Racism and Abortion

A Pastoral Letter By

The Most Reverend Rene H. Gracida, D.D.

Bishop of Corpus Christi

January 22, 1992

Grace and peace to you, the People of God, among whom “there does not exist Jew or Greek, slave or freeman, male or female; all are one in Christ Jesus.” (1)

January 22, 1973 is destined to remain on the pages of American history as one of those dates which marked a turning-point in the life of our nation. July 4, 1776, April 12, 1861 and December 7, 1941, are all dates which marked the beginning of conflicts which were not simply military conflicts, but which were also social conflicts which brought about great changes in the civil life of our society. January 22, 1973 did not mark the beginning of military conflict, but there should be no doubt that it marked the beginning of social conflict in our society between those who hold that a woman has a ‘right’ to choose to kill her unborn child, and those who consider the right to life, even the life of an unborn child, to be a paramount right.

In almost every great social conflict there are currents, counter-currents and cross-currents. These can be identified as the different groups enter the conflict with priorities and agendas which differ radically from those of other groups. The struggle for independence in the Eighteenth Century and the struggle to keep the Nation united in the Nineteenth Century offer many examples of groups joining one side or the other in those conflicts for reasons and motives which differed drastically from those of their protagonists. Thus, for example, those who viewed the Civil War as a conflict to abolish slavery can be distinguished from those who saw it as a war to preserve the Union.

This year we observe the nineteenth anniversary of those two infamous decisions (Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton) of the United States Supreme Court which made abortion-on-demand legally permissible at any time during a woman’s nine months of pregnancy. We are able, now, to identify a racist attitude motivating some of the proponents of abortion. This attitude is separate and distinct from the motivation of those who are concerned primarily, if not exclusively, with the agenda of militant feminism. This Pastoral Letter addresses the specific element of racism as it exists in the motivation of some proponents of abortion-on-demand.

As early as 1943, and again through the 1950’s and 1960’s, the Catholic Bishops of the United States voiced the moral concerns of our Catholic people with regard to discrimination and racism. (2) The Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission on November 3, 1988 issued the first Vatican document to deal solely with the subject of racism. The document was entitled: “The Church and Racism: Toward a More Fraternal Society.”

In their statement of November 14, 1979, entitled “Brothers and Sisters to Us,” the Bishops of the United States accurately defined racism and located the center of the issue: “Racism is a sin: a sin that divides the human family, blots out the image of God among specific members of that family, and violates the fundamental dignity of those called to be children of the same Father. Racism is the sin that says some human beings are inherently superior and others essentially inferior because of race. It is the sin that makes racial characteristics the determining factor for the exercise of human rights. It mocks the words of Jesus, ‘Treat others the way you would have them treat you.’ Indeed, racism is more than a disregard for the words of Jesus; it is a denial of the truth of the dignity of each human being revealed by the mystery of the incarnation … The heart of the race question is moral and religious. It concerns the rights of man and our attitude toward our fellow man.” (3)

Clearly, the religious consciences of the American people provided the spiritual courage necessary for the legislative and administrative changes that have occurred since the late 1950’s. To a great degree, religious leadership among Catholics, Protestants and Jews spurred the dynamic changes that began to untie the institutional prejudices that bound our land. Although discriminatory laws and institutional prejudices have, to some significant degree, been overcome, the demands of Christian conscience still require that the battle against subtler forms of racism which still continue in our society be faced.


Christians have come to recognize ever more clearly that Jesus’ enunciation of the Great Commandments admitted of no exceptions: “You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all of your mind … and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (4)

In the teaching of Christ Jesus the Lord, the love of God is inextricably bound up with our love for our neighbor. As the Apostle John teaches us in his First Epistle, it is not possible for Christians to profess love for God whom we do not see, while at the same time ignoring, or even hating, the brother or sister whom we do see.

When Jesus was asked “Who is my neighbor?”, He responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan, who came to the aid of the person in need. Despite the fact that wide ethnic and religious differences existed between the Samaritan and the “man in need” (in much the same way as wide ethnic and religious differences exist today between Israelis and Palestinians), the Samaritan responded to the demands of justice and love. (5)

Evidently, in accord with Jesus’ own teaching and that of Christian Tradition, “my neighbor” is any and every person who needs, deserves and can rightly expect my care, my concern and my love. “My neighbor” may be male, female, Protestant or atheist, African, South American, Australian, Asian, already born into the world, or still in the protective care of a mother’s womb. No distinguishing fact of race, country of origin, or stage of biological development alters the fundamental call of Jesus.

