Skip to main content

Full text of "Abortion : hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, second session, on S.J. Res. 119 ... and S.J. Res. 130 ..."

See other formats


ABORTION— PART 3 



RECEIVED 
HEARING btc 2 oi976 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE d# LAW umm - 
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

S.J. Res. 119 

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 

UNITED STATES FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN 

AND OTHER PERSONS 

AND 

S.J. Res. 130 

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 

UNITED STATES GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT OF LIFE TO THE 

UNBORN, THE ILL, THE AGED, OR THE INCAPACITATED 



Part 3 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 




faJMhiM/lX.S 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
57-782 O WASHINGTON : 1975 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20102 - Price $4.10 



JflOTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL of LAW LIBRARY 



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

93d Congress, 2d Session 
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska 

SAM J. KKVIN, Jr., North Carolina HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii 

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky 

QUENTIN N BURDICK, North Dakota CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida 
JOHN V. TUNNEY, California 



Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments 
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana, Chairman 

JAMES O. EASTLAND. Mississippi HIRAM L. FONG. Hawaii 

SAM J. ERYIX. Jr.. North Carolina ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky 

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania 

(ID 






WITNESSES BY DATE 

August 21, 1974 

White, Mr. Ray L., executive director, National Right to Life Committee, iPaee 

Inc., Washington, D.C 1 

VanDerhoef, Mr. Kenneth, chief administrative officer and pre&ident, 

National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Seattle, Wash 1 

Jefferson, Dr. Mildred, M.D., Chairman of the Board, National Right to 

Life Committee, Inc., Boston, Mass 7 

Engle, Ms. Randy, director, U.S. Coalition for Life, Export, Pa 20 

Goltz, Ms. Pat, president, Feminists for Life, Columbus, Ohio 107 

Schaller, Rev. Warren A., president and executive director, American 

Citizens Concerned for Life, Washington, D.C 163 

September 12, 1974 

Lowry, Ms. Pamela Lee, Executive Committee, National Abortion Rights 
Action League, codirector, MORAL Constitutional Defense Project, 
Boston, Mass 169 

Roudebush, Mrs. Dorothy, president, Committee for Legal Abortion, 

St. Louis, Mo 176 

Shoup, Dr. Jane R., Indiana Freedom of Choice Coalition, Hammond, 

Ind. 186 

Furlong-Cahill, Dr. Jane, a national director, Catholics for a Free Choice, 

Athens, Ga 195 

October 8, 1974 

Noonan, Mr. John T. ; Jr., professor of law, University of California, 

Berkeley, Calif 213 

Ely, Mr. John, professor of law, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass . . 250 

Tribe, Mr. Laurence H., professor of law, Harvard University, Cambridge, 

Mass 292 

Heymann, Mr. Philip B., professor of law, Harvard University, Cambridge, 

Mass 253 

WITNESSES ALPHABETICALLY 

Ely, Mr. John, professor of law, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.. 250 

Engle, Ms. Randy, director, U.S. Coalition for Life, Export, Pa 20 

Furlong-Cahill, Dr. Jane, a national director, Catholics for a Free Choice, 

Athens, Ga 195 

Goltz, Ms. Pat, president, Feminists for Life, Columbus, Ohio 107 

Heymann, Mr. Philip B., professor of law, Harvard University, Cambridge, 

Mass 253 

Jefferson, Dr. Mildred, M.D., chairman of the board, National Right to 

Life Committee, Inc., Boston, Mass 7 

Lowry, Ms. Pamela Lee, Executive Committee, National Abortion Rights 

Action League, codirector, MORAL Constitutional Defense Project, 

Boston, Mass 169 

Noonan, Mr. John T., Jr., professor of law, University of California, 

Berkeley, Calif 213 

Roudebush, Mrs. Dorothy, president, Committee for Legal Abortion, 

St. Louis, Mo ---- 176 

Schaller, Rev. Warren A., president and executive director, American 

Citizens Concerned for Life, Washington, D.C 163 

Shoup, Dr. Jane R., Indiana Freedom of Choice Coalition, Hammond, 

Ind . 186 

Tribe, Mr. Laurence H., professor of law, Harvard University, Cambridge, 

Mass 292 

(Hi) 



IV 

VanDerhoef, Mr. Kenneth, chief administrative officer and president, Pa K e 

National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Seattle, Wash 1 

White, Mr. Ray L., executive director, National Right to Life Committee, 

Inc., Washington, D.C 1 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND MATERIALS 

Alexander, Leo, "Medical Science Under Dictatorship", Child and Family, 

vol. 10, No. 1, 1971. Submitted for hearing record by Pat Goltz 134 

Billman, Donald L., J.D., "Equal Justice under Law", paper prepared for 

distribution by the Aloha Club, Inc., of Hawaii 443 

Billman, Donald L., J.D., "The Case for the Unborn Baby, The Constitu- 
tional Right to Life", reprinted from Discovery, vol. 4, No. 4, Toledo, 

Ohio, Spring 1971 1 447 

Billman, Donald Lynn, J.D., letter to Senator Bayh, Columbus Ohio, 

Aug. 7, 1974 441 

Brooks, Sylvia, "In Pregnancy Counseling — Delays Hurting Abortion 
Efforts," Columbus Citizen — Journal, March 29, 1974, submitted for 

the record by Ms. Pat Goltz 126 

Cadigan, George Lelsie, Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Missouri, 
Statement on Liberalizing the Abortion Statute, submitted for the 

record bv Mrs. George S. Roudebush 185 

Callahan, Sidney, "Talk of 'Wanted Child' Makes for Doll Objects," 
National Catholic Reporter, December 3, 1971, submitted for the 

record by Ms. Pat Goltz 1 22 

Callahan, Sidney, "Feminist as Antiabortionist," National Catholic 

Reporter, April 7, 1972, submitted for the record by Ms. Pat Goltz 123 

Cutright, Phillips and Karen B., "Abortion: The Court Decision and Some 
Consequences of a Constitutional Amendment", prepared for Planned 
Parenthood- World Population, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., 

July 1973, revised September 1973 ' 463 

Doyle, R. F., president, Men's Rights Association, Position on Abortion, 

St. Paul, Minn 456 

Ely, John Hart, "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade", 
reprint No. 15, American Enterprise Institute, from Yale Law Journal, 

vol. 82, No. 5, April 1973 257 

Engcl, Mrs. Randy, material relating to the membership of the U.S. 

Coalition for Life, Export, Pa., submitted for record, Sept. 26, 1974 104 

Engel, Mrs. Randy, editor, U.S. Coalition for Life, Newsletter, vol. 1, 

No. 1, Export, Pa., September 1972 30 

Engel, Mrs. Randv, editor, U.S. Coalition for Life, Newsletter, Export, 

Pa., vol. 2, No. 2, January 1973 34 

Engel, Mrs. Randy, editor, Pro-Life Reporter, published by U.S. Coalition 

for Life, Export, Pa., vol. 2, No. 3, May 1973 46 

Engel, Mrs. Randy, editor, Pro-Life Reporter, published by U.S. Coalition 

for Life, Export, Pa., vol. 3, No. 6, Spring 1974 74 

Engel, Mrs. Randv, editor, Pro-Life Reporter, published by the U.S. 

Coalition for Life, Export, Pa., vol. 2, No. 4, August 1973 58 

Fager, Charles E., "Abortion Positions — So Who's the Radical?." National 

Catholic Reporter, submitted for the record by Ms. Pat Goltz 124 

Fisher, Diane, chairperson, Tri-County Coalition for the Right to Choose, 
"Abortion, Statement for the Hearing Record", Youngstown, Ohio, 

Feb. 18, 1974 .. . . 396 

Goltz, Ms. Pat, letter to Senator Bayh, Columbus, Ohio, Aug. 30, 1974___ 163 
Harvey, Matthew, J., Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs, 
Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C, letter to 

Senator Bayh, Aug. 27, 1974 396 

Heffernan, Gloria V., M.D., "Abortion Exploits Women," from the 

I Chicago Tribune, submitted for the record by Ms. Pat Goltz 120 

Hermann, Philip P., and Douglas E. Barzelay, "The Forest and the Trees: 
Wade and Lts Critics , reprinted from the Boston University Law 

Review, vol. 53, No. 4, July 1973 354 

Eogan, Hon. Lawrence J., former Member of Congress from the State of 
Maryland, "The Embattled Minority: Out of Sight Out of Mind", 

The Maryland Law Forum, Winter 1971 428 

Kagay, Marjorie, chairman, New York State Division Legislative Com- 
mittee, American Association of Universitv Women, letter to Senator 
Bayh, Feb. 27, L974 455 



Kesel Robert E., president, Association for Grand Jury Action, Inc., Pa ^ 
Rochester, N.Y., letter to Senator Bayh, Mar. 31, 1974. 454 

Keyser, David, president, Milwaukee Chapter, Wisconsin Citizens Con- 
cerned for Life, letter and statement on the Constitutional Amendments 
on Abortion, Aug. 16, 1974 ---- --- ------ 435 

Langmyhr, George, M.D., "The Role of Planned Parenthood-World 
Population in Abortion", Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 14, 
pg. 1190, 1971, from Planned Parenthood- World Population, New 
York, N.Y.; submitted by Mrs. Randy Engel 89 

Leonard, Merrill G., editor, "Handbook for the Right to Choose", Fowler, 

Ohio 1974 ^^ 

LeVan,' Rose "Gordon, president, Lake County Women's Council, East 
Chicago, Ind., statement on the Constitutional Amendments on Abor- 
tion 43 J 

McLeod" Julie, Zero Population Growth, Fort Wayne Chapter, "State- 
ment on Constitutional Amendments on Abortion", Mar. 28, 1974 433 

Medical Tribune, "Family-Planning Units Urged to Make Genetic Re- 
ferrals", May 8, 1973, submitted by Mrs. Randy Engel 89 

Medical World News, "Abortion in Japan after 25 Years," November 8, 

1973, submitted for the record by Ms. Pat Goltz 128 

Moore, Emily C, "The Major Issues and the Arguments in the Abortion 

Debate", taken from the appendix of the author's article, "Abortion 
and Public Policy: What are the Issues?", New York Law Forum, vol. 
XVII, No. 2, 1971, reprinted by the National Association for Repeal of 
Abortion Laws ----, — - 5 ' 

Noonan, John T., Jr., "Raw Judicial Power" reprinted from National 

Review, Mar. 2, 1973 ----- 222 

Noonan, John T., Jr., "The Family and the Supreme Court , Catholic 

University Law Review, vol. 23, No. 2, Winter 1973 227 

North Dakota, results of election of Nov. 7, 1972, on abortion question __ 474 

Rapoport, Roger, "The Abortion Kickbacks," Feminists for Life, Janu- 
ary 14, 1974, submitted for the record by Ms. Pat Goltz .__ 127 

Roberdeau, Mrs. Larry, chairman, Rapid City Right to Life, letter to J. 

William Heckman, chief counsel, Sept. 6, 1974 473 

Silverman, Judy, coordinator, Coalition for Freedom of Choice, Minnea- 
polis, Minn., letter to Senator Bayh, Mar. 4, 1974 «— ,1 453 

The Uncertified Human, "Euthanasia: the Latest Threat is on the Rise, 

submitted for the record by Ms. Pat Goltz — - - 1 2w 

The Uncertified Human, "Michael Litchfield Discovers", vol. 2, No. 2, July 

1974, submitted for record by Ms Pat Goltz 161 

Tribe, Laurence H., "The Supreme Court 1972 Term, Foreword: Toward 

a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law", reprinted from 
Harvard Law Review, vol. 87, No. 1, Nov. 1973 293 

Weick, Paul C, and Don J. Young, "The Ohio Decision on Abortion , 
Child and Family, vol. 10, No. 1, 1971, submitted for record by Ms. Pat 
Goltz -- 153 

Woodstock Right to Life Committee, Woodstock, Vt., petition submitted 

for the record by Senator Stafford, Mar. 5, 1974 463 



ABORTION 



WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments 

or the Committee of the Judiciary, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m., in room 
1202, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman 
of the subcommittee), presiding. 

Present: Senators Bayh (presiding), and Fong. 

Also present: J. William Heckman, Jr., chief counsel, Abby 
Brezina, chief clerk, and Teddie Phillips, assistant clerk. 

Senator Bath. We will reconvene our hearings, if you please. 

Our first two witnesses are Dr. Kenneth VanDerhoef, president, 
National Right to Life Committee, and Dr. Mildred Jefferson, chair- 
man of the board. National Right to Life Committee. They will be 
introduced by Ray White, the executive director of the committee. 

Good morning. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH D. VANDERHOEF, PRESIDENT, NA- 
TIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY 
RAY L. WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIGHT TO 
LIFE COMMITTEE, INC. 

Mr. White. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ray L. 
White. I am executive director of the National Right to Life Com- 
mittee. The executive offices are located at 1200 15th Street, here in 
Washington. . 

It is my privilege this morning to introduce to the committee Ken- 
neth VanDerhoef, who is the chief administrative officer and presi- 
dent of the National Right to Life Committee, Inc. 

Dr. Mildred Jefferson, chairman of the board, is arriving by air- 
plane— it has been delayed— and so she should be here very shortly. 

At the conclusion of Mr. VanDerhoef's testimony, he will intro- 
duce Dr. Jefferson. 

Kenneth VanDerhoef is married, has four children, ages 9 to 15. 
He has a B.A. degree from the University of Gonzaga in Spokane. 
Wash. He has done graduate study at the University of Washington 
and the University of Oregon. His law degree was obtained from the 
University of Gonzaca Law School. 

After graduation from law school. "Sir. VanDerhoef was with the 
King County prosecuting attorney's office. He was also assistant 
attorney general in the State of Washington, the attorney general's 
office. 

(1) 



Mr. VanDerhoef is now in private law practice with Geraghty, 
Geraghty, VanDerhoef & Sawyer in Seattle, Wash. 

Mr. VanDerhoef s professional affiliation are the American Bar 
Association, Washington State Bar Association, American Trial 
Lawyers Association, Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, 
Seattle-King County Bar Association, judge pro tempore, Seattle 
Municipal Court, vice president and member of the Board of Trust- 
ees, Providence Medical Center. Seattle, past president of the Uni- 
versity of Gonzaga Law School National Alumni Association, mem- 
ber of the Board of Directors of the University of Gonzaga National 
Alumni Association, president of Human Life Association, Wash- 
ington State. 

Mr. VanDerhoef served with the first Board of Directors of the 
National Right to Life Committee, which was first convened in 1969. 
And so it is my privilege. Mr. Chairman, to introduce to you Kenneth 
VanDerhoef, president. National Right to Life Committee. 

Senator Bath. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. VanDerhoef? 

Mr. VanDerhoef. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you on behalf of the National Right to Life Committee, hopefully 
to assist this committee in the resolution of a national concern that 
demands the most sensitive type of legislation. This legislation must 
protect and guarantee the most basic right of our heritage, that is, 
the right to life. 

By way of introduction, I also would like to outline what the Na- 
tional Right to Life Committee is. The National Right to Life Com- 
mittee is an affiliation of State right to life organizations throughout 
the United States. Each of the 50 States has a member on our board 
of directors, and the 50-member board are the actual managers of the 
corporation. While every State of the Union is represented, they vary 
rather substantially from State to State, both in their organization 
and membership. In such States as California, we have over 120 right 
to life groups, all of them affiliated, however, under a State affiliation 
and coalition represented by one member on our board of directors. 
Various States, as T mentioned, vary in both their membership and 
the structures that they have. 

Over the past several years, the National Right to Life Committee 
has been able to draw upon these individual State organizations for 
assistance and guidance, such organizations as the Human Life Or- 
ganization on the State of Washington, which is the first group to be 
involved in a State referendum vote in 1970 on the question of abor- 
tion. The background and expertise trained in that election was called 
upon ;is a resource by the States of Michigan and North Dakota that 
were likewise faced with an abortion referendum in 1972. 

Additionally, we have as one of our most active organizations the 
New York State la'ght to life organization, which successfullv re- 
peal the law in the State of New York, but because of the veto of 
Governor Rockefeller over the legislature and the people of the State 
of New York, their actions were nullified. 

We are basically a volunteer, nondenominational. nonsectarian 
organization. The actual membership and numbers reflected we feel 



represent the majority of the people of this country. The effect of 
over 60 percent of the people of the State of Michigan rejecting an 
abortion statute proposed to them on their referendum ballot, the 
statute being far narrower than the Supreme Court decision of 1972, 
would indicate that such States as Michigan have collectively a con- 
science which rejects the basic principle that we can in fact take life, 
including the life of the unborn. This is likewise reflected by some 
70 percent of the people of the State of North Dakota, and certainly 
the substantial majority of the legislators representing the people of 
New York. 

The National Right to Life Committee has outlined three basic 
purposes. One is to promote respect for the worth and dignity of all 
human life, including the life of the unborn from the moment of 
conception; second, to promote, encourage, and sponsor such amenda- 
tory and statutory measures which will provide protection for human 
life before and after birth, particularly for the defenseless, the in- 
competent, the impaired and the incapacitated; and third, we intend 
to engage in such activities as will assist in the accomplishment of 
those purposes outlined above. 

