1970s and early 1980s, a pending vote on a constitutional amendment could again be the occasion to re-activate this kind of focused “congressional district action committee” organization. But in general the organization of all policy efforts on a congressional district basis is critical for effective communication to the members of Congress who represent each of the 435 congressional district as well as to the two senators who represent the entire state.

 In the Conclusion, the bishops identified a number of areas where progress has been made in the “more than a quarter-century since the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities was first issued,” yet the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions “make impossible any meaningful protection” for the lives of unborn children. The Court’s decisions “must be reversed.” The common good requires “‘acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop’” (interior quote from The Gospel of Life, 101).

To Summarize—and to Project into the Future

The process of hammering out the wording of a specific human life amendment has been effectively suspended since the mid-1980s. This is an unfinished task that awaits completion.

Amending the Constitution was not a task undertaken lightly. Roe and Doe were not foregone conclusions. Once the Court tore the constitutional fabric of the nation through its abortion decisions, the U.S. bishops understood the gravity of the situation and moved immediately to voice support for a constitutional amendment to correct what the Court had done and establish full protection for the right to life in law. 

From the beginning of this process, the bishops, as citizens, have supported a human life amendment while respecting the primary role of the elected representatives of the people in crafting and proposing specific wording. They have set forth general principles that should undergird any proposed amendment and have proved earnest participants in the public dialogue.

The bishops favored a constitutional amendment that would recognize the unborn child from conception as a person under the law; that would restore to the unborn child the right to life enunciated in the country’s founding documents; that would express a commitment to preserve life “to the maximum degree possible” and would result in protection with a universal character. They pressed Congress to hold hearings and to produce an amendment for public consideration. When the Hatch Human Life Federalism Amendment was proposed in the early 1980s, the bishops, true to their word, assessed the measure, determining it to be the best that could be achieved at that time, and, on balance, expressed their support.

The pursuit of public policy goals does not stand alone. As the bishops affirmed in the Pastoral Plan, education, pastoral care, public policy, and prayer provide essential support to one another as the Church moves forward, step by step, in carrying out its pastoral ministry to uphold the right to life of every human being, born and unborn.

The prospect of Roe and Casey being overruled, in whole or in part, was moved to center stage when the United States Supreme Court on May 17, 2021 granted certiorari in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case concerning a Mississippi law (the Gestational Age Act) that allowed abortions after 15 weeks only for a medical emergency or in the case of severe fetal abnormality. The Court limited its review to the question, “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional,” a question that reached to the substance of the Court’s abortion right. By granting certiorari the Court had decided to revisit the abortion question.

As expected, the Court handed down its ruling in Dobbs late in the term (June 24, 2022), and, after the unprecedented leak of Justice Alito’s draft opinion in early May, the breadth and nature of the historic decision was not a surprise.⁵⁴

In its opinion the Court takes great care, with detailed historical research and thoughtful analysis, to refute the arguments of Roe and Casey and to establish that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion (Pts. II, III, and IV). The Court responds to the arguments made in the dissent and in Chief Justice Roberts’ concurrence (Pt. V), and concludes with an important statement on the proper standard for constitutional review (Pt. VI). The Court summarizes:

Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.⁵⁵

The Court has left the field open for the people and their representatives to determine abortion policy. Not only does the Court rule that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, the Court also states that “our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard prenatal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests . . . .”⁵⁶ More pointedly, when discussing Roe’s and Casey’s balancing of the interest of the woman and the interest of “what they [Roe and Casey] termed ‘potential life,’” the Court in Dobbs affirms that “the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently.”⁵⁷ Voters in some States “may believe that the abortion right should be even more extensive than the right that Roe and Casey recognized.” In other States voters “may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an ‘unborn human being.’”⁵⁸ The historical understanding of ordered liberty “does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.”⁵⁹

When presented, as it was in Dobbs, with conflicting arguments about “the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women” and about “the status of the fetus,” the Court held that it “has neither the authority nor the expertise to adjudicate those disputes. . . .”⁶⁰

In the event “state abortion regulations” are constitutionally challenged, the Court sets forth the principle: “Under our precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard for such challenges.” A law would have a presumption of validity and “must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.”⁶¹

The term “legitimate state interests” is a key concept. The Court specifies the term as including

. . . respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development [cite to Gonzalez]; the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability [with cites to Gonzalez, Roe, and Glucksberg].⁶² 

Scholars will discuss the ramifications of the Dobbs’ decision. But the implications are enormous for all citizens.

The Court abjures the policy making role that is proper to the States, and in returning the abortion issue to the people, refers consistently to the role of the States and the state legislatures in setting policy. “For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens.”⁶³ The contest in the states will be intense and the results real, either to protect life as much as possible, or to establish a right to abortion. What happens will make a difference. Not only legislation but also amendments to state constitutions or rulings by state supreme courts interpreting those constitutions will be in play.

At the time the decision was handed down, the stage could be set, so to speak, as follows: sixteen states where laws prohibiting abortion would go into effect,⁶⁴ thirteen states where the state constitutions have been interpreted by state supreme courts to contain a right to abortion,⁶⁵ and the remaining twenty-one states where existing laws, ranging from protecting life to allowing abortion with virtually no limits, would remain in effect.