No super-imposed criterion of “usefulness” nor any human judgement about who is “wanted” or “unwanted” in this world can be used to make exceptions to Jesus’ explicit teaching about “my neighbor.” All are “neighbor to me.” Our love of God, therefore, will be as wide and as deep and as extensive as our willingness to call each and every member of the human family “neighbor to me.”


The year 1991 marked the beginning of the political campaigns of those who will be seeking public office in this election year of 1992. Whatever else the race for the Governorship of the State of Louisiana in 1991 may have demonstrated, it brought out into the open the ugly specter of racism in our nation. That gubernatorial campaign in Louisiana received world-wide attention specifically because of the racial resentments focused on Jews and Afro-Americans which it caused to surface. Racism wears many disguises and is to be found clearly visible, or more often hidden within the rhetoric surrounding some of the burning issues of our time. Two of those issues are immigration policy and abortion-on-demand.


Already in the presidential race of 1992 we have been exposed to hostility towards Black, Asian and Hispanic immigration which has received widespread publicity. The position of some of the presidential candidates on immigration forces us to admit that despite the progress that has been made in the United States over the last four decades, the virus of racism in the hearts of many of our fellow citizens remains a grave threat to the progress and development of our nation. While it is possible for someone to propose reforms to the present immigration policies of the United States without being motivated by racism, the recent proposals have all the characteristics of a nativist racism of the last century.

For example, one of the candidates, Patrick Buchanan, suggested in a 1971 White House memo to then President Nixon, that efforts to integrate American society may result in “perpetual friction.” Buchanan wrote: “Basically it (a magazine article arguing that government anti-poverty programs would fail because of genetic differences in participants) demonstrates that heredity, rather than environment, determines intelligence and that the more we proceed to provide everyone with a ‘good environment’ surely the more heredity will become the dominant factor – in their intelligence, and thus in their success and social standing-every study we have shows blacks 15 IQ points below whites.” (6)


Prejudice and discrimination based on cultural or ethnic differences are bad enough, but there exists a far worse tendency in some individuals and groups to deny to other individuals or groups their full humanity. Because of supposed genetic or intellectual differences, these “others” are considered to be subhuman, i.e., not fully human. Such thinking found its ultimate and most terrible expression in the ideology of the Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

William L. Shirer, in his classic work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, tells us that no comprehensive blueprint for the New Order was ever drawn up, “but it is clear from the captured documents and from what took place that Hitler knew very well what he wanted it to be: a Nazi-ruled Europe whose resources would be exploited for the profit of Germany, whose people would be made slaves of the German master race and whose ‘undesirable elements’ – above all, the Jews, but also many Slavs in the East … would be exterminated … The Jews and the Slavic peoples were the Untermenschen–subhumans. To Hitler they had no right to live…” (7)

Erich Koch, the Reich Commissar for the Ukraine, said in a speech at Kiev on March 5, 1943: “We are a Master Race, which must remember that the lowliest German worker is racially and biologically a thousand times more valuable than the population here.” (8)

Martin Bormann, Hitler’s party secretary and right-hand man, wrote: “The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable. They may use contraceptives or practice abortion – the more the better.” (9)

United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in his majority opinion in the Roe vs Wade case described the unborn as less than “persons in the whole sense” – in other words the unborn are less than human, i.e., subhuman. (10) Evidently our times are not entirely free from such ideological thinking Perhaps the manifestations of that kind of thinking are slightly more sophisticated now than in the past, but they are not any less repulsive to the Christian conscience and damaging to the common good.

It should now be evident to us that whenever it becomes fashionable to advance some social or political agenda which results in some suffering for a class or group of persons, the expedient way to accomplish such an agenda is to classify the affected group as subhuman. John T. Noonan has commented on this “propensity”: “It is a propensity of professionals in the legal process to dehumanize by legal concepts those whom the law affects harshly. No more attention need then be paid to them. On a grand scale the masking of humanity by legal concepts went on for more than two hundred years when English and American judges, legislators, and lawyers created and sustained the legal system of human slavery. They eliminated embarrassment for themselves, and made the system work, by never letting themselves, as judges or lawyers, consider the human beings they were affecting. Those human beings became ‘property.’ In the words of George Wythe, the first American law professor and Chancellor of Virginia, they were things to be transferred under the law ‘with as little judicial ceremony as a single quadruped or article of house or kitchen furniture.'” (11)

An area of public policy in which there are clear indications of the existence of prejudice and discrimination based on racism is our government’s treatment of refugees and immigrants, both documented and undocumented, coming to the United States from non-European countries, such as Haiti, El Salvador, Mexico and Asian countries. It appears that our government finds it much easier to grant political asylum to white refugees than to black or brown refugees.