To place your deliberations on the human life amendment in con- 
text, some historical evidence should be reviewed. The majority of the 
people of this country have rejected the abortion mentality as a solu- 
tion to any problems"that are facing this Nation. The National Right 
to Life Committee is a coalition of these people whose one basic 
effort is to demonstrate to this legislative body and to other people 
of this country that the destruction of any life is not an acceptable 
alternative in our constant quest to solve the human problems of this 
Nation. It is the position of the National Right to Life Committee 
to coordinate on a national level a movement that will properly re- 
flect the genuine and since concern of the people of this Nation. Our 
organization likewise will not accept the ultimate rejection of this 
basic value judgment to protect all human life and will work un- 
ceasingly until all such life is adequately protected. In 1970, over 
470.000 people out of some 1 million casting their votes in the State 
of Washington, rejected the right of a mother to take the life of her 
unborn child. In November of 1972, the State of Michigan by over 60 
percent rejected the same mentality while the State of North Dakota 
reiected it by over 70 percent. 

In November of 1972, the State of New York through its legislative 
process struck down the New York abortion law only to be over- 
powered by the veto of the then Governor of the State of New York, 
Nolson Rockefeller. In 1971, some 30-State legislatures considered 
lifting the abortion restrictions in their States, and the concept was 
rejected by each and everv State. 

In 1973" the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, 
struck down the will of the people of the States of Michigan. North 
Dakota, and New York, and in fact, the people of this country, and 
imposed upon all of us a legislative standard grounded on specific, 
philosophical tenets. The Court's first holding stated that it would 
not speculate as to when life begins, and it proceeded to legislate 
in this area regardless of whether life was present or not. Addition- 
allv, it indicated that the unborn child has no constitutional rights 



to the law's protection at any stage of its gestation. It stripped the 
protection of both the 5th and 14th amendments' "personhood" from 
the unborn. It eliminated not only its right to life but also the equal 
protection afforded it under the laws. While this subcommittee will 
shortly be scheduling hearings to consider the legal aspects of the 
right to life amendment, we are faced at the present time with the 
stark reality that the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7 to 2 decision has re- 
moved a class of human beings from the protection of the U.S. Con- 
stitution. It has indicated that the potentiality of human life exist- 
ing in the unborn is not afforded the protection of the personhood by 
the U.S. Constitution. 

It is not correct to say that the U.S. Supreme Court merely limited 
when abortions could be obtained. Under its definition of health as 
defined in the Doe v. Bolton case, it included "all factors, physical, 
emotional, psychological, familial, and the women's age, relevant to 
the well-being of the patient." The actual effect, then, of the U.S. 
Supreme Court decision has been to ban any legislation that would 
in any way protect the unborn from abortion. 

This derision was reached with an utter disregard for the medical 
facts that are known to us today. Most of these facts have been out- 
lined to your committee and to your personally in the medical testi- 
mony heard by this committee and presented by internationally re- 
nowned physicians and scientists. Since the time of those hearings, 
the reported studies of Dr. Motoyuki Hayashi of the Department 
of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Toho University School of Medicine 
in Tokyo, Japan, showing the actual fertilization within the human 
female and the releases of Dr. Douglas C. A. Bevis of the University 
of Leeds in England wherein he described the embryo transplants 
after successful fertilization and incubation in test tubes, have made 
it even more incumbent upon this committee and the Congress of the 
United States to analyze carefully the statements of the U.S. Su- 
preme Court as to whether or not we do in fact know when life be- 
gins and in addition as to whether or not we have the means of pro- 
tecting all life, even the earliest stages of the unborn. "While these 
latest developments are new to the scientific field, science has always 
acknowledged the above facts. "We need only to review the editorial 
that is quoted so often out of "A New Ethic for Medicine's Society" 
out of the California Medical Journal wherein they stated. "The very 
considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize 
abortion as anything but taking a human life", pointing out, I think, 
clearly, that the only way that you can do it is again to resort to 
semantic and gymnastics. 

Our Nation has gone through a very soul-searching and conscious 
wrenching episode wherein the people of this country and the legis- 
lature as well has been involved in a review and a judgment of per- 
sonal conduct which to many appeared to be devoid of moral and 
ethical judgments. The American people as well as their elected repre- 
sentatives fell the overwhelming force of social judgment and a value 
tem which had not been met by certain elective and appointed 
officials. Both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives were 
rapidly drawing to the point where they would answer not only to 
their own conscience, but also to the conscience of the public on a 
grave moral issue. 



We respectfully submit to this committee and to the U.S. Senate 
and the House of Representatives that the right to life issue is of 
such magnitude and deep personal and moral concern to the citizens 
of this country that their reaction would be far stronger than to the 
crisis the Nation has just passed through. 

The question facing this Nation in addressing the abortion ques- 
tion involves a true balancing between two innocent lives. The 
mother, because she is pregnant, has not forfeited her right to life. 
The child conceived has done nothing to dictate that its life should 
be taken. Both deserve the utmost in competent medical care. There 
may be cases where the material care to prevent the death of the 
mother is more sophisticated than is presently available to an infant, 
No action should be taken, however, to eliminate the life of the child, 
and every precaution and medical measure must be used to assure 
that neither life be sacrificed for the sake of. the other. 

One may assume this position without losing sight or sensitivity 
to the other sensitive issue involved. The difficulty of problem preg- 
nancies must be faced, and consequently the National Right to Life 
Committee does all in its power to support all programs, such as 
birth right, pregnancy aid, that are designed to assist in problem 
pregnancies. All such programs, however, which offer alternatives to 
the taking of an innocent life rest on a basic definition of not only 
the right to life but also the responsibility that each of us have to 
assist those in need. The pragmatic or utilitarian approach to the 
quality of life must not allow the implementation of a program that 
would improve vour or my specific quality of life by destroying 
another. It is difficult to imagine how a physician trained in the prac- 
tice of medicine could make a statement to me recently that he "had 
performed over 3,000 abortions without the loss of a single life." We 
are less than intellectually honest if we deny the facts as presented 
bv science todav that we are dealing with a life. 

* It should also be clear to this committee that the human life amend- 
ment presently being discussed is not an abortion statute. It will 
hopefullv be designed to afford the constitutional protection of the 
5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution to all human 
beings, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their bio- 
logical development irrespective of age; health, function or condition 
of dependency. We have already seen the effect of defining the un- 
born as a nonperson in the area of fetal experimentation, infanticide 
and the accelerated interest in death with dignity legislation. Peo- 
ple's moral sensitivity will ultimately be reflected in our legislative 
deliberations. 

The U.S. Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1973, has not 
only not resolved the question but in fact has brought us to the 
stage where the conscience of the American public, after a brief ex- 
posure to the realities of the nonpersonhood of a segment of society 
has become intolerable. The unborn has value because it is human 
not because it is wanted, convenient, or meets some arbitrary standard 
of physical or mental normalcy. Once the scientific facts are explained 
to people, the solution proposed by the U.S. Supreme Court must be 
sold on the merits illustrated by the newly elected president of the 
Canadian Medical Association when she indicated that abortion was 



a "necessary evil." It must be sold on necessity because it will never 
be sold on the fact that it is not evil. It will never be morally 
justifiable. We cannot for a moment lose sight of the fact that the 
U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade stated that its judgment was 
consistent with an attempt to "solve the profound problems of the 
present day." We likewise cannot ignore the concurring opinion of 
Justice Douglas when he stated that this "is only the beginning. The 
State has interest to protect." If it is acceptable to the American 
people that our system will legalize a selective, technologically ef- 
ficient elimination of a segment of our society in an attempt to solve 
any of our social ills, such action would be so violative of our ideals 
of jurisprudence that the ultimate effect would be to destroy our 
society. For this reason, the National Right to Life Committee most 
strongly urges that this committee adopt and endorse a constitu- 
tional amendment, and that that constitutional provision would se- 
cure the following rights : 

First, define the word "person" as used in the 5th and 14th amend- 
ments as applicable to all human beings, including their unborn off- 
spring at every stage of their biological development irrespective of 
age, health, function, or condition of dependency. 

Second, clarify that the definition of the word "person" as used in 
the 5th and 14th amendments and defined in section 1 above, with 
respect to due process and equal protection of the law, would thus 
prohibit official Federal and State action designed to deprive the 
unborn child of its life. 

Third, to provide legal and constitutional rigidity to assure that 
the life of the unborn child is protected in every reasonable effort 
made to preserve the life of that child in light of all of the rapid 
medical advances in the care of the unborn as well as providing the 
constitutional protection to prevent the death of the mother. 

It is within those principles that we support all legislation which 
demonstrates that its intent and purpose is to secure these ultimate 
goals. We encourage Congress, the State legislatures and all political, 
moral, and religious leaders in this country to unite personally and 
within their representative institutions to assure the attainment of 
these goals. 

T would like to conclude my presentation on a personal note. To 
the members of this committee and your colleagues in the U.S. Sen- 
ate we must realize that this is a very basic and personal responsi- 
bility that you are accountable for as you deliberated on the human 
life amendment. I have been subjected to questions and perhaps 
criticism as all of you have when addressing myself to the question 
<>f abortion. I speak to you now as a father of four children. While 
I do not deny in any way or fake exception to the fact that the ques- 
tion of alioit ion intimately affects the life of the woman, you and 
1 must not become desensitized or intimidated by the fact that we are 
men. We have a vital and God-given responsibility for the care of 
all people in tliis Nation and in this world. The unborn child is not 
;i pari of the mother's body but actually a new, distinct person carry- 
ing witli it a very intimate part of the father's verv being. My re- 
sponsibility and concern flows from the fact that the unborn child 
from its very first inception requires that I as a parent and fellow 



human being become highly visible and articulate in its defense. Its 
mother would be wanting, not to aid in its defense, but certainly no 
less than its father of the men of this country who would be accused 
of refusing to accept their responsibility to protect the life of the 
unborn. There is not a person in this country who can escape his own 
personal responsibility in this issue by indicating that it is the re- 
sponsibility of one sex or the other and that therefore I am not in- 
volved. The real issue that faces you today is the protection of all 
life. To be consistent and intellectually honest, we cannot address 
this issue on any basis other than that we are all human beings, re- 
sponsible and accountable to see that every other human being is pro- 
tected by the Constitution of the United States. 

Thank vou, and may God bless you in your deliberations. 

I would like if I might at this time, Senator, to introduce Dr. 
Mildred Jefferson. 

Senatar Bath. Fine. 

Mr. VanDerhoef. Dr. Jefferson is a general surgeon in Boston, 
Mass., and assistant clinical professor of surgery at Boston Univer- 
sity School of Medicine. 

Dr. Jefferson is chairman of the board of directors of the National 
Right to Life Committee. She also is vice president and a member of 
the board of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, president of the 
Value of Life Committee of Massachusetts, and a member of the 
board of directors of Americans United for Life. 

Dr. Jefferson graduated surama cum laude from Texas College 
in Tvler, Tex., received her M.S. degree from Tufts University, 
Medford, Mass., and her M.D. degree from Harvard Medical School. 
Dr. Jefferson holds an honorary L.D. degree from Regis College in 
western Massachusetts. Dr. Jefferson received her surgical training 
at Boston City Hospital at Boston University Medical Center, Chil- 
drens Hospital Medical Center, and Massachusetts General Hospital. 

She is a diplomat of the American Board of Surgeons and a mem- 
ber of the local, State, and national medical societies. 

It is with great pleasure I would introduce Dr. Mildred Jefferson, 
chairman of the board of the National Right to Life Committee. 

Senator Bath. Dr. Jefferson, we are privileged to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MILDRED JEFFERSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COM- 
MITTEE, INC. 

Dr. Jefferson. Delighted to be here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
for the opportunity of appearing before this committee to speak in 
support of the Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. 

Because of my feeling that the physician has obligations of citizen- 
ship beyond providing for the health care needs, I also participate 
as a member of the U.S. National Commission on the Observance of 
World Population Year, 1974. 

Although it is a privilege for me to be here, I am somewhat sad- 
dened that we must take the strong measures that we must to prevent 
the destruction of lives of those who cannot defend themselves. Most 
immediately, there are those unborn who would be considered social 



8 

embarrassment or economic burdens. The jeopardy already extends 
to the newly born with severe mental or physical defects. The elderly 
are being invited to die with dignity, and those who accept the invi- 
tation may soon find themselves invited or perhaps urged to choose 
to die. If a society can develop tolerance for destroying lives at the 
beginning and the end. why not apply the methods to eliminate the 
deformed, defective, incapable, the incompetent, or the inconvenient 
anywhere along the scale? If the destruction of life is permissible for 
social and economic reasons, why not for political reasons? 

It is reasonable to apply the extermination principle of social 
change to that segment of the population that cannot fight back, can- 
not riot in the streets and of course, cannot vote. Getting rid of babies 
before they can be born in their own time can be arranged so very 
readily with our modern medical technology. Separating the word 
"abortion" from the fact of what abortion does allow it to be pro- 
moted as a welcome escape from a probles without considering the 
threat of harm in the promise of the relief. 

The acting of killing an unborn child involves complex medical, 
moral, and legal issues. On January 22, 1973, the majority of the 
Supreme Court of the United States undertook to reduce them to 
a simple medical problem by handing down decisions on abortion 
which left the abortion decision to be a private matter between a 
woman and a doctor, subject to the doctor's medical judgment. The 
Court acted in the tradition of the 19th century Court that decided 
to settle the problem of slavery by declaring one ensloved Dred Scott 
to be "property" therefore not a person and not entitled to the pro- 
tection of citizenship. The 20th century Court may have intended to 
create social revolution with its abortion rulings. If so, the Court 
succeeded in turning the whoel of social progress a full turn back- 
ward. 

By joining the strong team of the woman and the doctor against 
the unborn child, the High Court destroyed a principle of justice 
in our legal system which guaranteed some balance for the weak in 
'•(.nil id with the strong by joining with the weak against the strong. 
By requiring the unborn child to escape an extermination team of the 
mother and doctor for 6 months before having chance of protection 
by the State, the High Court destroyed fairness in the application 
of our laws. By allowing the State to protect the life that Mr. Justice 
Blackmun called potential in the last 3 months before birth only if 
it chooses, means that the Court did not guarantee protection for the 
life of that child at any point before birth or after if the State 
should choose not to protect that life. And that opens the jeopardy 
to us all. 

The Supreme Court destroyed the foundations of democracy in the 
abortion decisions by creating three categories of citizenship. The 
doctor and pregnant woman were elevated to the rank of super- 
citizens with the private right to kill by contract. Man. the father of 
i lie child, was reduced to the level of subcitizen with no defined right 
to proteei the life of his unborn child. The unborn child was declared 
nonperson in the eyes of the law. and therefore, noncitizen only to 
allow hisor her life to be taken. 

The highest Court of our land undermined respect for the medical 
profession by granting the doctor a nearly unlimited license to kill 



the unborn child. The majority opinion of the Court disparaged the 
hippocratic oath as a guiding principle of medical conduct. Seven 
justices of the Court undertook to practice medicine without a license 
by dictating what should comprise medical judgment in the abortion 
decision. Without indicating when life began, the Court established 
a timetable for allowing willful end of that life. Most cruelly, the 
Court introduced the concept of viability, "potentially able to sur- 
vive outside the mother's womb" as a price to pay for continued life. 
It places the immature, premature survivor of abortion in the cir- 
cumstance of having to prove the ability to live before being given 
the support system that would help sustain its life. As a physician 
I cannot accept that because it is not a sound or reasonable test. It 
also disturbs me that those physicians who have been paid to see 
that the mother leaves the facility with empty arms have been the 
ones to try to establish the criteria for viability. 

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decisions on abortion 
we have seen increased efforts to popularize or make acceptable the 
extermination procedures of the radical social medicine. The talk- 
master on a late night Boston radio program feels obliged to offer 
abortion counseling to a 14-year-old caller who thinks she is preg- 
nant and has not told her parents. Specialists at a famous teaching 
center feel obliged to report in The New England Journal of Medi- 
cine allowing 43 infants with severe deformities to die. Legislators in 
the States of Florida and Massachusetts, among others, introduced 
passive euthanasia bills which would give the permission which doc- 
tors do not really need to withhold extraordinary means of prolong- 
ing life when death appears inevitable. 

Senator Bath. Pardon me, Doctor, by what definition is that kind 
of statute described as a euthanasia statute? 

Dr. Jefferson. It is a passive euthanasia statute in the sense that 
it executes an instrument which allows or directs that extraordinary 
means bo withheld. No doctor using sound medical judgment needs 
such direction, but with the instrument executed, there is also the 
provision of what happens when the person is no longer competent 
to act ? It is very simple then to use this to ease the person along, so 
it becomes very simple to convert it from a passive euthanasia bill 
to an active one. 

Senator Bath. We are playing with words, and I do not want to 
get into a prolonged argument on this. I think the question of abor- 
tion is a very critical matter and I think it is complicated signifi- 
cantly when we try to conjure up something entirely different such 
as euthanasia. If there had been a euthanasia statute passed or even 
proceeded significantly through a legislative body, I would like to 
know about it. But a statute described as a passive euthanasia statute 
is not the same thing as euthanasia by any means. I think that sort 
of gets us off on the wrong road, does it not? We have got enough 
problem here confining it to where we are. 