In the wake of Dobbs, the situation is very dynamic. The status of the law in each of the states needs to be continually monitored and assessed.⁶⁶

In the states with unfavorable supreme court rulings the situation would be like it was under Roe but now state constitutional law would set the norm for the kinds of “incremental” legislation that might be possible. Paul Linton notes that there is a place for regulatory laws, “especially in those States where there would be no consensus in support of enacting a prohibition.”⁶⁷ Some constitutional regulatory options in a postRoe world would include:

. . . requiring parental consent or notice without a judicial bypass mechanism; requiring spousal consent or notice; mandating longer waiting periods (as is the case in some European countries); banning specific abortion procedures (e.g., dismemberment abortions); or mandating counseling by third party entities that have no financial or other association with abortion clinics (as is the case in Germany). Many other regulatory options could be considered . . . .⁶⁸

In Dobbs, the emphasis is placed on the prerogative of the states to set their own abortion policies. But insofar as members of Congress, the president, and the governors are elected, they all would be included, at least in principle, in “the people and their elected representatives.”⁶⁹ The assumption exists that Congress will exercise a policy making role, certainly in regard to all matters of specific concern to the federal government, but also in regard to passing national abortion laws, either abortion on demand legislation (such as the radical pro-abortion Women’s Health Protection Act) or legislative proposals prohibiting or regulating abortion (perhaps even some kind of human life bill.⁷⁰

Since Dobbs was handed down I only note that President Biden on the national level and several Governors on the State level have issued executive orders promoting abortion.

Of course, federal constitutional amendment proposals could still be passed.⁷¹

Before the Supreme Court’s 1973 abortion decisions the law was progressing at its own deliberate pace toward an ever greater recognition of the rights of the unborn. That process continued forward under Roe whenever such rights did not interfere with the Court’s right to abortion.⁷²

Within the pro-life movement persons have held different views on whether the right to life of the unborn was to be found in the Constitution as properly interpreted or whether that right must be explicitly secured in law.⁷³ Before Roe it was a common expectation that the Court should affirm the rights of the unborn. Germain Grisez argued that a case should be brought before the Court to obtain just such a result.⁷⁴ Other legal authorities in a similar vein: “Courts should therefore protect the unborn’s constitutional rights in any decision they render.”⁷⁵ In the event of a Hatch-Eagleton Amendment being ratified and Roe undone, Dennis Horan in March 7, 1983 testimony on the matter stated: “Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Wardle’s observation that ratification of the amendment would not prohibit the Supreme Court from interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, at some future date, to protect the right to life of all human beings, including the unborn.”⁷⁶

Dobbs, however, as noted just above, takes a different approach. In his concurrence Justice Kavanaugh acknowledges that some legal questions raised by Dobbs “are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter.” But there are other legal questions (he cites, for example, evaluation of “the interests of the pregnant woman and the interests in protecting fetal life throughout pregnancy”) that will not be decided by the Court.

They “will be decided, as the Constitution dictates, by the people and their elected representatives through the constitutional processes of democratic self-government.”⁷⁷

It is an understatement to say that the public policy challenges before the pro-life movement extend across a broad field. The projections for action includes passage of state and federal laws protecting life and the passage of amendments securing the right to life for the unborn and all other vulnerable human life in both state and federal constitutions.⁷⁸

In the wake of Dobbs, with all basic policy determinations to be made by the people and their elected representatives, and not by the Court, the pro-life movement should re-commit itself all the more to the goal of passing a federal constitutional amendment that recognizes the right to life of the unborn and all other vulnerable human life. A Hatch-Eagleton type amendment as a first step amendment would enshrine Dobbs’ overruling of Roe and Casey and would close the door to the Court ever finding a right to abortion in the Constitution. Supreme Court decisions can be reversed, laws can be repealed, but a constitutional amendment can be undone only by another constitutional amendment. Unborn human life deserves the secure protection of law that we strive to offer to born human life. The historic process of granting to the unborn the increasing protection of the law must be pressed forward to its completion. 

It goes without saying that this is a long-term intergenerational project and will require a significant effort to educate and form the culture with a proper respect for all human life. The project was understood to be a major undertaking in 1973, and would remain so today. In the Dobbs world it can be conceived as going forward in stages or phases, involving protective or regulatory legislation, human life bills, and constitutional amendments, with developments taking place at both the state and federal levels. As the bishops stated in their 1974 testimony on a constitutional amendment: “Only the law, in conjunction with a broadly conceived program of education, can effectively extend the horizons of democracy and civil rights to include explicit and full protection for the rights of the unborn child.”

The U.S. bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities is needed more than ever now that Roe and Casey are overruled. The difficult tasks before us require a determined and organized effort. The process of promoting pro-life legislation and policies at the state and federal levels has been carried out since 1973 with the guiding idea of resisting and overturning the Court’s abortion decisions and in securing full protection in law for the right to life of the unborn and all other vulnerable persons. Going forward the focus would be on the latter goal of securing the full protection in law, a goal that has integral links to other key life issues, above all, to assisting women with difficult pregnancies.

The challenge, as great as it is, cannot be laid aside. Archbishop John Roach, speaking for the American bishops in November 5, 1981 congressional testimony, stated: “We are committed to full legal recognition of the right to life of the unborn child, and will not rest in our efforts until society respects the inherent worth and dignity of every member of the human race.”⁷⁹