Xenophobia, fear of the stranger, is not new to our country, but that fear is apparently compounded when the new arrival’s skin color or religion is different. Recall the fear and persecution that greeted the flow of refugees and immigrants who came to North America over the last two-hundred and fifty years. The Chinese immigrants who came to the United States in the 1840’s, the Irish in the 1880’s, the Italians, Greeks, Germans and Poles who came around the beginning of this Century, were all received with some degree of fear and hostility. Why? Because they were considered to represent a threat to the political, economic and cultural patterns existing in the United States when these immigrants arrived.

This nation has traditionally prided itself on welcoming refugees and immigrants, and has traditionally placed a high value upon tolerance within cultural diversity. Yet, our history also bears witness to the “Know-Nothing” campaigns of the Nineteenth Century, the violence and intolerance of the Ku Klux Klan, and, recently, the activities of organizations such as The Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, and the Planned Parenthood organization.

It is a truly sad irony that the children of immigrant parents sometimes grow up claiming guardianship over the ‘racial purity’ of our nation. The fact is that no one, save only the Native-Americans, can rightly claim to be the original race of America. Likewise, within the racial diversity that exists in America, no one can claim to exert a greater primacy than Native-Americans.

America is a culturally diverse nation and racism and bigotry should have no place in that diversity. Recent news reports about violence against Buddhist shrines in the western United States, against Jewish Synagogues in the eastern United States, and against Catholic and Protestant Churches in Florida and here in South Texas, causes us to recognize the real danger of racial and religious bigotry and violence.

There are voices being raised in our country, even today, which speak of the threat that foreign refugees and immigrants pose for the “American” way of life. Hispanic, African, Asian and Eastern European immigrants are sometimes greeted with hostility when they reach our local communities because, in the minds of some, they represent a threat to the “American” way of life since they come from a different tradition, speak a different language, have a different way of thinking. These cultures and traditions are frequently thought to be inferior simply because they are “different.” All too often an attitude which classifies immigrant cultural traditions as inherently inferior is a racist attitude.

The fear, usually unspoken but sometimes boldly proclaimed by some, is that this nation will lose its “American” way of life (by which is usually meant the ethos identified principally with white, Anglo Saxon, Protestant cultural tradition). They fear that the nation will be overpopulated with brown, yellow, black, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, foreign speaking immigrants. This fear is deep-seated in many persons, even, evidently, among some who consider themselves to possess a rightly formed Christian conscience.

In 1988 Walter Cronkite and Linda Chavez resigned their leadership positions in the organization, U.S. English, after it became known that the founder of U.S. English, John Tanton, had written a memorandum, distributed at a 1986 immigration conference of the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform. The memorandum posed a series of questions and depicted an America possibly doomed to conflict between a minority of educated well-off English-speaking people and a majority of uneducated poor people of other ethnic and racial groups with faster population growth. Tanton wrote that “those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down,” and that since many of the immigrants will be Catholic, this influx of Catholics could reduce the separation between church and state. (12)


Seemingly without shame of conscience, some openly propose that the best way to protect the economic, cultural, political and social integrity of our nation is both to close our borders to further immigration, and to prevent the continued growth of certain segments of the population which have a higher birthrate. Acting out of racial fear, they claim that the present birth-rates of African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans will cause these groups to outnumber the older groups of immigrants which came principally from Europe.

Such fear is really based on a false and racially motivated conception of what kind of American is “more real.” As if any of us can claim to be “more American” simply because of ethnicity or race than any other American.

Under the guise of concern for the poor and illiterate in our country, massive amounts of money and resources are being spent trying to convince the American people that abortion is a morally acceptable method of birth control; furthermore, these propagandizing efforts are systematically directed toward the poor in our country. The demographic fact is that poverty in America is largely borne by our minority populations: African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans and Native-Americans.