Dr. Jefferson. I am stating the things that have taken place. If 
one reads the letter from the doctor who was a legislator in Florida 
who introduced the bill, who mentioned the 5 years in the building 
for the bill he did introduce, and why he felt that the climate was 
then suitable for introducing that legislation. That was written in 
a letter 



10 

Senator Bath. Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you said it 
had passed. 

Dr. Jefferson. No, no ; introduced. The one in Florida was intro- 
duced first. The one in Massachusetts was introduced in this session 
of the legislature. 

Senator Bath. Is the one in Florida similar to the Florida statute 
when it was passed? 

Dr. Jefferson. It was entirely different when passed out of com- 
mittee, but there were no changes in the ones that — the one in Mas- 
sachusetts was introduced which essentially followed the form of the 
living will. 

Senator Bath. In other words, if a person like the former Senator 
Morse, wants to turn off the kidney machine, he has a right to say 
turn off the kidney machine. 

Dr. Jefferson. He has a right to direct, but the doctor does not 
need that in terms of the law or an instrument to be executed. If the 
physician is following the case carefully, the sound medical judg- 
ment should let him know when it is not reasonable to use the ex- 
traordinary means. 

Senator Bath. Well, suppose the patient disagrees with the doctors 
and says look, I'm tired of you poking me with that needle. Would 
you just stop it. Then do you as a physician, think a patient has a 
right to ask the doctor to do that or not ? 

Dr. Jefferson. The patient has every right to ask, but the doctor 
must act within that doctor's sound medical judgment, and that doc- 
tor still 

Senator Bath. Was that answer yes or no ? 

Dr. Jefferson. I cannot answer that yes or no because the doctor 
still has to act within the provisions that control his action in the 
hospital. 

Senator Bath. Let us take the kidney problem as specifically, 
painfully and unfortunately faced by our former colleague Wayne 
Morse. 

Dr. Jefferson. Yes. 

Senator Bath. Wayne Morse happened to be somebody everybody 
knows. Suppose Jack Jones out here that nobody ever heard of comes 
to yon and savs, "Look, I do not want to take that treatment any- 
more, Doctor." 

Dr. Jkfff.rson. I would have to turn Jack Jones over to a doctor 
who would allow a patient to dictate his treatment. You see, I come 
from ;i rather different medical background. I was part of the first 
ten in to work on the kidney transplantation so that I look upon 
kidney failure in a different way. I also handle the relationship of 
a patient in a different way. I have never had a patient ask to re- 
fuse treatment that was considered necessary within my medical 
judgment, so that if T felt, understanding and meeting the patient's 
sense, that lie wanted to direct his treatment, I would feel obliged 
to find that patient another doctor. 

Senator Bath. Then the answer you would give to my question is 
"no," you would not continue to serve as a physician to someone who 
wants to stop receiving certain treatment and let nature take its 
• ourse. 



11 

Dr. Jefferson. That is true, when I feel that best medical judg- 
ment indicates that there is a positive chance for the treatment. You 
do not just treat because you have the things there available. 

Senator Bath. All right, thank you. 

As I say, I can accept the argument of euthanasia as a very good 
signal to us to be careful that we do not follow the tragic experience 
of Nazi Germany. But I must say I have much greater faith, than 
apparently you and some others do, in the capacity of the people 
of this country to root out euthanasia. I think it is possible to dis- 
tinguish the difference between death with dignity and euthanasia. 
I have heard death with dignity described as letting someone make 
his or her determination as to what kind of treatment and how long 
it should be prolonged, as long as they are within command of their 
capacities. 

Dr. Jefferson. I understand your view, but I see it obviously from 
a different circumstance. I know that in medicine we cannot be sure 
that every patient is going to get reasonable care. I know that things 
that are considered extraordinary today were not — or will not be 
considered extraordinary within 2 or 3 years. I know some things 
that were considered extraordinary in 1965 that are perfectly ordi- 
nary and reasonable treatment now. I am not willing at this point 
to allow the members of my profession to step back from doing 
what is reasonable and necessary because I know already there are 
few, very few, but still a few who will not know what is necessary 
at the time. 

So that when people mention death with dignity to me, I know 
in the first place that dignity is a quality of the living not of dying, 
and when people see this, often they have not seen many people die. 
I have been watching people die since I was a child, when I used 
to visit them to see the souls leave, and there was no dignity in dying 
from neglect, from strangling on one's own secretions, from trying 
very hard to breathe, or from feeling so dry that the person is gasp- 
ing^ But the doctor who is following the patient well, even in the 
most hopeless of circumstances, can help the patient die comfortably 
and more easily, but still within a reasonable ethical limit, and it is 
just that unfortunately slogans are appealing, but people often do not 
look far enough behind the slogans. 

Senator Bath. I am certainly looking behind the slogans. I do 
not like to see anybody gasping or strangling on their own liquids 
either, but we are talking about a relatively few people, that ever 
have to face that decision. Unfortunately some of them do, and I, 
for one, would not want to impose some sort of a rule by constitu- 
tional amendment or statute limiting their right to control the 
amount of treatment received. If I were a legislator I would not 
want to say to those relatively few people, we are going to take vour 
right to determine how you are going to go to your own Maker, as long 
as vou do not take it yourself. 

Dr. Jefferson. That is quite all right. Thank you. 

Repeatedly, the High Court has refused to review the scientific 
evidence of the life of the unborn in cases, for example, like those 
from Connecticut and Rhode Island, the evidence which was so well 
presented to you in this hearing on May 7 by Dr. Albert "William 



12 

Liley of New Zealand, who is perhaps the father of that specialty 
studying the child before birth known as perinatology, and Professor 
Jerome Lejeune of France, who is a world-reknowned geneticist, and 
one who predicts that perhaps the answer or management of mon- 
golism will be within this century. 

The court has denied the father, an unwed father in Florida, any 
right to protect the right of his child, and in Massachusetts an 
estranged father was denied the right to save the life of his child 
during 19 weeks within its mothers womb. The Supreme Court de- 
cisions are used as an excuse for some doctors to use no medical 
judgment in the, abortion decision, but to serve simply as medical 
technicians performing abortion on demand. Roe v. Wade has be- 
come the principal device for promoting abortion in the United 
States. The decisions protecting abortion privacy are used to force 
public support of abortion practice by the use of tax moneys through 
medicaid and insurance payments which do not allow subscribers to 
avoid paying for the abortions that others would have. The poor 
woman who has not yet been guaranteed access to the health care 
delivery system can now, with fair readiness at least, be given access 
to getting rid of her unborn child. 

We also see the threat to the lives and health of women who are 
subjected to unmonitored operation circumstances. As the State may 
not interfere in the abortion decision in the first 3 months, women 
are subjected to all of the risks that were supposedly involved in the 
so-called illegal abortion practices. They are subjected to operations 
at the hands of those who do not have to subject themselves to the 
scrutiny of peer review, credentials review, observation of their 
skills, the hygiene of safety of the physical plant, the kinds of re- 
sults that their operations have produced, or whether or not that 
operator has the ability to handle the complications that would arise 
from the procedure. 

It is our ri.o-ht as citizens in a free republic to use everv democratic 
means possible to overturn a decision which we consider morally, 
medically, and legally wrong. 

Quo democratic means is using the political process to join those 
of like mind to accomplish legislative change. Throughout the 
country, many people from all walks of life, social conditions, re- 
ligions or no formal belief, political parties or no partisan affiliation 
are joining the effort to defend the sancity-of-life ethnic. Collectively, 
this is known as the right-to-life movement. There are at least 1,000 
right-to-life organizations recorded as well as an uncounted addi- 
tional number of those who function as ad hoc committees to respond 
to many abortion promotions which they observe. 

The National Right To Life Committee is an effort to provide 
an organizational arm through which various State groups can con- 
centrate effectiveness here in Washington. 

The organizations are as diverse as the people who comprise them, 
but they are distinguished by having political effectiveness within 
the States. These are by no means all, but among these are the pio- 
neer groups of those from New York, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri 
Washington State. California. Kentucky, and the city of Cincinnati 
with the most dramatic election victories against abortion on demand 



13 

in the fall before the Supreme Court decision in Michigan and North 
Dakota. In addition to effectiveness, some of the groups are outstand- 
ing for their sheer size, like Pennsylvanians for Human Life with a 
membership in excess of 100,000. Gaining recognition for effectiveness 
and rapid growth in Massachusetts Citizens For Life with a member- 
ship in excess of about 60,000 in less than the 2 years it has been in 
existence, nad the numbers are growing. 

We are committed to achieving an amendment to the Constitu- 
tion which will protect human life from its beginning to its natural 
end. With the necessity for ratification of such an amendment and 
securing as well as defending enabling legislation within the States, 
right-to-life organizations will become a permanent part of the po- 
litical scene. 

We have heard the objections to the idea of a constitutional amend- 
ment, a human life amendment, but these sound hollow when they 
are given by those who voted for the Equal Rights amendment. We 
cannot consider seriously the obections based on the falsehood that 
the unborn child is not alive before birth, is somehow other than 
human, or is a part of the mother's body when modern science has 
demonstrated exactly what the biological facts are. We are not re- 
sponsive to the philosophic view that holds that to be unwanted is 
to be unwantable and therefore expendable. We are dismayed by 
the dishonesty in the suggestion that a pregnant woman has "free- 
dom of choice" in the outcome of the pregnancy. She can become 
unpregnant in only two ways: By giving birth to a living child, or 
unfortunately sometimes to a stillborn or delivering a dead one by 
abortion. We know that the Constitution as it is or even as amended 
would not interfere with a physician practicing the medicine of sal- 
vage and healing. 

Our objective is to defend the dream of America as a democracy 
with liberty and justice for all, and not an elitist preserve where 
only the perfect, the privileged, or the planned have the right to 
live. 

Senator Bath. Thank you, Doctor, and Mr. VanDerhoef. Doctor, 
you brought very unique credentials to this discussion, and I ap- 
preciate both of your testimonies. We all have more places to be than 
we can be right now. There is a vote going on, and we are going 
to have to leave shortly, and Senator Fong has an important ap- 
propriations conference that he is going to have to participate in. 

Otherwise he would be here. Do you care to ask any questions 
before we recess? 

Senator Fong. No ; I have no questions. But we do have the vote. 

Senator Bath. Doctor, you mentioned the ERA. Do you support 
that, or did you support that? 

Dr. Jefferson. I am in favor of equal rights for all, but if one 
wants to look at it in a technical way, there should have been no 
necessity for indeed the Constitution should provide for all. 

There have been various Supreme Court decisions upholding this 
principle of equal rights for all. Various States have enacted legis- 
lation, but still it was found necessary by some to underline this 
provision to make sure that it was possible, and it is for that reason 
that we found it necessary to underline what should be an understood 
provision in the interpretation of the Constitution. 



14 

But somehow there is a gap between the idealization and what 
actually happens, and as it should not have been necessary to pass 
an equal rights amendment, it should not be necessary to look for 
protection of lives, but unfortunately it is. 

Senator Bath. I am just trying to find out how you feel. Is the 
answer yes or no? Do you support the equal rights amendment? 

Dr. Jefferson. I do not understand. 

Senator Bath. Do you support the equal rights amendment that 
is now before the State legislatures ? I think about 33 have ratified it. 

Dr. Jefferson. Massachusetts has already, sir, so my stand is moot. 

Senator Bath. Well, you refer to it in sort of a negative aspect. 
Do you support it or not? 

Dr. Jefferson. I support the principle. As for the amendment as 
such, I do not feel it necessary in the face of the favorable States' 
laws as well as the Supreme Court decisions. I would not object to it. 

Senator Bath. Could you cite me one Supreme Court decision that 
brought women under due process of the 14th amendment? 

Dr. Jefferson. I did not hear the first part of that. 

Senator Bath. I do not know one Supreme Court decision that 
actually brought women as a class of Americans under the equal 
protection and due process clauses. 

If you are familiar with one I would be glad to know it. 

Dr. Jefferson. I did not consider that they were excluded, since 
any of the 

Senator Bath. Well, that is the way the Supreme Court has looked 
at them now for 100 and some years, and that is why it was neces- 
sary to pass the amendment. You do not support the equal rights 
amendment ? 

Dr. Jefferson. No, I did not say that. I said I did not see that the 
same necessity was — but I thought that for those, who, I have heard 
objections to the human life amendment, have usually said that they 
regarded the document as something that should not be modified 
or approached lightly and we agree with that. 

But the same people who have offered that argument for not sup- 
porting at this time the human life amendment have indeed sup- 
ported the equal rights amendment. 

Senator Bath. You know we have all sorts of people. I do not 
think we ought to judge a position legislatively because a few peo- 
ple may assume philosophies or arguments on an issue that we dis- 
agree with. 

I think it is totally possible to be for the equal rights amendment 
and still be very concerned about abortion, but apparently you do 
not. 

Dr. Jefferson. I see it a different way. I simply cannot under- 
stand. 

Senator Bath. I am going to have to vote. I am not going to 
change your mind at all. 

Dr. Jefferson. I cannot see wanting rights to myself that I would 
not extend to my child, my husband, mv friends. That is the prin- 
ciple. 

Senator Bath. Unfortunately, if you look at the pay scale of 
women, if you look at the inability to get women emploved in public 
institutions at an equal rate, if you look at the lack of 'equal justice 



15 

before the law in many States, women have not been treated equally. 
I'd think it was important to give other women who have not been 
quite as fortunate as you to have a chance to have equal rights, and 
I do not think that is inconsistent with being very concerned about 
abortion, but I accept your judgment. 

I do not certainly deny you that. 

Dr. Jefferson. I did not say that I have had equal rights but I do 
not let the effort show. 

Senator Bath. I have heard Mrs. Chisholm say, a very distin- 
guished black legislator, that she found that she was discriminated 
against to a much greater degree because she happened to be a woman 
than because she happened to be black, that may not be your ex- 
perience. But we did pass the amendment and it is out before the 
States for ratification. You say Massachusetts has ratified it, so really 
it is not that important. 

I will be right back. 

[A brief recess was taken.] 

Senator Bath. Could we reconvene our session, please? 

Mr. VanDerhoef, Dr. Jefferson, I apologize for the interruption 
here. 

Dr. Jefferson. We understand. 

Senator Bath. I found when I got over there there was not one 
vote, but two; so I stayed long enough to cast the second one, and 
now we are back. 

Both of you, I think, make very eloquent statements supporting 
the cause that brings you here. Do either one of you care to express 
the National Right to Life Committee's position on which of the 
two amendments you would prefer; the Helms amendment or the 
Buckley amendment? 

Mr. VanDerhoef. I would address myself, on behalf of the Right 
to Life Committee, and I am sure Dr. Jefferson will, too. I think at 
this point we have seen a development of thought since the Supreme 
Court decision 1972 that requires, I think, a very close analysis, and 
will be expanded even further in the hearings in front of this com- 
mittee on the legal aspects. 

As a policy statement, we support all of the right to life amend- 
ments that will in any way alter or assist in overcoming the Supreme 
Court decision. We do feel, though, that in the legislative history 
that is being prepared at the present time, we would not wish to be 
precluded from continual input and assistance to this committee in 
reaching the ultimate goals that I outlined in my statement; and 
that is that the word person in fact be defined to include the unborn. 
Also, that we carefully analyze the medical aspects, so that legally 
we do not become involved where we have eliminated procedures that 
are rapidly unfolding. Our concern is, for instance, if they have 
transplanted the developing human being from test tube incubation 
into the mother, is there any reason why we likewise do not remove 

it? 

So the amendment, I think, as it comes out of this committee, 
would of necessity involve perhaps some additional modification of 
all of the amendments or any of the amendments which are pending, 
so we support all of those. We would ask, however, to be consulted, 
and would offer our assistance in drafting, ultimately, the best 
amendment that will afford protection. 



16 

Senator Bayh. What kind of modifications could you anticipate? 

Mr. VanDerhoef. I think there are two areas that we have talked 
about that have come to life in the last 2 months, and one of them is 
a word, and I think it should be eliminated; an exception clause. I 
do not think we are talking about an exception as such. We are ta ^" 
ing about a balancing between two lives, where the ultimate obli- 
gation and constitutional protection is afforded to both parties; and 
this again, then, if we aer talking about an exception clause in the 
debate between the amendments presently pending, make a good deal 
of this. And I think, legally, we will hope to participate, and will 
participate, in the hearings on the legal matter, and define further. 
The word execption, I think, has to be eliminated. We are not talk- 
ing about an exception, because there is no exception where we would 
want to destroy the life of the mother or destroy the life of the 
child. So I think that is one area that specifically needs additional 
modification over the amendments that are presently pending; at 
least, consideration to be sure that the amendments pending do, in 
fact, answer that question. 

Senator Bath. Does the National Right to Life Committee sup- 
port an amendment that permits the mother, father, and doctor to 
make a decision that there shall be an abortion performed, if it is 
necessary to save the life of the mother? 

Mr. VanDerhoef. In light of the decision being made, likewise, 
to save the life of the child, not to the expense of the child, but to 
the life of the child as well; and there is, as I mentioned in my re- 
marks, there are certain cases today in which the medical science has 
not achieved the sophistication to preserve that life. But we do not 
support an amendment that would allow the exclusion of those pro- 
cedures that will, in fact, protect the life; and I think that is where 
the word exception becomes very dangerous — to say that a mother, 
father, and doctor have the right to determine that that child's life 
will be taken, when in fact that child's life could be saved. To pre- 
vent the death of the child as well as the death of the mother is our 
ultimate goal. 

