24-Feb-98
Governor Tom Ridge
225 Capitol Building
Harrisburgh, PA 17120
Re: Joan Andrews Bell
Your Honor:
I’d like to take a few moments of your time to plead the case of a very dear friend of mine, Joan Andrews Bell.
As I’m sure you are no doubt well aware by now, Joan is a good friend to a number of prolifers, both in Pennsylvania and throughout the rest of the country. We are concerned about her health and well being, but most of all, we’re concerned about the nature of the unjust sentence that was handed down by Common Pleas Court Judge Raymond Novak.
Here is a brief chronology of events in this case, as I understand them:
Although I can understand where Judge Novak was coming from, I still hold that Mrs. Bell’s actions in the 1985 Pittsburgh "rescue" did not warrant the sentence she received. From his viewpoint, it must have appeared to Judge Novak as if Mrs. Bell was flouting his authority by refusing to sign the probation statement. By anyone’s standards, his sentence of 3 to 23 months would be considered merciful, in light of his original desire to charge Mrs. Bell with civil contempt.
Yet, to sentence a non-violent woman--mother of two children, a devout Catholic, and (other than the "crime" of trying to rescue innocent children being led away to the slaughter) a law-abiding citizen--to this much time is indeed a travesty of justice. Regarding the 1986 Florida incarceration, Judge Novak commented that the state of Florida was "extracting its pound of flesh." It would appear that now Judge Novak is also attempting to exact "a pound of flesh." Joan’s sentence is as much a condemnation of our entire legal system as it is of her.
Motivation
In choosing to follow her conscience by rescuing at Women’s Health Services, Joan Bell has acted out of a strongly held religious conviction that abortion is murder. Like all "rescuers," she follows the Biblical premise of Proverbs 24:11:
"Rescue those who are being dragged to death, and from those tottering to execution withdraw not."
She is firmly grounded in her faith, and since all of her rescue activities are non-violent in nature, she acts in accordance with the views of Pope John-Paul II, as expressed in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae:
"In view of laws which permit abortion and in view of efforts, which here and there have been successful, to legalize euthanasia, movements and initiatives to raise social awareness in defense of life have sprung up in many parts of the world. When, in accordance with their principles, such movements act resolutely, but without resorting to violence, they promote a wider and more profound consciousness of the value of life, and evoke and bring about a more determined commitment to its defense." -- Evangelium Vitae, §27 (emphasis added)
"…[L]aws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law." -- ibid., §72 (emphasis added)
"…[H]uman law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence." -- ibid., §72, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 93, a. 3, ad 2um. (Emphasis added)
"Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection." -- ibid., §73
Given such a clear directive from the spiritual leader of her Church, is it any wonder that Mrs. Bell felt compelled to act as she did? By her actions, Joan has put into practice something the rest of us in the Prolife Movement give credence to, yet often as not fail to find the necessary courage or willpower to carry out.
Justification
In strictly legal terms, there is sparse justification for Joan’s actions. Yet, as Aquinas writes, "an unjust law is no law at all." It is possible to justify "rescuing" without resorting to religion. Yet arguments based on philosophy and legal precedents are much weaker than those based on religion; they lack the moral certitude necessary to drive a woman who dearly loves her family to take actions which she cannot doubt will separate her from her loved ones. As a fellow Catholic, I, like Joan, fully accept the Church’s teachings on abortion. It is this teaching, backed by the strong support of John-Paul II, which leads Joan (and others, such as myself) to conclude that she has the ultimate endorsement of her actions--the blessings of Almighty God Himself.
Conclusion
Your Honor, regardless of whether or not you consider Mrs. Bell’s sentence to be "just," you have the opportunity to extend your mercy to this courageous woman by granting her a full pardon. I humbly beseech you to send her back home to her loved ones and reunite her with her family. Do this, and you can rest assured of the support of every prolifer in Pennsylvania come Election Day. Grant Joan peace of mind by releasing her and you can count on God’s blessings.
I pray you can find it in your heart to forgive her for her "crimes" against society. Remember, she did it all for the babies.
Sincerely,
Jack R. Voltz
President, Right To Life of Belmont County, OH