At the cynical heart of these efforts is the reprehensible view that the best way to overcome poverty in our land is to teach the poor and minority populations how to kill their own children. (13) There is a war being waged against child-bearing among the poor and minority populations.

Some have proposed as the solution to the welfare problem, the forcible sterilization of mothers on welfare. Others, more sophisticated and respectable, propose instead that we teach black, brown, yellow and red mothers to abort their children, and that when they do so they are exercising the “right of women to choose” with regard to their reproductive faculty.

The Bishops of the United States stated in 1973 that the right order of society requires that it “help bring about those conditions in which married couples, without undue material, physical, or psychological pressure, may exercise responsible freedom in determining family size.” (14) Yet, the psychological pressure being exerted on poor and minority women by the elite, pro-abortion opinion-makers is astounding.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the cultural traditions of Native-American, Hispanic American, Asian-American and African-American women find the abortion-on-demand mentality to be reprehensible and repugnant. And so millions of dollars are being spent in a massive propaganda attempt to “re-educate” these persons into thinking that abortion is not only an acceptable means of birth control, but is actually what the modern ‘liberated woman’ should do in order to free herself from enslavement to men, or church, or society in general.

Such a “re-education” program is racist in inspiration since it regards as inferior the older customs and values of these minority communities, and sees in the increase in the number of members of these minorities a threat to the American way of life. The proponents of such “re-education programs” assume that the “post-modern” subjective morals of some segments of the educated elite are inherently superior to the cultural traditions of Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and Native-Americans.

It is shocking to the Christian conscience to consider that the vast wealth and resources of this nation are being spent more for abortion promotion than for food and housing for the poor. It is grossly simplistic to argue that fewer children will “solve all the problems of poverty, racism, and social injustice.” (15) To propose that fewer Asian, Black, Hispanic and Native-American babies will solve the problem of poverty is to avoid the real issues, the deeper issues that confront our nation with regard to poverty, homelessness, and crime in the streets. We have the resources to provide opportunity and jobs, and housing; the question is whether there is a will to overcome the obstacles to our right use of those resources.

It appears the rhetoric of some abortion-providers, and advocates rests on a so-called ‘woman’s right’ to kill her unborn child, when in fact the real purpose is to control and stop the population growth of the black, brown, red and yellow minorities. What a tragedy that the well-intentioned, though misguided, War on Poverty of the 1960’s has degenerated into the present reprehensible war on the children of the poor and minority sectors of our population.

We cannot remain blind to the political and racist agenda that lies hidden under the surface of the propaganda that is being spread by the abortion providers, abortion advocates and their unwitting accomplices. Charles V. Willie, Ph.D., Chairman of the Department of Sociology at Syracuse University during the 1970’s, testified before the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future as follows:

“I must state categorically that many people in the Black community are deeply suspicious of any family planning program initiated by whites. You probably have heard about, but not taken seriously, the call by some male-dominated Black militant groups to eschew the use of contraceptives because they are pushed in Black communities as a ‘method of exterminating Black people.’

“The genocidal charge is neither ‘absurd’ nor ‘hollow,’ as some whites have contended. Neither is it limited to residents of the ghetto, whether they be low income Black militants, or middle-aged Black moderates. Indeed, my studies at white colleges indicate that young educated Blacks fear Black genocide.” (16)

Such fears as those articulated by Doctor Willie are not absurd, particularly when we consider the philosophical mentality that animated the founder of the organization which is the principal abortion-provider in the United States: Planned Parenthood. That powerful organization, which is provided by Congress with tens of millions of our tax dollars annually to kill the babies of minority women, was founded by Margaret Sanger who made no secret of her views about minorities.

Margaret Sanger preached a gospel of hate, boldly proclaiming the superiority of the white, Anglo Saxon stock of which she was proud to be a product. On numerous occasions she denounced the “inferiority” of “slaves, Latins and Jews.” (17) Nor did she hesitate to advocate the opening of the abortion clinics of her Planned Parenthood Organization in specifically minority neighborhoods among immigrant populations. It is shameful that minority populations are being told to exercise a ‘right’ to kill their unborn children and are not told that this ‘right’ is to be exercised, in part, because it satisfies the racist objectives of those who promote the right.’