Dr. Jefferson. The diversity of this group obviously indicates 
that I think it would not be possible for anyone to write an amend- 
ment that every single person in the country would support. The 
Legal Advisory Committee of the National Right to Life Committee 
came up with the drafting of the amendment, that was introduced 
by— as I think it is identified now — as the Derwinski amendment, but 
it is the one that came out of the Legal Advisory Committee of the 
National Right to Life Committee. That one differs from the others 
in the sense that the protection of life is provided complete — more 
of a constitutional protection. But it also restores the States rights to 
act in that balancing of the lives, so that the States actions could be 
whatever the groups within the States did indeed determine, so that 
if had considerable support. 

But T think the thing most people recognize is that an amendment 
as introduced is rarely the form that it comes out finally, so that we 
have at least enough, T think, to approach what any person who sup- 
ports the human lifo amendment would like to work with. 

Senator Bath. The chairman of this committee, as one of 100 
Members of the Senate, I am not permitted the luxury of dealing 



17 

with broad generalities. That is why I tried to pin you down on the 
equal rights amendment, We either have to vote yes or no. We can- 
not say, generally, we are for the principles that sound nice. You 
vote yes or no, but you are not in that position yet where you want 
to say, this is the best proposal. I mean, you point out that there 
are certain questions that remain. 

Mr. VanDerhoef. Yes. I think the position will become clear, both 
to the committee and certainly in its final form, as we have the hear- 
ings on the legal ramifications of exact wording. And for that rea- 
son, I think that those hearings are essential before the final draft, 
and I am sure that this committee would be able to drum 

Senator Bath. Well, I certainly hope you will feel free to com- 
municate with us in the future, as you have in the past. 

Are there any other areas where you might find some flexibility 
relative to the competing lives— for example, in the case of rape, in- 
cest, genetic congenital disease of certain types? Is there any flexi- 
bility there? 

Mr. VanDerhoef. Again, I think we are talking about ultimately 
resolving the problem of two innocent lives, and none of those, as I 
see, would be a defect in the rights of the unborn that would warrant 
its destruction. Certainly, as far as the medical criteria for deformity 
and this type of thing, Dr. Jefferson addressed herself to that. But 
I think the specific items that you mentioned, none of them would 
constitute, under due process or equal protection of either the 5th or 
14th amendments, any reason to take the life of the unborn child. 
And for that reason, we would hope that the committee would, in its 
draft, to gain support from this Nation, that it protect both of those 
lives. If, in fact, in the— again, I hate to use the word— an execption 
is drawn someplace, it would have to be drawn in the light of the 
fact that, for some reason, due process and equal protection did not 
apply to the unborn. 

Senator Bath. Let me express the concern in other terms. We have 
not yet explored the legal ramifications by which I think you could 
perhaps draw a due process decision where you have consenting 
adults participating in the exception. We have one problem in that 
situation ; if you have a woman who is not voluntarily participating 
in those acts/but is forced into a situation that leads to an exception, 
the exception is forced upon here. Now, does that give any running 
room in the rape situation, as far as you are concerned ? 

Mr. VanDerhoef. I do not believe it does answer the—; — 

Senator Bath. In the case of a minor child, a minor girl? 

Mr. VanDerhoef. Tragic as those situations are — and again, as 
I mentioned, we do not lose our sensitivities to them — we must hope for 
a solution then, and I find it difficult to imagine that the solution 
would be to destroy the innocent life because of the circumstances 
that begot that child. So I think again, there are other ways, I would 
think, of solving this; and again, based on the fact that we are talk- 
ing here, constitutionally, of what has that child, the distinct, con- 
ceived child, clone to warrant the forfeiture of its life? 

And so, I think the difficulty is that the circumstances that have 
iust been described by you deal with the mother, and that certainly 
is a very vital part that must be considered. Does it override, how- 



18 

ever, the fact that as a result of that, we now have a second life ? Be- 
cause I think tragedies happen in a family that are every bit as 
tragic to the mother and to her well-being — perhaps after the child 
is born, and we do not afford that. So again, it gets back to the very 
basic question ; has that child, who now has a separate existence, for- 
feited that because of some act of the mother, or some act of a third 
party to her mother? And I do not think it can be resolved by saying 
it is a forfeiting of a constitutional right. 

Senator Bayh. You have four children. Do you feel that same 
way if it was one of your daughters? 

Mr. VanDerhoef. I do. 

Dr. Jefferson. There are some other considerations, I think, that 
are often overlooked in this kind of discussion. As a physician, I am 
well aware of the fact that we like to have safeguards, and we also 
like to have escape hatches. "We like to have that little bit of extra 
protection. But I think as physicians we must face up to what medi- 
cine is in 1974, and what that practice of medicine is. 

When one deals with the matter of rape and incest and so on, we 
must look a little bit more carefully, as well as the genetic screening 
that you mentioned, of what we are dealing with. Rape, for example — 
often, in the discussions, we do not have adequate review of just 
what the pregnancy complication of rape is. Pregnancy is not the 
commonest complication of rape; veneral disease and injuries are. 
Obviously, in the one young woman who did become pregnant as a 
result of rape, it is a problem. But even with that, one has to look 
a little bit more closely at the woman involved. A first pregnancy 
may be the only pregnancy. It may not be that ending the pregnancy 
is best for that particular young woman or girl. The matter of rape 
is a difficult scene. It creates psychological scars. You cannot erase 
the fact of the rape or punish the rapist by aborting a pregnancy 
that develops. However, you may seriously handicap this woman's 
reproductive future if she is very young, and if that is her first preg- 
nancy that is interrupted. 

I think one thing is that I do not look upon pregnancy as quite 
the burden as some other people may. Even though I have not been 
pregnant, I have been at least watching pregnant people all of my 
life, and I just do not see it as quite this great, awful burden that 
some people seem to see. 

Senator Bath. Well, then, it is extremely difficult for some of us 
who have not been raped to share that experience with somebody 
who has. 

Dr. Jefferson. I have known people who have. I have known many 
people in many circumstances. I also grew up watching 12, 13 and 
L4-year-old girls going through pregnancies delivered by midwives, 
so that the matter of the attitude toward the pregnancy and the rape 
situation are things which require very careful handling, and there is 
a way of glossing over what is happening to the young woman in the 
rape situation when the focus is on abortion — to get rid of the conse- 
quences of the rape — and that social circumstance — we ignore doing 
something about the rapist, and with the focus on the young woman, 
we simply do not do the tilings necessary. 

For example, the families who know that they have a sociopath — 
this is particularly a concern in the matter of incest, because often 



19 

the minor child who is raped or has been raped by some member of 
the family— so that there is a good deal in that situation which is 
glossed over when the focus is on what happens to the pregnancy. 
There is also the matter that we should look more closely into the 
matter of incest. What is wrong with it? What is wrong with the 
pregnancy? Why does it mean automatic ending of pregnancy that 
results from incest % Much of the things said about the children that 
develop from incest are not borne out in the actual observations of 
the people. If we look at an experience like that of Sweden, that 
for some reason seems to have an especially high incidence of incest, 
the one that suffers in it is not usually the woman, the girl. It is 
usually the father who ends up in some kind of mental institution, 
and of the ones that have been followed, the young women seem not 
to have particular psychological problems after; and those followed 
have made successful marriages. 

So that we have to look, I think, beyond what some of our set 
ideas are regarding these two areas. They are quite emotional in 
terms of the person who does not respond to the matter of a young 
woman pregnant as a result of rape or incest. But on the other hand, 
I think we need to look a little bit more as to whether or not ending 
the pregnancy is going to be in the best interest of that young 
woman; and the focus on it from the legislative area tends to push 
the matter of clearing out the complication to the detriment, some- 
times, of young women involved. The matter of the genetic screening 
and the use of the diagnostic measures in a search-and-destroy man- 
ner bring up serious questions. 

From a medical point of view, I have to look closely into the pro- 
cedures themselves. Amniocentesis, for example, a procedure which 
requires exceptional skill for its use, a procedure which has its own 
risks, as a careful review of the complications of the procedure would 
turn up; but there is also another matter that I, as a physician 
watching what we do, must think of, and that is the matter that the 
increasing tendency of centers who do this to do the procedure with 
the assurance that the parents will agree to abortion if a defective 
child is found. 

Now, ideally, we know that they are concerned about the family 
unit and the defective child. But on the other hand, we have to look 
at the very practical matter that if the operator doing the test has 
had something happen — maybe a few eye cells or a few other cells 
that should not have been removed have been removed. It is very 
simple to abort the child and avoid the malpractice case later. Those 
are also concerns that enter into this matter, which make the matter 
of genetic screening not quite the ideal that one may mention. But 
it also carries in the overlay, the underlying idea, that we have sort 
of flirted towards before. You mentioned the Nazi experience. The 
search-and-destroy mission is a preNazi attitude; the attitude of re- 
moving the burden from some society happened before the Nazis 
came to power in fact, I think it was in the 1920's, in Leipzig, a book 
was written by Hucke and Binding with a very awkward title which, 
translated into English, is something like On the Release of the De- 
struction of Live Devoid of Value. The ideas represented in that 
book were that there are some lives which are simply worthless. They 
are burdens to society. There should be no penalty for removing these 



20 

burdens from society. Doctors are in the best position for removing 
such burdens from society, so doctors should suffer no penalty for 
removing such burdens — and German medicine took this to heart ; 
not the quacks, but the great professors. And long before Hitler came 
to power, they had undertaken to help remove the burdens from 
German society. 

Many of my fellow physicians are quite interested in the new social 
medicine, and the new social medicine does indeed take a very ag- 
gressive attitude in removing such burdens of society. The immediate 
target is the Mongoloid child, because there is a way of determining 
and diagnosing it. There is the Tay-Sachs child, the Tay-Sachs child 
who is not visibly defective at the time it is born, and may even be 
at the early stages an unusual child, unusual in every physical as- 
pects, until the disease effect catches up, and then the deterioration 
and death. But it is to prevent what happens later that the child is 
destroyed at that point. But I have not seen a single paper in the 
American literature that calls attention to the fact that in a long 
series of cases from Europe, for example, and England, that when 
first pregnancies are interrupted by abortion, there is an incidence 
of birth defects in subsequent children born of such women which is 
higher than the incidence of such genetic defects in the population. 

So that we do not know that in medicine, that we are creating a 
reasonable circumstance. We can say that perhaps it is better to have 
deformed hips than it is to have Tay-Sachs Disease or have a Mongo- 
loid child. But that is simply a value judgment. But I think we tend 
to emphasize a little too much the emotional aspects that my pro- 
fession presents in wanting the safeguards or the escape hatch when 
someone is suggesting that the profession of medicine may remember 
the hippocratic tradition, which simply would not accept the kind of 
utilitarian uses that the new social medicine requires. 

Senator Bath. Thank you very much. I appreciate both of you 
taking the time and trouble to be here with us, and we will continue 
to look for your thoughts as we pursue our study here. Thank you. 

Mr. VanDerhoef. Thank you. 
, Senator Bath. Our next witness is Pat Goltz of the Feminists for 
Life. 

Ms. Goltz. I would like to yield the floor to Randy Engel, if I 
may. She has another appointment. 

Senator Bath. All right. That will be fine. 

Ms. Engel. Senator Bayh, this afternoon there are IUD hearings 
going on in the Food and Drug Administration, so I am scheduled 
to do that later on this afternoon. 

Senator Bath. Randy Engel, Director of U.S. Coalition for Life, 
we are glad to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF RANDY ENGEL, DIRECTOR, U.S. COALITION FOR 

LIFE 

Ms. Engel. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I am Randy Engel, Na- 
tional Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life. We are basically an 
internationa] research center and clearinghouse with a specialtv in 
Federal antilife programs both within the Department of HEW 
which would be domestic programs as well as for the Agency for 
International Development being foreign life programs. 



21 

I thank you for your invitation to appear before the subcommittee 
today in order that I might express the views of the coalition, its 
distinguished national and international board of advisors, some of 
whom have already testified at earlier hearings by this subcommittee, 
including Sir William Liley, KCMG, and those opinions of the thou- 
sands of grassroots people whom we have had the honor of serving 
on a day-to-day basis since the coalition opened its office almost 2 
years ago. 

Mr. Chairman, I would request at this time that my testimony in 
full, along with all attachments, be entered into the record? Is this 
satisfactory? 

Senator Bayh. Without objection it will be ordered. 

[The full statement of Ms. Engel follows.] 



22 

TESTIMONY ON THE HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT 

BEFORE THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

SENATOR BIRCH BAYH , CHAIRMAN 

AUGUST 21, 1974 



Presented By: 

RANDY ENGEL 
NATIONAL DIRECTOR 

UNITED STATES COALITION FOR LIFE 
EXPORT , PENNSYLVANIA 



23 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Sub-Committee: 

I am Randy Engel, National Director of the United States 
Coalition for Life, an international research center and clearing- 
house specializing in domestic federal anti-life programs within 
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Agency for 
International Development. Thank you for your invitation to appear 
before the sub-committee today in order that I may express the 
views of the Coalition, its distinguished national and international 
board of advisors, some of whom have already testified at earlier 
Senate hearings on the Human Life Amendment, and that of thousands 
of grassroots people whom we have had the honor of serving on a day 
to day basis since the Coalition opened its offices almost two years 
ago. 



Mr. Chairman, about four months ago, the Coalition filed with 
your office, the transcript of a speech made by Louise Tyrer , M.D. , 
Family Planning Division of the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists, before the Association of Planned Parenthood 
Physicians' 12th Annual Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee on Tuesday, 
April 16, 1974, on the status of the various Human Life Amendments 
to the Constitution of the United States. (Attachment A) 

According to Dr. Tyrer ' s assessment of the Congressional scene 
there are two basic approaches. One - a "state's rights" approach 
which would return the power of lawmaking in the area of abortion 
to the individual States. The second - which would guarantee the 
full protection of the law to the unborn child from the moment of 
fertilization. 

The "State's rights" approach she states, and correctly so, 
is unacceptable to the majority of Pro-Life people yet very attrac- 
tive to the legislators because " it sought of takes the ones off 
their backs from making any decisions." 

The remainder of her talk stresses the necessity of stalling 
the hearings of this sub-committee by having Planned Parenthood 
physicians flood the sub-committee with requests to testify. This, 
Dr. Tyrer suggests would be politically expedient and politically 
NECESSARY for you Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the amendments 
bottled up in sub-committee until you had gone through the election 
process in the Fall. 



Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to embarass you in any 
manner. Not because I fell Dr. Tyrer was incorrect in her judgment 
of the political realities of the Senate and House Committees dealing 
with the abortion issue or her assessment that stalling these sub- 
committee hearings by dragging them out month by month would be 
politically expedient for you and others who might prefer not to 
have a roll call vote on a Human Life Amendment before election time. 

But rather, because with few exceptions, almost every Senator 
and Representative in Congress would like nothing better than to get 
rid of the abortion issue tomorrow, if not before, or at least dump 
the matter back into the lap of the State legislatures. 



24 

This is not our affair - they say. 

The massive slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent 
unborn children is not a federal matter - they say. 

We are not responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 
January 22, 1972 which is now the law of the land - they say. 

Well, I am here Mr. Chairman to tell you and every other 
Senator and Congressman that like it or not - Abortion IS your 
affair. That the massive slaughter of unborn children in this 
country I_S a proper matter of federal concern. Moreover that this 
Congress IS_ directly responsible for the almost inevitable Supreme 
Court decision which stripped unborn children of their inalienable 
right to life. 

Congress IjS responsible because over the last ten years it has 

permitted an anti-life philosophy and anti-life programs and policies 

to become matters of NATIONAL POLICY , promoted and supported by tax 
dollars. 

It is the Federal Government - at all levels - Executive, 
Legislative and Judicial branches - which has posed the greatest 
threat to unborn children in recent years. 

The Executive Branch because it has failed to correct the 

anti-life abuses primarily within the bureaucracies of HEW and AID 
and has permitted key anti-life leaders such as Dr. Louis Hellman 
the Office of Population Affairs and Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, Director 
Population Bureau for Population and Humanitarian Affairs to remain 
in office. 

The Legislative Branch, because it has authorized legis- 
lation and appropriated funds year after year to initiate, promote 
and sustain anti-life programs in virtually every conceivable federal 
bureaucracy including the 

Office of Economic Opportunity 

Office of Environmental Education 

Office of Education 

Department of Defense 

Office of Population Affairs (HEW) 

National Institutes of Health 

Agriculture Department 

Food and Drug Administration 

Public Health Service 

Social Security - MedicAID 

Aid to Dependent Children 

U.S. Information Agency 

Population Office(AID) 

Contraceptive Research Branch (NIH) 

Federal Communication Commission 

(See Attachment B) 



25 

The Judicial Branch whose Highest Court by a 7 to 2 decision 

legalized the killing of unborn children up to and including the time 
of birth - a decision based in part upon the impeccable historic 
credentials of the Playboy Foundation as well as numerous anti-life 
lower court decisions, brought about through the tireless efforts of 
federally-funded Legal Service lawyers. 



