This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Harriet S. Meyer, MD

JAMA. 1981;246(8):837-839.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

RECENTLY, the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on S 158, the "human life bill." The hearings raise interesting questions about the role of science in the resolution of moral issues and about scientific consensus.

Background

In a 1973 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe vs Wade upheld the right of a woman to obtain an abortion until the stage of fetal "viability" without the interference of the state.^1,2 An amendment to the Constitution could reverse this decision, and, in fact, one has been proposed. Meanwhile, however, a bill has also been proposed to Congress by which its sponsors would attempt to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court decision. The bill (S 158) states:

Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

The Congress further finds that the fourteenth amendment . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Division of Scientific Publications, American Medical Association, Chicago.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Division of Scientific Publications, American Medical Association, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610 (Dr Meyer).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?