The horror of this present situation is that all of the fears of those who promote abortion-on-demand for racist reasons are focused on the most defenseless members of the human race: our unborn children. Like Pharaoh of old, who feared the growth of the Hebrew population in his kingdom, an insidious attempt is being made to control a segment of our population by killing children.

Like Herod who feared the loss of his power to the Christ, the racist abortion-providers/promoters seek to preserve their power by killing children. A human life is far too precious to be sacrificed to the racial prejudices and political/social fears of a few, yet the spirits of Pharaoh and Herod still exert their influence in our land.

Grace Olivarez, a member of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, wrote a dissenting opinion to the now infamous report of that Commission. In her dissent, she wrote: “To talk about the ‘wanted’ and the ‘unwanted’ smacks too much of bigotry and prejudice. Many of us have experienced the sting of being unwanted by certain segments of our society … One usually wants objects and if they turn out to be unsatisfactory, they are returnable … Human beings are not returnable items … Those with power in our society cannot be allowed to ‘want’ and ‘unwant’ people at will … The poor cry out for justice and equality, and we respond with legalized abortion.” (18)


There always seems to be something unnatural about an animal killing, and even sometimes devouring, a member of its own species. Human beings belong to the highest order of creatures in the animal kingdom and we are not governed by irrational instinct as the lower animals are.

How then explain the all too common examples of men and women turning on members of their own group and betraying that bond of unity which blood, ethnicity, language, religion and race all serve to create between members of a group? To betray, to kill or cause to be killed, is a human failing which cannot be explained in terms of evolutionary instinct, but rather has to be explained in terms of fear, or lust for power or wealth, or for an ideology which has gained control over right reason and conscience.

I graduated from high school in June, 1941. The Second World War had begun twenty months earlier. The names Quisling and Petain may not mean anything to persons who did not live through that period of history, but to me and to many of my generation those names stand for betrayal. Those men betrayed their fellow countrymen in Norway and in France, collaborated with Hitler’s Third Reich, and directly or indirectly caused the death of thousands of their fellow countrymen.

After the war, it was discovered that there had been Jews in Germany who cooperated with Hitler’s Third Reich in the extermination of their fellow Jews. Some even collaborated in the death camps in the actual accomplishment of the Holocaust which saw the killing of millions of Jews.

There are contemporary examples of such betrayal. Faye Wattleton, who is head of The Planned Parenthood Organization, which is responsible for the killing of many black babies in the abortuaries operated by that organization, is herself a black woman. She heads an organization whose foundress expressly set as the goal of the organization the killing of black babies in order to keep the African-American population of the United States as small as possible. “With Faye Wattleton at the helm, Planned Parenthood became one of the most forceful proponents of abortion rights. It has 900 clinics across the country and a budget of well over $300 million. Wattleton studied nursing at Ohio State University.” (19) What an irony! A black woman, trained in the healthcare profession has given fourteen years of her adult life to leading the nation’s greatest abortion-providing organization in its greatest period of expansion as it kills black babies.

Equally astounding to me was the discovery that the directors at the two abortuaries in Corpus Christi were Hispanics and that one of the abortionist doctors was a Hispanic. How is it possible for human beings to kill their own? How is it possible for Hispanics to cooperate with the abortion-providers/promoters in the killing of Hispanic babies when it is known that the principal abortion-providers/promoters are often motivated by a racist desire to lower the birthrate of Hispanic-Americans in order to prevent the further ‘browning’ of America?

No less incredible is the voting record of certain Black and Hispanic legislators and members of the United States Congress. How is it possible for these men and women to vote legislation and/or money to facilitate the killing of black and brown babies when it is so evident that the principal abortion-providers/promoters who lobby for such legislation and appropriations, have disclosed their racist desire to see the African-American and Hispanic-American sectors of our population kept down? How is it possible for these African-American and Hispanic legislators who have been elected largely through the votes of Black and Hispanic voters to so betray their own people?

The fundamental answer to all of these questions must be original sin. The effects of original sin can be seen in all such tragic human situations. But to say that the root cause is original sin does not excuse these individuals from their personal sin of betrayal of their own kind. The motivation for their personal sin is in many cases the same as the causes mentioned above: lust for power or money, fear of loss of acceptance by the elite groups they aspire to join, coldness of heart which translates into despising one’s neighbor rather than loving him/her. Whatever the cause, they will have much to answer for in history, both secular history and salvation history.