Earlier in my testimony I made reference not only to federal 
anti-life programs and policies but also to an anti-life PHILOSOPHY 
which has in fact become the State religion in so far as federal 
taxes, personnel, offices and publications are used to support such 
a philosophy or way of life. This philosophy now expressed as a 
matter of national policy - is reflected in the following quotations- 

CHAPTBR V. "The wickedness of 
creating a Large Family" from 
Women and the New Race. 

"The most serious evil of our time is that of 
encouraging the bringing into the world of large 
families. The most immoral practice of the day 
is breeding too many children...." 

"Every jail, hospital for the insane, reforma- 
tory and institution for the feeble minded cries 
out against the evils of too prolific breeding 
among wage-workers." 

"...The most merciful thing that the large 
family does to one of its infant members is to 
kill it." 

" What shall be said of us (society) who 

permit outworn laws and customs to persist in 
piling up the appalling sum of public expense, 
misery and spiritual degradation." 

CHAPTER VII. "When Should a Woman 
Avoid Having Children? from Woman 
and the New Race 

"No more children should be born when the parents, 
though healthy themselves, find that their children 
are physically or mentally defective. No matter how 
much they desire children, no man and woman have a 
right to bring into the world those who are to suffer 
from mental or physical affliction. It condemns the 
child to a life of misery and places upon community 
the burden of caring for it...." 

CHAPTER IV. "The Fertility of 
the Feeble-Minded" from The 
Pivot of Civilization 

" we realize that each feeble-minded person 

is a potential source of endless progeny of defec- 



26 

tives, we prefer policy of immediate steri- 
lization, of making sure that parenthood is 
absolutely prohibited in the feeble-minded." 

CHAPTER VIII. "Dangers of Cradle Competition" 
from The Pivot of Civilization 

"..Eugenics is chiefly valuable in its negative 
aspects... it shows us that we are paying for and 
even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, 
unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never 
should have been born at all... 

These basically vicious, racist opinions could never be a 
matter of the foundation on which we base our national policy - 
on the contrary! Within the next five years the federal govern- 
ment will spend more than one billion dollars in taxes to promote 
these ideas. For you see, Mr. Chairman, these quotes were taken 
from the works of Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth 
Control League which today we know as Planned Parenthood-World 
Population. 

Today, some fifty years later, the Sangerite revolution is 
complete - the Sangerite philosophy or way of life has formed the 
basis of federal policy in the area of population control and so- 
called "family planning" a pleasant-sounding euphanism for birth 
control (including contraception, sterilization and abortion.) - 
The Sangerite programs and policies have become federal programs 
and policies. 

Despite a concerted effort to overhaul the public image of the 
Sangerite Movement between the years of 1920 to mid-1960' s to tone 
down its original eugenics roots and hedoristic basis of sexual 
activity, the Movement has appeared to come full circle following 
the January 22nd Supreme Court decision on abortion. 

It is a matter of public record that Planned Parenthood - 
World Population and its affiliates sees abortion as a key to elimi- 
nating physically or mentally defective unborn children - as a tool 
to reduce welfare rolls and as a most necessary and efficient method 
of population control, i.e. the regulation of family size by govern- 
ment. 

Large families are an athema, as is so perfectly reflected in 
Planned Parenthood 's brochure - So you finally had a boy ? which 
characterizes parents of large families as being immoral and selfish 
since their example "may kill us all in a few generations". (Attach- 
ment C) 

The story of the rise of the Sangerite anti-life philosophy 
to that of national policy though basically a complex and lengthy 
one, may be said to have developed from "an idea" to "an institution" 
via eight plateaus, each somewhat overlapping a total time span of 
more than 50 years. 



27 



First 

Plateau 

1920-1940 

Second 

Plateau 
1940-1960 



A FEW INDIVIDUALS "crying in the wilderness" - These 
were the Sangerites, the Drysdales, the Gambles. 



SMALL GROUPS , working together informally, then as 
SMALL ORGANIZATIONS , some help of venture capital 
from FOUNDATIONS . These small nucleus groups include 
the International Planned Parenthood Federation and 
Population Reference Bureau, the Population Council, 
the Ford Foundation. 



Third 

Plateau 

1960-1968 



Fourth 

Plateau 

1965-1969 



Fifth 
Plateau 
mid-1960' s 



MASS MEDIA coverage, in order to achieve respecta - 
bility for subject as a topic for general discussion. 
A period of increased foundation interest and the 
development of university-based centers during the 1960's 



BILLS introduced into Congress - this activity being 
carried on by leaders within Congress such as the late 
Senator Gruening or outside Congress by individuals 
like William Draper, recently appointed U.S. delegate 
to the World Population Conference in Bucharest. 



CRYSTALLIZATION OF OPPOSITION - In the United States 
the Catholic Church remains the singular institution 
opposed to population control in all forms including 
abortion. 



Sixth 

Plateau 

1970 



APPOINTMENT of one or more High Level ADVISORY COMMIS - 
SIONS of distinguished citizens to make policy recom- 
mendations and WIN PUBLIC SUPPORT for legislation . 
The Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth and 
the American Future. 



Seventh 
Plateau 
1970- 



Eighth 
Plateau 



Additional Congressional hearings, culminating in 
LEGISLATION usually of modest scope and funding. Key 
bills include the Tydings Bill and the Environmental 
Education Act. 



The last plateau had been reached by the Sangerites 
during the early 1970 's. This included increased 
acceptance of population control and birth control 
legislation, the increase of the movements structural 
and financial stability through increased tax subsi- 
dies and its incorporation into the institutions and 
mores of society . This action continuing at many 
levels including indoctrination of young children 
in the elementary and secondary schools, the mass 
media, university teaching centers, technological 



28 

service provided by researchers and the pharmaceutical indus- 
try, government agencies at all levels - local/state/federal, 
professional groups such as medical societies, foundations, etc. 

As I said the Supreme Court abortion decision was an inevitabl^J 
one. All the cliches of that decision - terms like "unwanted children", 
"a woman's right to control her own body.", the population explosion - 
stem from the Sangerite ethic. It represented the culmination of more 
than half a century of dedication and tireless efforts by the Sanger-g 
ites and the Malthusians to convince the American public of the ™ 
righteousness of the CAUSE and to elevate the SANGERITE-MALTHUSIAN 
philosophy to that of Public Policy . This final achievement is por- 
trayed quite candidly in this book Breeding Ourselves to Death - the 
Story of the Hugh Moore Fund by abortion leader Lawrence Lader. 

In the section on gaining Congressional Support, former N.Y. 
Senator Kenneth Keating, then newly appointed National Director of 
the Population Crisis Committee tells about eating in the Senate 
Dining Room where he could spread the gospel of family planning among 
old friends, particularly among the Republican leadership. This fight 
to influence by other population control leaders in Congress goes on 
today. 



CONCLUSION 

But what does all this have to do with this subcommittee hearing 
on the Human Life Amendment? Simply this 



« 



For more than a year the Hogan-Helms Human Life Amendment and 
similar bills have been buried in the House, where Representative Don 
Edwards has refused to hold hearings, and in the Senate - hearings are 
dragged out month after month to get Senators and Representatives 
through the November watershed without a floor vote on such as the HLA. 

Obviously there is no sense of urgency about the matter, with the 
exception of a handful of dedicated men, the Congress doesn't appear to 
be the least concerned that its inaction will result in the death of 
hundreds of thousands of unborn children. The fact that millions of 
federal tax dollars are used to promote a myriad of anti-life schemes- 
from direct abortion payments (Medicaid-ADC; to the research develop- 
ment and promoting of new abortion techniques to the indoctrination 
of young children of an anti-life ethic - appears to raise no parti- 
cular concern at family planning authorization or appropriation hearings. 

Equally obvious is the fact that under these conditions we will 
have a difficult time getting a Human Life Amendment passed by both 
Houses. of Congress and on its way to the states for ratification. 

My purpose here today is to point out the current committment A 
of the Federal Government including this Congress to the anti-life ™ 
establishment, and briefly how such a committment was obtained and 
at what price. 



29 

Mr. Chairman, this Congress OWES its vigorous support for a 
Human Life Amendment which would protect Human Life from conception 
until natural death to the American people. The Coalition would 
agree that the Hogan-Helms Amendment or the newer Roncallo Amendment 
would provide such protection. 

Apart from the merit of these amendments themselves, we feel 
that Congress should recognize the fact that through its indifference, 
ignorance and its inability to withstand the pressures of the anti-life 
movement, it must bear its share of guilt for the 1972 Abortion decision, 
and its share of responsibility in seeing a Human Life Amendment is 
passed to protect the unborn child. Your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, 
in this matter is very plain. 

As for our part, I believe the Coalition and the Pro-Life Move- 
ment in the U. S. will continue to fight at all levels - including 
the Halls of Congress and yes, even in Senate dining rooms - to educate 
and to promote an ideal that is as revolutionary in our day as the 
Sangerite ideal was fifty years ago. 

That ideal is based on the sanctity and innate goodness of 

all human life. 



Thank you. 



30 



U.S. COALITION FOR LIFE 



Vol. 1 - No. 1 

September, 1972 

Mrs. Randy Engel, Editor 



Newdlettek 



P. O. Box 315 
Export, Pa. 15632 



WASHINGTON. DC Latest followup of the anti- 
life Rockefeller Commission involves the U.S. Office of Educa- 
tion, and the non-profit company known as Population Educa- 
tion. Inc. which was created by the commission and produced 
the propaganda film of commission findings and recommenda- 
tions. 

Population Education, Inc. is directed by Christian N. 
Ramsey who served as a Vice-chairman on Presidential Com- 
mission on Population Growth and the American Future. 

On June 5 and again on July 27, the U.S. Coalition for Life 
contacted the Office of Education for a list of population 
oriented environmental education projects the agency spon- 
sored in 1971 and 1972. According to Walter Bogan. Director 
of the Office of Environmental Education (OE), six projects 
were selected in 1972. ZERO POPULATION GROWTH REP- 
RESENTATIVES were used as councils. 

Among the six projects listed was a $50,000 grant to the 
Population Education, Inc., Christian Ramsey, Director for the 
purpose of providing supplemental curriculum material for 
secondary school in population education. The grant was 
funded under the Cooperative Research Act PL. 83-531. 

Another smaller grant of $4,000 was awarded to the Fargo- 
Moorehead Chapter of ZPG for a rural pilot project on man's 
activities and life styles on the environment which included 
the establishment of environmental booths and exhibits at 
state and county fairs. 

A complete list of these grants are available from the USCL. 

QUESTION HOW MUCH LONGER ARE THE 

PRO LIFE FORCES OF THIS NATION GOING TO CON 
TINUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO USE TAX 
FUNDS TO SUPPORT AND ABEIT THE ANTI-LIFE 
FORCES???????? 



. HJR 837, the Congressional flip-side of S. J. Res. 108 
on population stabilization has been circulated to the full House 
by Congressmen Morris Udall (AzD) and Frank Horton (NYR) 
who are currently scouting for co-sponsors. The House bill has 
been referred to the Government Operations Committee. Pro-Life 
leaders should request that their names be put on the Committee's 
mailing list to be notified when hearings are to be scheduled and 
should begin preparing their testimony - both oral and written. 
Excellent back ground material can be found in Declaration of 
U.S. Policy of Population Stabilization by Voluntary Means, 1971, 
a compilation of the Senate hearings on SJR 108. Order from 
U.S. Printing Office, Washington, Doc. 68-976-0, $2.50. 

Another House bill HR 1 1 226 to establish a Population 
Growth Institute and sponsored by Esch (MIR) has been referred 
to the same Government Operations Committee. 

McNamara's Bank has recently published its sector 
working paper on Population Planning, designed to help member, 
borrowing nations reduce their population growth rates. The 
filing of a demographic analysis and survey of a country's popula- 
tion policies or programs in their economic reports to the World 
Bank is now required of all developing nations who wish Bank 
aid. Asofjan 1 , 1 972, the Bank is sending its missionaries abroad 
in order to set up the necessary institutional structures required 
to plan f and administer family planning-population limitation 
programs. 

Annex 3 of the Bank's report on Contraceptive Method 
contains serious errors. For example, the IUD is listed as a con- 
traceptive rather than an abortifacicnt agent. The section on 
"rhythm" mentions the calendar and temperature methods of 
regulating births but ommits the newer Billings Ovulation 
Method which has both universal appeal and applicability. None 
of the latter methods, however, the report notes have been used 



on a mass scale. For population control, the plug-or-drug approach 
have greater appeal. The Bank report praises the safety and 
efficiency of suction abortion and highlights the future of new 
abortifacient agents such as the vaginal prostaglandin supposi- 
tories which "requires no regulation of sex activity and greatly 
reduces the need for education." This statement suggests that the 
Bank's oversees population aides will not trouble perspective pa- 
tients' consciences with the abortifacient nature of their new 
magical pills guaranteed to "bring on a period". It also suggests 
that World Bank leaders need to be initiated into the Pro-Life 
facts of life. Write: Robert S. McNamara, President, World 
Bank Group, 1818 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433. 
Population Planning, Mr. 1972 available from World Bank at no 
charge. 



It is no well kept secret that some Pro-Life groups 

been waiting as long as 18 months for a ruling from the In- 
ternal Revenue Service on their tax-exempt-tax deductible 
status. In the meantime, the Anti-Life establishment enjoys 
the exempt-deductible status which enables them to rack in 
foundation and business monies. Consider the following — 

Citizen's Committee on Population Growth and the Ameri- 
can Future, the newest miscarriage of JDR3rd's Commission 
which was created on July 1, 1972 has already obtained its 
tax-exempt and deductible rating from the IRS. Leaders of 
the Committee include Carol Foreman, former Commission 
aide, student Stephen Salver, Hugh Downs, and Eleanor Norton 
described by ZPG as "a black woman who champions liberaliza- 
tion of abortion and other human rights." (USCL Reprint 
#101) 

The ZPGrowth Fund established in 1971 has been de- 
clared a tax-deductible educational foundation. Fund board 
members include Paul Ehrlich, Richard Lamm, Don Shaw and 
Rodney Shaw. ZPG's computerized Abortion Data Bank is a 
project of the Fund. (USCL Reprint #102) 

Even well-known population control lobby groups such as 
the Population Crisis Committee enjoy a limited favorable tax 
status with contributions to the Committee deductible up to 
50% of the net adjusted income of the donor. The PCC is 
designated as a "publicly supported charitable" group operating 
as an educational institution in the population field. (USCL 
Reprint #103) 

Letters of inquiry into suspect IRS practices may be 
directed to: The Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution 
Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 



The specter of US-financed, foreign aboritoriums was 

raised in the Agency for International Development, Dec. 1971, 
Population Program Assistance report which states," .... as 
legal restrictions on postconceptive fertility control are removed, 
for example, India in 1971, it is foreseeable that famdy planning 
program strategy will center upon the early diagnosis and relief of 
unwanted pregnancy, followed by provision of the contraceptive 
information and services needed to prevent subsequent unwanted 
pregnancies." 

"Such pregnancy-centered programs can be much more efficient 
than ordinary family planning programs because women who be- 
lieve they may have an unwanted pregnancy will actively seek out 
any facility offering relief, and hence educational and promotional 
costs of the f.p. program can be greatly reduced, and the time 
from inception of the program to reduction of fertility can be 
minimized." 

"Provision of relief of unwanted pregnancy plus effective con- 
traception, for example, sterilization, can achieve fertility re- 
duction of more than one birth per clinic acceptor and have a 
powerful and rapid effect upon fertility patterns." (pgs. 34-35). 
PPA Report (Dec. 1971) of AID. available from U.S. Govern- 



31 



ment Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 20402 $2.00. Inquiries 
into A.I.D.*s abortifacient financing and policies may be directed 
to: R. T. Ravenholt, Director, Office of Population, A.I.D., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20523, and to your own Congressional representatives. 

A USCL inquiry to the Food and Drug Administration 

of HEW into the "status" of abortifacient drugs brought the 
following reply from Information Specialist Edward Nida: 

" . . . . several investigational New Drug exemptions (1ND) 
to the Federal Food. Drug, and Cosmetic Act are in effect for 
clinical tests of such drugs ("morning after" pills). This is in 
effect a test license. We are prohibited from commenting on who 
has such licenses and for which drugs." Mr. Nida states the "in- 
formed consent" obligation of IND holders then, "FDA's stand 
on abortifacient drugs is that they are new drugs limited to in- 
vestigational (test use) only. Federal law prohibits promotion or 
other commercialization of these drugs UNTIL THE Y ARE PROV- 
EN SAFE AND EFFECTIVE." He concludes, "I hope this in- 
formation will be useful; unfortunately it is all I am free to tell 
you until these drugs are licensed." (Oct. 19, 1971). 

Lesson - Pro-Life forces must begin work now on halting tax- 
financed clinical testing of abortafacient drugs which contrary to 
FDA judgement are notoriously deadly for unborn babies. For a 
detailed analysis of Federal abortifacient funding and programs 
see Pro-Life Report on Population Growth and the American 
Future, available from WCUC, Box 8071. Pittsburgh, Pa. 15216 or 
PHL Greensburg. Box 416, Greensburg, Pa. 15601. $.75 each. 

The new Child Development Act, S.36I7 which 

passed the Senate June 20th is presently awaiting House action. 
There are a number of disturbing sections of the bill which may 
pose a potential threat to both parent(s) and child including re- 
ferral services for "family planning" and purchase of such 
services when not otherwise available to families enrolled in the 
program; the inclusion of f.p. in health and mental services; the 
entire hierarchy of bureaucratic agencies, prime sponsor, Child 
and Family Services Council, local councils and delegate agencies; 
the training and certification of Child Development Associates; the 
authorization of the Secretary of HEW to carry out research and 
demonstration projects,and a multitude of other potentially harm- 
ful activities; the Child Development Research Council; the fact 
that very young children UNDER the age of two could be regis- 
tered under certain circumstances; and the incredible segment of 
the Act having to do with the use of children as subjects of re- 
search and experimentation. A thorough public debate on this Bill 
is needed. 



BOSTON, MASS Formal charges of violation of the 

Fairness Doctrine have been filed with the FCC by the U.S. Coali- 
tion for Life against WBZ-TV4, Boston, producers of the Saturday 
morning children's program EARTH LAB. 

On Feb. 19, 1972, Earth Lab featured a representative from 
ZPG's New England Speakers Bureau, Dr. Ronald Arenson. 
Shortly thereafter, the USCL contacted Shep Morgan, the pro- 
ducer of Earth Lab requesting that a pro-life representative be 
given an opportunity to present the other side of the population 
question. No reply was received. 

On June 2, 1972. a second request was filed with WBZ-TV4 
with carbons to the FCC. Within five days, Mr. Morgan notified 
the USCL that the entire matter had been turned over to their 
Westinghouse legal staff. On June 18 Randy Engel, Executive 
Director of the USCL, in N.Y.. wrote Mr. Johnson at the Westing- 
house legal department requesting an interview. No reply was 
received. 

Earth Lab is currently filming its 1972-73 programs which 
may explain the desire of WBZ-TV4 tc try to procrastinate the 
showdown with the USCL. 

A formal brief containing ZPG's Malthusian concepts as pre- 
sented by Dr. Arenson along with details on the organization's 
multi-anti-life activities was sent to the FCC on July 27. Pro-life 
support for the USCL action can be directed to both, WBZ-TV4 in 
Boston and William B. Ray, Chief, Complaints and Compliance 
Division, Broadcast Bureau. FCC. Washington, D.C. For details 
explaining the applicability of the Fairness Doctrine write for 
FCC's Public Notice, July 1, 1964; Vol. 29 No. 145 of the Federal 
Register. Pgs. 10415-10427. 



SUSSEX, N.J The NATIONAL SOCIAL CONDI- 
TIONING CAMPS bill, H.R. 6781, introduced by Rep. Murphy 
of N.Y. has been referred to the Committee of the Judiciary. 

The first of the NSCC. "a prototype of similar camps to be 
established in every state of the Union" will be Camp Shangn- 
Li, Sussex, N.J., open year-round for all dependent children 
between the ages of 7 - 1 2. 

The multi-purpose camps are designed to prevent pre-teen 
delinquency in "disaffluent" youth who are too poor to attend 
camp or "who might require attendance at camp for the pre- 
vention of delinquency." Referrals are made by both private 
and state-federal agencies. For details write - National Social 
Conditioning Camps, Joseph Gainer, Treasurer, 2 Pennsylvania 
Plaza, N.Y. N.Y. 10001. 



PALO ALTO, CALIF Zero Population Growth. Inc. 

has been recognized by the Selective Service System as alternate 
service for conscientious objectors. The ZPG national office 
and a number of chapters is employing C.O.'s, according to the 
ZPG National Reporter. Feb. 1972. 

Apparently, the reluctance to spill blood does not extend to 
the mass computerized killing of unborn children via ZPG's Abor- 
tion Data Bank which as of June 1971 has handled 1000 abortion 
"hits". Information from Bank on the pregnant woman - her 
address, stage of pregnancy, etc., is fed into a shared-time 
computer which in turn spews out the names of 10 doctors, 
hospitals or clinics willing to do the abortion. No fee is charged 
and only 25% of the women using the bank make a contribution 
of $5.00 or more. ZPG's income loss is supplemented by TAX- 
DEDUCTIBLE PRIVATE DONATIONS. 

In Michigan this Fall, ZPG will be pushing an abortion refer- 
endum which permits abortion up to 20 weeks, on request, when 
performed by a licensed medical or osteopathic physician in a 
licensed hospital or other facility approved by the Dept. of Public 
Health. The Michigan campaign is headed by Dr. Jack M. Stack, 
Lansing, Michigan. (USCL Reprint 104-10*). 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON "PLANNING TO PRE- 
VENT OVERPOPULATION OF THE EARTH MUST INCLUDE 
EUTHANASIA, either negative or positive" .... laws regarding 
euthanasia should "be changed to conform to what seems right 
and what the public desires." .... we should increase our 
activities immediately and to a major degree, in dealing with 
population control, selective abortion, problems of mentation, 
aging, suicide, and negative euthanasia. It seems unwise to attempt 
to bring about major changes permitting positive euthanasia until 
we have made major progress in changing laws and policies per- 
taining to negative euthanasis . . . ." These comments were taken 
from "Number; Types and Duration of Human Lives", by Robert 
H Williams, M.D., Northwest Medicine, July, 1970, Vol. 69 
#7, pgs. 493-496. Dr. Williams of the University of Washington 
illustrates the anti-life domino theory to a superb degree. For a 
study copy of the full text write, USCL Reprint #105-0. 



HARVARD U., CAMBRIDGE, MASS Should the 

Roman Catholic Church be tried before a World Court for 
crimes against humanity for its opposition to Birth Control 
which ( 1 ) in effect requires millions of people to have unwanted 
children (2) forces unwanted children to live a life of poverty 
and misery (3) permits these unwanted children to drain world 
resources which are needed by wanted children born of respon- 
sible parents practicing birth control and (4) in general, by its 
obstinancy fails to reduce resultant suffering and death? .... 
"What additional facts and statistics would you want in order to 
determine (1) whether the Church should be brought before a 
world court, and (2) whether it should be found guilty of any 
crime?" 

This "when did you stop beating your wife" orientated 
discussion question is taken almost verbatim from POPULA- 
TION CONTROL - Whose Right to Live, an American Educa- 
tion Publications Unit Book adapted from the Harvard Social 
Studies Project and edited by Charles Cutler. 

The book is part of a series of 28 paper-backs covering a 
wide range of topics on foreign and domestic social study is- 
sues, begun at Harvard U., which eventually became one of a 
dozen college and university centers designated by the U.S. 
Office of Education as part of Project Social Studies. 



32 



In addition lo population control, the text covers birth 
control, sterilization, over-population, and abortion as pre- 
sented by well-known anti-life personalities and organizations. 
The incredible anti-life bias of this publication, which is used 
in both public and parochial high schools across the nation, is 
best demonstrated in the chapter on abortion by Jane E. Brody 
followed by a "discussion" of when the unborn child be- 
comes a person having moral value and under what circum- 
stance an abortion may be justified. 

The USCL has asked that the U.S. Office of Education 
publicly disassociate itself from this unit book and that it be 
removed from the Project Social Studies program. Pro- 
lifers therefore, may want to obtain sample copies immediately 
from Education Center. Columbus, Ohio 43216, 40V each. 

"Further details to follow. Note: Population Control is 
copywrited by the Zerox Corporation which sponsored the 
Rockefeller Population Commission's film on the findings 
and recommendations of the Commission of Population Growth 
and the American Future, to be aired by the PBS in November. 



ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN While general public accept- 
ance of the hard-sell approach to population control is seen as be- 
ing about a year away, use of educational television and public 
television broadcasts which cater to a more sophisticated audience, 
as an instrument of population indoctrination is a current 
possibility. This is the conclusion of an article which appeared in 
the Ob. GYN. News (Vol. 7, No. 12) and illustrated by campaign 
signs such as "OVERPOPULATION - May be Hazardous to your 
Health." 

The Physicians International Press release outlines the recom- 
mendations of a student "Think Tank" with 37 members of the 
U. of Michigan in co-operation with the Michigan Council on En- 
vironmental Quality. The prepared material from the workshop 
focused on the use of the mass media - newspapers, magazines, 
TV and radio, with special emphasis on public broadcasting. 
(USCL Reprint #106-0). 

And speaking of public broadcasting, the USCL in a 
letter to the Public Broadcasting Service on July 27, 1972 has 
I that the PBS provide a complete public disclosure of 
the facts surrounding the November airing of John D. Rocke- 
feller 3rd's population masterpiece, on his Commission findings. 
In addition, the PBS has been asked to provide an opportunity 
for a similar program on the population issue by Pro-life experts 
in this area. PBS reaction will be reported in next newsletter. 

UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS, NY The 

U.N.'s Population Division has been charged with planning and co- 
ordinating a World Population Conference in NY. on Aug. 19 - 
30, 1974, while World Population Yeai-1974 responsibilities 
have been given to the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, a 
quasi-official group financed largely with AID-tax funds with 
offices on Lexington Avenue in N.Y. 

A pre-liminary report on the year and conference has been 
issued by the Economic and Social Council and is available from 
Kathleen Jupp, of the U.N Population Fund, U.N., N.Y. 

It should be noted, that at the 1965 World Population 
Conference, in Belgrade, the International Planned Parenthood 
Federation, which will be one of the co-ordinating agencies for 
Year and Conference- 1974, rushed into chamber meeting halls 
during conference half-times to show their colored film of the 
latest abortion-suction techniques. 

The USCL will have additional details on the 1974 population 
events in its future newsletters. Pro-life reporters may want to 
write to Mr. Kelly at the U.N. Press Office in N.Y. for details on 
covering the events at the U.N. during August 

NEW YORK, N.Y Never let it be said that the 

Population Control I stahhshment leaves anything to mere chance. 
Youth') Agenda for the Seventies by Wade Greene is a report on 
the White House Conference on Youth with a Summary of 
Recommendations prepared by the Youth Task Force of the JDR 
3rd Fund. The resolution on population and consumption states: 
"that the U.S. take an exemplary leadership role in effecting 
measurable steps toward population stabilization and eventual 
reduction." 



Other recommendations from the youth conference include 
universal contraception to all including minors be made available 
by government", that federal funds for contraceptive research be 
intensified; that taxpayers foot the bill for an abort ion-on-com- 
mand policy; and that population control education be integrated 
into the school curriculum .... which is to say the exact same 
thing as JDR 3rd's Commission said only eleven months later. 

The Youth Agenda report is available free from the JDR 
3rd Fund, Box 1105, Radio City Station, N.Y, N.Y. 10019. 

BRONX, N.Y Pro-Life writers and leaders interested 

in offering reprints of good articles on abortion, euthanasia, 
population control, etc. to students via school and public libraries 
should send such material on a REGULAR MONTHLY BASIS to 
the H. W. Wilson Co., 950 University Ave., Bronx, N.Y. 10452 
publishers of a Vertical File Index which lists pamphlets by title 
and subject. The Dec. 1971 issue of the Index under Abortion 
carried 6 articles submitted by the Assoc, for the Study of 
Abortion and offered FREE on request. Pamphlets so listed 
are ordered from the source, i.e., the ASA, and NOT the 
Wilson Co. 

"Conception and Contraception" is a recent article 

appearing in Natural History, Aug. - Sept., 1972 (Vol. LXXXI, 
No. 7). Wedged in between photos of charging buffalo bulls and 
ads for wild life societies is a full page picture of IUDs, foam, 
pills, condoms and assorted contraceptive and abortive devices 
followed by a detailed description of contraception and abortion 
techniques. The author is Prof. Gerald Oster who has been exper- 
imenting with the Copper - IUD. According to Prof. Oster, new 
birth control paths lie in the way of once-a-month abortifacient 
oral pills. His conclusions are typically Malthusian . . ." 
Sociologists agree, however, that it is equally important to -in- 
culcate in the masses a recognition of the dangers of over- 
important to inculcate in the masses a recognition of the dangers 
of over-population and a strong personal need to restrict the size 
of the family. Meanwhile, the population time bomb keeps 
ticking away." 

While there is very little original material in the Oster article, 
its appearance in a magazine like Natural History is of significance 
to the Pro-Life Movement. Letters to the editor may be directed 
to: Natural History, 79th & Central Pky., W., NY., N.Y. 10024. 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA Pro-Life forces in Georgia 

have hit the Department of HEW in the gut by demanding that a 
Federal grant of $185,000 to Emory University for a two-year 
study on abortion and unwanted births to be conducted by well- 
known pro-abortion physicians, be rescinded. National pro-life 
support to our Georgian brothers-in-arms can be directed to HEW 
head Elliot Richardson, President Nixon, and Congressman. 

In addition to showing once again how much more enterprising 
the children of the darkness are when compared to the children 
of the light, this incident proves the need for solid pro-life 
research initiative into the multi-faceted areas of anti-life issues 
and pro-life alternatives. Information on Federal research grants 
may be obtained through the Office of Population Affairs (HEW) 
and/or the Contraceptive Research Branch of the Center for 
Population Research of the NHI (HEW). 

In addition to protesting the EMORY U. grant #130171-01, 
pro-lifers may also want to include a NIH grant #69-2094 
awarded to Robert L. Brent of Jefferson U. in Philadelphia, Pa. 
for a "study in experimental methods of interrupting pregnancy 
(microwave radiation)" (P. 202, HEW Five Year Plan, #68-1 78-0, 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 1971.) 

DAYTON, OHIO The Compass, the journal of 

MAP (More Agricultural Production) calls for a new world-wide 
commitment to fight hunger and malnutrition in developing 
nations. MAP's immediate plans include a public education 
campaign and youth scholarship program in agricultural for 
promising young people in areas of L.A., Asia, etc. Long range 
plans include the establishment of demonstration and research 
farms utilizing local talent in areas with vast untapped agricultural 
potential. 

The Compass is an excellent pro-life population reference 
newspaper. Regular MAP membership, $3.00, includes a sub- 
scription to Compass. MAP's mailing address: Main Box 1101, 
Dayton, Ohio 45401. 



33 



DATELINE THE WORLD 

JAPAN The Pro-Life Movement in Japan has made 

significant headway since Spring. On April 4, 1972, Minister of 
Welfare, Mr. Nobuo Saito at a debate of the Budget Committee 
of the Upper House stat.d that the time has come for the Diet to 
persuade the people to have more respect for life and that the 
Eugenic Protection Law (EPL) section permitting abortion for 
economic reasons should be deleted from the law. He particularly 
stressed the importance of not aborting the FIRST child. 

Similarly, Mr. Tamaki (Sen.. Liberal Democratic Party) stated 
that respect for human life is the very foundation of the principles 
of good government noted that the Prime Minister himself 
attended the ceremony for the repose of souls of the departed 
unborn, performed in the mountain village of Chichibu (Saitama 
Prefecture) to demonstrate his commitment to life. 

Prime Minister Sato said, "I hear that Japan is widely known 
as an "Abortion Paradise". It is loathesome for me even to hear 
such a thing with my ears and pronounce it with my lips .... the 
abuse must stop .... we must never forget that a baby is a gift of 
nature and its life must be respected." 

"1 have been requested to erect a statue of MIZUKO JIZO 
(deity of unborn children) in memory of the children who were 
aborted .... so that they may rest in peace .... 1 made it my 
business to show respect for human life by attending the 
ceremony. (Complete translation of text - USCL Reprint 
#107-50*). 

On May 24, the Cabinet approved the revision clause of the 
EPL. BUI now goes to the National Diet for approval. Seicho 
No Le Religious group with Catholic co-operation is spear-heading 
the pro-life movement in Japan. 

On June 4, 1972, ASAHI, the Japanese daily, ran an 

article on the efforts of the Japan Family Planning Association 
(the Inter. Planned Parenthood affiliate) to halt the revision of 
EPL which would help tighten up the nation's abortion laws. 
Following an emergency meeting of the JFPA, Chairman Dr. 
Yoshio Koyasent a protest letter to the Diet attacking the revision 
on the grounds that ( 1 ) if the EPL deletes the economic reason 
for abortion, both illegal abortions and the fee for legal abortions 
will increase (2) the number of illegitimate and unwanted children 
will increase resulting in unhappiness (3) the hardships of life 
will make psychological burdens increase .... (4) and the 
recognition of reasons for abortion will become dependent upon 
the subjective judgement of a physician, and it therefore becomes 
easier for a physician to procure an abortion. Dr. Koya's con- 
clusion is that the revision of the EPL would do more harm than 
good. 

Opposition to the revision may also be based on the fact that 
so many physicians depend on extra profit from Japan's present 
abortion law and that passage of the revision might signal a govern- 
ment-campaign to increase its anti-abortion pressures. (USCL 
Reprint #108-20*). 

ENGLAND In its January, 1972 newsletter, the In- 
ternational Planned Parenthood Federation described its educa- 
tional and training objectives for 1972-1974 "Young people 

are identified as a special target group." 

"While the IPPF will press and assist UNESCO to penetrate the 
school systems of all countries, a special effort is to be made by 
the voluntary sector to reach those millions of young peor-i ' who 
never get to school or who drop out of school after only a f ew 
years of education . . ." 