Our Christian conscience should impel us to confront these troubling and dangerous activities in our society. We know that it is morally necessary for us to protect the gift of life against economic and political exploitation.

We are now aware that racial prejudice exerts an unnatural influence upon the hearts of many in our world with tragic consequences for millions of unborn children. Christ Jesus, the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father became “God-in-our-Flesh” precisely so that the simple truth of our universal childhood before God might be effected and perfected.

Obviously, legislation alone cannot eradicate the attitudes which result in discriminatory behavior based on race, color, religion or language. What is needed is a renewal of mind and heart in accord with the Truth. No discriminatory attitude or practice can be reconciled with the loving plan of God our Father. No baseless racial fears can be reconciled with Christ Jesus present in the least of our neighbors. No violent destruction of innocent life can be part of a healthy, well-formed Christian conscience.

By means of this Pastoral Letter I have sought to bring to the attention of the reader the subtle, and at times not-so-subtle racism that often pollutes the debate over abortion and infects the rhetoric of the abortion-providers/promoters. It is my hope that men and women of goodwill will raise their voices in defense of truth and justice, and will work to eliminate racism in all of its forms from our society. For that, indeed, is the call of Christ to us all, and it is one of the yet not-fully realized hopes of the founding fathers of our nation.

Asking God our Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to bless you, enlighten you and empower you in this struggle in defense of human life as we observe this, the nineteenth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decisions which made abortion-on-demand legal throughout our land, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rene H. Gracida, D.D.

Bishop of Corpus Christi


1. Galatians 3:28.

2. “The Essentials of a Good Peace,” a statement issued by the NCWC Administrative Board In the name of the bishops of the United States, November 11, 1943. “Discrimination and Christian Conscience,” a statement issued by the Catholic Bishops of the United States, November 14, 1958. “On Racial Harmony,” a statement approved by the Administrative Board, National Catholic Welfare Conference, August 23, 1963. “Pastoral Statement on Race Relations and Poverty,” a statement issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 19, 1966. “Statement on National Race Crisis,” a statement issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, April 25, 1968.

3. “Brothers and Sisters to Us; U.S. Bishops’ Pastoral Letter on Racism in Our Day,” a statement of the United States Catholic Conference, November 14, 1979, 3.

4. Matthew 22:35-40.

5. Luke, 10:25-37. Matthew 22:34 ff. Mark 12:28 ff. For a wider treatment of the implications of the parable of the Good Samaritan, see “On the Meaning of Human Suffering,” the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II issued February 11, 1984, nos. 28-30.

6. Associated Press news report appearing The Dallas Morning News, January 5, 1992, 25A.

7. William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1960, 937.

8. Ibid., 939.

9. Ibid., 939.

10. Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S., 113, 162.

11. John T. Noonan, Jr., A Private Choice; Abortion in America in the Seventies, New York, The Free Press, 1979, 153, Quoting from Fowler vs. Saunders, Virginia Reports Annotated II (Wythe) 284 at 287 (Chancery, 1798).

12. Associated Press article appearing in The Corpus Christi Caller-Times, October 14, 1988, 18D.

13. cf. George Weigel, “Response to Mark Lowery,” in Communio, Fall, 1991, 439-449 (especially 445).

14. “Statement on Population,” a statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 12, 1973, no. 8. cf. also “Birth Control Laws,” a statement issued by the National Conference of Bishops, November 20, 1970, and “Population and the American Future: A Response,” a statement issued by the National Conference of Bishops, April 13, 1972.

15. “Birth Control Laws,” no. 2.

16. Quoted by Erma Clardy Craven in her article’ “Abortion, Poverty and Black Genocide; Gifts to the Poor” in Abortion and Social Justice, Edited by Thomas W. Hilgers and Dennis J. Horan, New York, Sheed and Ward, 1972, 238.

17. cf. Margaret Sanger, What Every Mother Should Know (1917), My Fight For Birth Control (1931), Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography (1938).

18. “A Separate Statement,” in Commission on Population Growth, Population and the American Future, 16 1, quoted in John T. Noonan, Jr., A Private Choice; Abortion in America in the Seventies, 67. (21 /1)

19. An Associated Press article in The Corpus Christi Caller-Times, January 9, 1992, A8.

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Abortion, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. Bookmark the permalink.