The IPPF is funded primarily by the U.S. tax-payers via USA1L 
In February it sent a team of physicians to Decca to abort pregnant 
Bangladesh women who had been the victims of rape under a pro- 
gram called the "Bangladesh Women's Emancipation Program" 
The short range purpose of this scheme is to establish abortion 
centers across the nation to be manned by abortionists trained 
by the IPPF. The long range plan calls for setting up facilities to 
train women to become self-sufficient and socially better placed. 

According to the Federation, ONE OF THE MAIN OBJEC- 
TIVES OF THE PROGRAM IS TO RE-ESTABLISH AND SUP- 
PORT FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS AND ENCOURAGE 
SMALLER FAMIL1FS. 

As for the Government of Bangladesh, it appears as if they 
have had enough of the IPPF tactics. Recently, the Minister of 
Health Abdul Malek Ukil announced "We have had enough of con- 



traceptives. For me, family planning includes pre and post natal 
care, maternity care, child nutrition and infant welfare. 

Women Concerned for the Unborn Child in Pittsburgh, Pa. re- 
cently sent a gift of $1,000 collected at their Right-to-Life 
Ecumenical religious service to Bangladesh, for the care of the 
children and their mothers - both victims of rape during the 
war. Other pro-life groups may want to follow WCUC's fine 
example. 



CAMBRIDGE Bibliography on Family Planning and 

Population, a bi-monthly list of references compiled from the 
world's literature on abortion, population control, etc., is now 
available from the Simon Population Trust, founded in 1957 
to "help in the adjustment of world population to resources." 

The first issue of the bibliography, July, 1972, carried num- 
erous anti-life references. To see that a proper balance is 
achieved, pro-life writers and/or groups should send copies of 
books or articles to: Donn Casey, Simon Population Trust 
Fund, Bibliography, 141 Newmarket Rd., Cambridge CBS 
8 HA, England. 

Through a special photocopy service utilizing coupons, pro- 
life readers may obtain articles which are not available in the 
U.S. The Bibliography ($3.00 single issue; $18.00 a year) 
should be in every pro-life office as a reference for members 
and leaders. 



CANADA The subject of tax-supported provincial 

aboritoriums or so called "Pregnancy Centres" to take pressures 
off over-crowded and/or recalcitrant hospitals appeared in a 
Globe editorial on Oct. 22, 1971. Such centres would include 
beds, operating and recovery rooms, medical records department 
and provide post-operative followup care and counseling. (USCL 
Reprint #109-10*). 

Dr. Benjamin Viel, Directot General of the International 

Planned Parenthood Federation (England) stated that it will be 
difficult to control world population if CONTRACEPTIVE 
METHODS ARE NOT COMBINED WITH ABORTION. Address- 
ing the annual meeting of the Family Planning Federation of 
Canada, Dr. Viel said that consideration should be given to the 
legalization of abortion as a means of reducing the increasing 
world population but that abortion should be regarded as an 
emergency measure followed by use of contraceptive methods to 
prevent risk of further pregnancies. From Hamilton Special, 
Dec. 15, 1971. (USCL Reprint #1 10-10*). 

Addressing the College of Family Practice in Canada, 

Dr. John Lederman of Vancouver stated that the early discovery 
and relief of unwanted pregnancy may render objections to 
abortion obsolete. 

According to Dr. Lederman's reasoning people who do not 
disapprove of the Pill, the 1UD, or "morning-after" pill do object 
to abortion because it destroys a living fetus. Therefore, women 
who have missed a period and suspect they are pregnant can go to 
their doctors for a routine scraping or suction procedure. If not 
pregnant, no harm would result. If she were, the newly implanted 
egg would be removed . . . just like an endometrial biopsy. Thus 
such a procedure would "reduce it to the point where it is not 
offensive to anyone's ethics." From Globe and Mail, Sept. 15, 
1971. pg. 9. (USCL Reprint #11 1-10*). 



ITALY The Italian magazine EPOCA, Ap. 9, 1972, 

carried an article on England's black market for French and Ger- 
man babies to help fill adoption requests. The sharp decline of 
available babies for adoption in England is credited to widespread 
use of contraceptive pills and the fact that many unmarried wo- 
men now keep their children. While waiting for the liberalization 
of Common Market Adoptive regulations, the shameful commerce 
continues as babies are sold to the highest bidder. (USCL 
Reprint #1 1 2-F). 



34 



U.S. COALITION FOR LIFE 



Vol. 2 No. 2 

January. 1973 

Mrs. Randy Engel, Editor 



NeuPilett&i 



P. O. Box 315 
Export, Pa. 15632 



BIRTH PATROL ON THE MARCH - "Fewer People for a Better World" is the theme song of the latest population control 
agency, NPG - NEGATIVE POPULATION GROWTH, 103 Park Ave.. Suite 414. New York. New York 10007. 
Listed among the Board members are 

Edgar Chasteen. President of Compulsory Birth Control for ALL Americans. Liberty I ? I. Mo. 
Richard Bowers, Zero Population Growth 
Alfred Forsyth, Sierra Club 

Stewart Ogilvy, Population Communication Center. (Population Institutel 
Sir Julian Huxley (Patron) 

Miss Shirley MacLaine 

Miss Joanne Woodward 

Shirley Radl, National Organization for Non-Parents 

The precise goal of NPG is to reduce world population to ONE-HALF its present level via compulsory population control. 
In the conflict between individual choice and the needs of society relating to family size, the conflict according to NPG must be 
resolved in favor of the common good ... WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION". 

"The forms and extent of the controls (to reduce population) must be decided by Congress. They could vary from 
minumum and voluntary controls such as government guidelines to family size, at one end of the spectrum, to compulsory birth 
control at the other end, with compulsory sterilization after one child. " 

"However, whatever Congress decides as to the form of the necessary controls, it is essential that they be immediately 
effective in getting the job done, and the population reduced. " 

"National programs of population control must be put into effect now!" (Source: Statement of Purpose and Program 
- Negative Population Growth, Inc. I 

The Executive Director of NPG is John Rague, who is also the Executive Director of the Association for Voluntary 
Sterilization. 



OEO ISSUES STERILIZATION QUOTAS - In 1971, 
the Office of Economic Opportunity amended its policies to 
include contraceptive sterilization programs. 

A grant of $240,000.00 was awarded to the Planned 
Parenthood Association of the Southern Mountains and a 
quota of 1 50 vasectomies and 150 tubal ligations established 
for the Anderson County pilot project over a 2 year period. 
Codedata, derived from interviews with sterilization ap- 
plicants, who were unaware that they were guinea pigs in a 
government pilot program, was then fed into computers by 
the Tennessee Dept. of Public Health. 

Implementation of similar "OEO projects", however, 
have been temporarily suspended by OEO Director of 
Health Affairs, Dr. Leon Cooper until the costs, priorities 
and long range effects of contraceptive sterilization have 
been more fully evaluated. Source: N.Y. Times, 5 28 72. 
I Reprint No. 113-20cl. 



OEO AND CONTRACEPTIVES TO MINORS - THE 
RALEIGH PROJECT. On Nov. 11, 1969 the State 
Edition of the Houston Chronicle ran an-article by Chicago 
Times correspondent Tom Littlewood entitled, "U.S. Starts 
Bold Plan for Pre-Pregnant Teens". 

Financed by a two year grant from the Federal Office of 
Economic Opportunity, the Raleigh Project featured a 
health department clinic in a public housing neighborhood 
which catered to black, unmarried teenage girls who had 
never been pregnant. The program included "sex education 
meetings" and distribution of contraceptives, as well as 
physician referrals. 

According to Mr. Littlewood, the Innovative OEO 
program was part of "the frontier of social policy as the 
government presses toward President Nixon's announced 
goal of making birth control assistance available within five 
years for all income women." He also noted that "As in 
Raleigh, all of the most imaginative and successful programs 
for 'pre-pregnant' teenagers are in black-urban neigh- 
borhoods." (Reprint No.ll4-20cl 



35 



WHAT STAGE POPULATION CONTROL? - Ac- 
cording to the Feb. 1970 issue of Population Bulletin, a 
publication of the Population Reference Bureau, the 
transition of great ideas pass through a series of states as 
follows.. 

1. A few individuals crying in the wilderness 2. 
Formation of nucleus groups aided by foundation 
capital 3. Mass media coverage which increases as 
does foundation support and the start of university 
interest 4. Feeler bills introduced into Congress 5. 
Opposition crystallization and delay in progress 6. 
Appointment of high-level governmental com- 
missions to win public support 7. Congressional 
hearings resulting in federal funding, and 8. 
"INCREASING acceptance of the legislation, its 
strengthening in structural and financial terms, 
and its incorporation into the institutions and 
mores of society." Ip. 231. 

In the area of population control, "private individuals, 
private non-profit organizations and educational institutions 
will be the key to success or failure in this effort." Ip. 24). 

For a copy of this population control blueprint write : 
Population Reference Bureau, IPRB.) 1755 Massachusetts 
Ave. N. W.. Washington, D.C. 20036. $.50 copy. 

NOTE ON P.R.B. - Founded in 1929. the P.R.B. 
remained a one-man horse-show until 1954 when 
millionaire-population controller, Hugh Moore bailed Guy 
Irving Burch's agency out of bankruptcy. Mr. Moore made 
himself chairman of the board and pulled in Standard Oil's 
Frank Abrams who in turn pulled in Ford and Rockefeller 
money. By 1966, the P.R.B. was operating on an annual 
budget of $400,000.00. 

The teacher's guide to Rockefeller's film, 
POPULATION GROWTH and the AMERICAN 
FUTURE, was prepared by the Population Reference 
Bureau as was the population control grade-school text, 
This Crowded World. 



PHYSICIANS AND POPULATION CONTROL ■ 

In the October, 1971 issue of The New Physician, 
ZPG leader and Chief Vasectomizer at Chicago's Midwest 
Population Center, Dr. Lony Myers discusses in depth the 
role of physicians in the new science of "hyponatology. the 
art and science of lowering birth rates." Among the ten 
mandated points for the medical profession listed by Dr. 
Myers to cope with the "population-environment crisis" are ; 
I. Recognize the need for an immediate plan to stabilize 
population. II. Assume leadership in carrying out this plan ; 
V . Support the concept that responsible parenthood means a 
maximum of two natural children per family: VII. Accept 
the principle that responsible sexual intercourse purely for 
recreation is more socially responsible than intercourse solely 
for procreation; IX. Promote alternate life styles for women 
so that motherhood is not the dominant role of fulfillment, 
(p. 6451. 



More recently, Dr. Myers is peddling her Malthuaian 
wares to the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, described by the ZPG's National Reporter as 
"one of the bodies commonly accepted as setting standards 
of behavior within the medical profession." For a look at Dr. 
Myers' revised resolution, see the Nov. Dec. 1972 issue of 
the National Reporter, 4080 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, Ca. 
94393. 



OPERATION LAWSUIT by AVS, ZPG, and ACLU 

According to the Association for Voluntary 
Sterilization's Jan. 19th Progress Report, OPERATION 
LAWSUIT is a co-ordinated effort of the AVS and its allies, 
primarily the American Civil Liberties Union and Zero 
Population Growth, to force "backward" hospitals into 
permitting contraceptive sterilization on request. 

Two well publicized cases in recent months involve St. 
Vincent's Hospital in Billings. Montana and Holy Rosary 
Hospital in Miles City. While the former institution received 
a small Federal grant under the Hill-Burton program, 17 
years ago, the latter hospital is not supported in any way by 
public funds. There is an aspect of these lawsuits which to 
date has not been examined, however. 

Specifically, in the Jan. 19th issue of the AVS Progress 
Report (pg. 41 there was a partial statement reprinted from 
a letter to the AVS from ACLU (Eastern Montana) Vice 
Chairman, Robert Bulkley concerning the contraceptive 
sterilization issue. 

Keeping in mind that the consolidation of St. Vincent's 
with Deaconess Hospital was not completed until June 5th, 
1^72. and Mr. Bulkley's comments were made while con- 
solidation processes were as yet not finalized, we 

read "As a result (of the centralization of facilities), the 

mother who wishes to be sterilized shortly after the delivery 

of a child will be in a difficult position their rights will be 

significantly reduced. WE ARE CO'iSIDERING 
TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE CATHOLIC 
HOSPITAL TO FORCE IT TO ALLOW 
STERILIZATION AT LEAST IN THESE CIR- 
CUMSTANCES...." (emphasis added!. 

The listing of the Board of Directors of the Association 
for Voluntary Sterilization (14 W. 40th St., N.Y.N.Y. 
10018) includes numerous abortion-on-command advocates 
including Lawrence Lader; Rev. Rodney Shaw; Paul 
Ehrlich; Alan Guttmacher; Christopher Tietze; Emily 
Mudd; Harriet Pilpel and Joseph Fletcher to name a few. 

Pro-Life legal advisors should begin preparing now for a 
new OPERATION LAWSUIT....this one directed at 
recalcitrant hospitals which will not permit the killing of the 
unborn to take place in their facilities. 



36 



HEW OFFICIAL DISCUSSES POLICIES 

The new director of the U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Family Planning Services, Miss 
Majorie Costa, in an address at the annual convention of the Planned Parenthood Federation, San Antonio, Oct. 23-26, stated 
that a national program of sex education and human sexuality "from the pre-school level right on up" was advocated by her 
department. 

According to Miss Costa, the federal government is not funding any programs in which abortion is used as a means of 
contraception or population control. (Source: American Medical News, Nov. 13, 19721. 

Miss Costa, however failed, to explain how millions of dollars of federal funds being tunneled into Planned Parenthood 
units, in the U.S. and abroad, will be prohibited from use in programs where abortion is used as a "back-stop to faulty or om- 
mitted contraception," or as a population control measure as in Singapore or India. 

For the record we quote Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher's statement on the role of abortion in Planned Parenthood programs 
taken from "Planned Parenthood : Profile and Prospectus", F. P. Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 1 Jan. 1971, Pgs. 57-58. 

"To achieve this society (i.e. "the perfect contraceptive society"! we in Planned Parenthood must establish a multi-faceted 
program which would include, in addition to contraceptive services, the following elements; contraceptive education for all 
youth so that at the appropriate time in their lives contraception will be accepted as naturally as breathing ; infertility services, 
including artificial donor insemination where necessary genetic counseling, ABORTION and sterilization; veneral disease 
diagnosis and treatment. Many ofour Affiliates now include some of these services. IN THE FUTURE, ALL OR MOST OF 
US MUST INCLUDE ALL OF THEM (emphasis added.) 

Dr. Guttmacher concludes his two-page article with the suggestion that Planned Parenthood will shift its emphasis from 
legal, religious, and bureaucratic battles to intergrating its programs into the growing "family planning network of hospitals, 
health departments, and other nonprofit agencies".... 

Presently most Planned Parenthood federal funding is conducted through so called, Regional Family Planning 
"COUNCILS". 

For example, in Illinois, HEW funds flow into the Illinois Family Planning Coordinating Council, and out to P.P. of 
Chicago and its teeny-bopper affiliate TEEN SCENE. 

In New York City, HEW funds flow into the N.Y.C. Inter-Agency Council on Family Planning and to PP of NYC which 
operates two of its own aboritoriums. 



UNICEF AND POPULATION CONTROL 



The United Nation's Children's Fund according to the 
Sept. 1972 issue of the International Planned Parenthood 
News is now destined to play "a more agressive role in family 
planning activities" as a result of implementing recom- 
mendations of the WHO UNICEF Joint Policy Committee 
approved by the Executive Board. 

UNICEF's unholy alliance with the WHO. which sees 
abortifacient drugs as a key weapon in population control in 
developing countries, will center primarily in the area of 
support for "advanced training in human reproduction, 
population dynamics and family planning" with specific 
emphasis on providing contraceptive supplies, equipment 
and transport. 

PASTE YOUR UMBRELLA BEFORE THE 
RAIN is a booklet prepared by the Chinese Center for In- 
ternational Training in Family Planning of Taiwan with 
some technical aid from Rockefeller's Population Council. 
UNICEF contributed $10,000.00 worth of paper and ink, 
thuB making possible the initial printing of 440,000 copies, 
enough for every boy and girl graduating in 1971 from junior 
and senior high schools and vocational schools. 

The thrust of this publication is unabashedly and 
ruthlessly Malthusian-population control orientated. 
Couples with large families i.e. more than two or three 
children are depicted in a constant state of mental and 
physical anguish. The "Population Explosion" is blamed for 



a multitude of sins including refuse disposal, air and water 
pollution, water shortage, heavy traffic and housing 
problems. 

Much of the section on contraception is truly heart- 
warming. For example, the booklet cites the case history of a 
college graduate infected and disabled from TB and finally 
classified as a grade 1 indigent. They have six children ages 
16 to two, and live on relief and the small income earned by 
the wife. The reporter who originally cited the case in a 
newspaper article was sympathetic to the sacrificing mother 
but the authors of Paste Your Umbrella stated, "We 
however, think that their troubles were caused by this stupid 
couple themselves." (pg. 44-English version). The theme, 
"every child a wanted child" and "two is enough!" is 
repeated in the Family Planning Song at the conclusion of 
the text; 

"Family Planning has a theme 
Two children as each couple's dream; 
Three years after marriage, one- 
Before 33 childbearing's done. 

Let a small family be your goal 
Just choose a method of birth control 
Methods are safe and simple too 
A happy future waits for you." 



37 



PRO-LIFE MEMBERS SEEK APPOINTMENT TO HEWS POPULATION COMMITTEE 

In 1973, three positions will be open on the Secretary- of HEW's Advisory Committee on Population Affairs headed by 
Dr. Louis Hellman. The Committee is divided into Services Task Force and Research Task Force members. Currently, 
there are well known anti-life personalities sitting on each task force. 

As of July 28th, Committee membership included the following : 

Service Task Force Research Task Force 

Mrs. Helen Martin. Chevy Chase, Md. (19731 Dr. Gorden Douglas. N.Y. N.Y. 119741 

Judith Blake Davis. Berkeley, CA. (19741 Thomas Dietz. Kent, Ohio (19721 

Cary H. Hall, Hampton, GA (19731 Mrs. Jo Anne Gray, Denver. Colorado, (1972) 

Herbert J. Hutton. Philadelphia, Pa. (19741 Roy 0. Greep, PH.D., Boston, MA (19721 

Richard K. Manoff, N.Y., N.Y. (1974) Mrs. Eunice S. Howe. Belmont, Mass. (19721 

Ernest W. Page, San Francisco, CA. (19731 Norman Ryder, Ph.D., Princeton, N.J. (1973) 

Pro-Life groups who wish to submit the namelsl of members who are interested in the areas of family planning and 
population control demography for consideration by the Dept. of HEW should send in immediately, the names of the can- 
didates, their qualification and interests to: 

Dr. Louis Hellman. Chairman 

Advisory Committee on Population Affairs 

Dept. of HEW 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D.C. 20201 

9 Please send carbons of all correspondents to: President Nixon 

HEW Sec., Casper Weinberger 
Your U.S. Senator 
The USCL (for filing! 

Carbons should be accompanied by a letter requesting a proper balance of views be brought to this Committee. 

ANTI-LIFE VIRUS THRIVING AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

"If you are definitely pregnant and decide that you wish to have an abortion performed, the Washington D.C. law is such £ 

that obtaining one here will present no particular trouble. There are a number of agencies and clinics that perform counselling £ 

and dispense abortion information in Washington. A list of them can be obtained by calling Georgetown University Hot Line at % 

625-4194. Because safe and legal abortions can be obtained presently, there should be no reason to have an illegal one per- $ 

formed." X 



"There are presently four methods of abortion that are generally used Dilation and Curettage. ..Vacuum Curet- £ 

..Saline Injection. ..and Hysterotomy. A method that is still somewhat in experimental stages but promises to come into £ 
Y more widespread use in the future is prostaglandin therapy. It should be remembered that these procedures are all 
1 surgical operations and that they all can produce physical trauma. In order to lessen the extent of this, it is best 



tage.. 

all considered 
i best to have the 

abortion performed as early as possible. Abortions after the 20th week should not be performed, since the likelihood of 
irreparable harm to the mother and aborting a fully functioning human is very great. ..(p. 35-361. 

"The intrauterine device (the IUDl is inserted into the uterus making it in some manner unreceptive to a fertilized 

egg....lp.28). 

"A method which costs little and exhibits no side effects, except possible enlargement of the female's abdomen is the 

Rhythm method." (p. 31) the requirement of premeditated temperature-taking, and the rhythm method finds no effective 

place on the college campus, (p. 441. 

From Human Sexual Response-Ability 

Students of Georgetown U., Inc. 
Introduction-Rev. R. C. Baumiller, S. J. J 



38 



\BOH IIOVTHE NEW COMMODITY? Source-Legal Abortion: How Safe'.' How Available? How Costly?, Consumer 

Reporta-Facte ^ou Need Before Von Buy No Advertising. July 1972. 60c I Address; P. O. Box 11 11. Mt. Vemon, N.Y. 

105501. pgs. 166-470. 

INDEX 

Outboard motors Air-Conditioners Zippers Station Wagons Self-Cleaning Ovens 

, El. Fans Legal Abortions 

Ixmdspeakers 

Marine-Radio Telephones 

Putting "moral and religious" arguments aside. Consumer I'nion. confines itself to information gleaned "from doctors, 
public health officials and abortion referral specialists" about "the safety, availability and costs of abortion." Information is 
selected from the Joint Program for the Study of Abortion IJPSAI financed by Rockefeller's Population Council at a 0OS1 ol 

(246.623.00. 

Despite a prohibition policy of no advertising, the article lists the addresses and phone numbers for Family Planning In- 
formation Service of N.Y.Cand the National Clergy Consultation Service, of N.Y.C., along with appropriate aboritorium fees. 

According to Consumer Reports, the Clergy Consultation Services "was founded for the specific purpose of helping 
women to obtain abortions. In 1971, some 3000 Clergy counselors handled more than 100.000 referrals for abortion." 

While the report suggests that Planned Parenthood and Clergy Consultation Service are "non-profit" agencies and charge 
no fee for referrals, it has been established that in certain areas of the countr\ . i. e., Los Angeles. Calif., a kick-back of between 
$20-25 is received by these agencies per abortion. (L. A. Times West Magazine, July 23, 19721. Additionally, Planned 
Parenthood of New York City operates two aboritoriums with fees ranging from $ 1 25 to $800 or more depending on length of 
pregnancy. 

Pennsylvania legislators might be interested in noting that " one hospital in Philadelphia performed more abortions in 

1970 than all those in Delaware and South Carolina combined-even though the latter two states had recently liberalized their 
laws." (pg. 4691 

Pro-Life physicians will have a field-day with such comments as "In terms of fatalities, early abortion is far safer than 

childbirth and SALINE ABORTION thus far appears to be somewhat safer than a full-term delivery in short, abortion is 

safe only in competent medical hands.... ."Letters to the Editor of Consumer Reports may be directed to above address. 



SEATTLE-KING COUNTY DISTRIBUTES 
"MORNING-AFTER" PILL 

According to Dr. T. L. Marks, Director of Family 
Planning for Seattle-King County's Dept. of Public Health 
the so called "Morning-After" Pill now under investigation 
b\ Ilalph Nader's health research associates, "is available on 
prescription from most physicians in the community, Family 
Planning Clinics of the Health Department, Planned 
Parenthood Center, and University affiliated clinics." 
(Source: Seattle Times-9 7 711. 

Among the nine points listed on the Seattle-King 
County Health Dept. Acknowledgement and Consent and 
Instruction sheet, which is signed by the patient and wit- 
nessed are: 

1. The effectiveness in preventing pregnancy cannot be 
assured*. 

21 This medication may cause serious reactions and com- 
plications, both known and unknown to me and my fetus. 
4. Side effects such as nausea and vomiting, headaches and 
dizziness often severe, may occur with this medication. 
9. Since the morning -after pill is not something I should take 
repeatedly. I must use a method of birth control each time I 
have intercourse to prevent pregnancy. 
N< ill : This medication which has been linked with vaginal 
cancer, and has not been approved by the Food and Drug 
Administration, according to an administrator of Planned 
Parenthood Center. Seattle, IS GIYT.N TO MINORS 
WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT, by her agency. 



OEE OFFERS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 
HANDBOOK 

The U. S. Office of Education has issued a draft of the 
Environmental Education Handbook which outlines the 
projects and requirements for grants of the Office of En- 
vironmental Education. 

In 1972, the OEE made six grants, totaling 
$127,000.00 for "population education". 

Pro-Life organizations or interested individuals should 
write immediately for the Handbook and request an ap- 
plication if they are interested in filing for an environmental 
grant in the areas of population, resources, etc. 

Last fiscal year, awards went to the following; 
$13,000 111 Alexis DuPont School. Greenville, DE for 
Population Environment Project 

$35,000 121 Indiana University Foundation, Bloomington, 
IN. for H.S. Population Unit 

$20,000 (31 U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.- In- 
service Training Program 

$ 4,000 (4) ZPG-Fargo-Moorehead Chapter-Rural 
Population Study-Booth, Fargo, N.D. 
$ 5,000 (51 U. of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, Ohio for 
Population Education Inservice Course. 
$50,000 (6) Population Education, Inc., Washington, DC- 
Secondary School Population Education. 

Handbook and applications available from: 
Office of Environmental Education 
400 Maryland Ave., S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20202 



39 



WHITE HOUSE PROBES HEW INVOLVEMENT IN ROCKEFELLER FILM 

President Nixon's advisor, John Ehrlichman, charged with domestic affairs, is investigating the role of the Dept. of HEW 
in the sponsorship and distribution of the film Population Growth and the American Future, which was aired over the PBS 
on Nov. 29th, 1972. 

HEW funds authorized for film distribution, the preparation of study guides and teachers materials, purchase of films, cost 
of editing film into "teaching modules" and grant to Population Education, Inc. now totals more than $220,000.00. 

The USCL has asked Dr. Ehrlichman to make public all grants and contracts involved in the project including the $50,000 
grant to Population Education, Inc. from the U.S. Office of Environmental Education. It has also asked that all materials 
currently being edited and prepared by Dr. Louis Hellman's Office of Population Affairs be first reviewed by a special 
Congressional Committee appointed by the President to assure that the views presented are objective and balanced. 

Since the Dept. of HEW has already purchased 100 copies of the Rockefeller film, the U.S. Coalition for Life has 
requested that 100 copies of the second PBS hour be purchased and that the Office of Environmental Education and Office of 
Population provide equivalent funds to the U.S.C.L. for the preparation of teaching materials similar to those now being 
prepared to accompany the film. 

Negotiations are expected to take several months, and the film is expected to be withheld until government administrators 
can assure the taxpayer that all points of view are being heard on the population question. 

For additional details see USCL MEMO for Jan. 20, 1973. 



A.I.D. OFFICIAL ADDRESSES IPPF MEDICAL 
AND SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS- SYDNEY, AUGUST 
1972 

Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, director of the Office of 
Population, USAID, took note of the fact that from 1965- 
1972 AID allocated $385 million towards population 
programming. According to Dr. Ravenholt it was becoming 
increasingly necessary to reach young women to curb early 
reproduction. He said that no coercion should be employed, 
but all methods should be made available in family planning 
programs, including ABORTION. 

A significant portion of the IPPF agenda was given over 
to abortifacient agents such as prostaglandins. Dr. S. S. 
Ratnam of Singapore stated his hospital used prostaglandins 
for 2nd trimester abortion and that his trial supply came 
from the IPPF. 

Dr. Ben Branch of PRETERM, Washington, D.C.'s 
key aboritorium, evaluated outpatient vacuum aspiration 
programs which he expected would reduce long-term 
problems of future spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy 
pre-mature delivery and involuntary sterility. 

Dr. R. P. Soonawala of India discussed his massive 
experiments with 5,000 vaginal sterilizations of which 2,269 
were under his own supervision. He stated that Indian 
women were more likely to come to the sterilizing operating 
theatres if the word "operation" was no used. The women 
instead were told that a stitch would be put in the vagina and 
they would be safeguarded from having further children. 
Patients were advised not to have sexual relations for 4-6 
weeks by telling their husbands that this might disturb the 
stitch. 

Dr. Rosenfield presented a paper on the effect of the 
copper T-IUD, which he suggested interfered with the 
implantation of the blastocyst. 

Dr. Malcolm Potts, of the IPPF, presented the final 
conference paper on coitus-interruptus or withdrawal which 
he stated should have a place in family planning programs, 
as this method of birth control could serve as a conditioning 
agent to the acceptance of clinic-based methods. According 



to Dr. Potts, withdrawal when combined with legal abortion 
might present less risk of morbidity and mortality than the 
continued use of medical methods of contraception with their 
"rare but sometimes serious side-effects." 

USCL Reprint No. 1 19 

ZPG AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR STATUS - 

Prolife groups and individuals who wish to have Zero 
Population Growth removed from the alternate service 
program of the Selective Service as "a non-profit 
organization contributing to the national health, safety and 
welfare" may send letters accompanied when possible, by 
clippings of local ZPG anti-life activities to: 

Mr. Byron Pepitone, Acting National Director 
Selective Service System 
Washington, D.C. 

"HOW TO GET 6,000 ABORTIONS A DAY!" 

Contraception-Sterilization-Abortion-Population Control. 
Anthony Zimmerman, SVD, STD covers them all in an 
excellent expose of the true nature and consequences of 
governmental population control programs 

"....And another Korean official told us at the Second 
World Population Conference that a nation which launches a 
birth control campaign owes it to the citizens to liberalize 
abortion laws to a certain extent " 

"Accidental pregnancy is a real disadvantage in the use 
of this method IIUDI. Patients are often very upset or even 
hysterical when told that they are pregnant. Dr. Guttmacher 
(USAI recommends induced abortion..." (comments of Prof. 
Chun of Hong Kongl. 

"There should be no statutory compulsion toward this 
(mass sterilization), but there is a need for mobilizing public 
opinion in such a manner as to operate as moral com- 
pulsion " Comments of Mr. R. A. Gopalawami at 1963 

Asian Population Conferency at New Delhi. 

Study copy of Zimmerman article originally published 
in the Dec. 1966 issue of The Reign of the Sacred Heart is 
available from the USCL. Order Reprint No. 1 16 - 50c. 



40 

INDIA'S MEDICAL TERMINATION <>K PREGNANCY ACT. 1971 was analyzed by Drs. R. Koteswara Raq and 
G. R. Bhaskar at the International Conference on Family Planning, New Delhi. March 12-16, 1972. 

I ndet present regulations, abortions must be earned out by a Registered Medical Practitioner, i.e., allopathic doctors, who 
are registered with a Medical Council and who have undergone training or gained experience as prescribed by the Central 
Government. Six weeks of training at a teaching hospital with a minumum killing of 12 unborn children is the suggested 
program. 

Abortions are carried out if 1 1 1 the life or physical or mental health of the mother is threatened or (21 if the child might be 
seriously mentally or physicially handicapped. 

According to the explanation offered by the Indian physicians, the above criteria would cover pregnancy due to rape and 
"Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the 
purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitue a 
grave injur) to the mental health of the pregnant woman." 

< >|mti -eason on the unborn is limited to the first twenty weeks of pregnancy. Minors or lunatics require written consent of 
guardian. 

Abortions may be carried out in Government Hospitals and approved private aboritoriums set aside for this purpose. 

NOTE : In a medical emergency, an abortion may be carried out at any time, regardless of period of gestation of the child, 
in any private hospital b> any doctor regardless of training or experience. 

Additional beds for abortion patients may be set up in the General or District Hdqs. Hospital. "The same plan as adopted 
for post partiim theatres and sterilization wards may be adopted." 

USCL Reprint No. 1 1 7 - 40c 



% According to Prof. A. Dass of New Delhi who also participated in the International Conference, "With liberalization of the 

abortion law early pregnancy detection has become a means of offering comprehensive obsteric management induction of 

abortion is safest between the 6th to the 8th week and the best and least traumatic method is vacuum aspiration. At this period 
of gestation vaginal tubal ligation is easy. ...a nation wide publicity campaign and a quick and efficient service would greatly 
contribute to the success of the programme." 

USCL Reprint No. 1 18 - 30c 



NOTE : India's current abortion programme appears to follow the guidelines set forth in the U.S. Agency for International 
Development Population Report (Dec. 1971 1 which called for a "pregnancy-centered approach" to family planning programs 
where early pregnancy detection is combined with abortion, contraception and sterilization services, (p. 34-35.) 

According to the AID report, India's Abortion-on-Demand "now poses a mighty challenge to the Indian Government." Ip. 
1791. 

In June 1970 AID made a grant of $20 million dollars to India for expanding its family planning programs. This is in 
addition to over $20 million dollars given to various projects involving condom manufacturing, bi-medical research and manu- 
facture of 6,000 f.p. vehicles. 

India receives aid from other agencies including the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Rockefeller's 
Population Council, The Pathfinder Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, CARE, Oxfam and the World 
Assembly of Youth IWAYI, the Peace Corps; UNICEF, the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, and from the nations of 
Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom. 

(Ed. note- Almost all of the above U. S. based agencies receive the major portion of their funding from A.I.D. I. 

In the Jan. 1972 issue of AID's War on Hunger, an article entitled "Selling' Vasectomies in India" featured the activities 
of Dr. Datta Pai, who according to AID writer Carl Purcell is attempting to "liberate his country from the ominous threat of 
overpopulation". Photographed in the AID publication was the sterilization booths and illuminated scoreboard at Emakulam 
District and Dr. Pai's mobile family planning bus. 

According to the Nov.-Dec. issue of ZPG's National Reporter, Dr. Pai's comprehensive program now includes "services 

from sterilization to supervised abortions" if government incentive programs fail, enforced government quotas would be next, 

Dr. Pai believes. Ip. 41. 



41 



OEO AND THE SARASOTA PROJECT • The Federal 
Office of Economic Opportunity is currently financing a pilot 
project for the University of Florida serving the counties of 
Manatee, Charlotte. DeSoto. and Hardee. 

According to Mr. Roy J. Schaffer, Executive Director of 
Planned Parenthood Association of Sarasota County, Inc., 
an agency funded by the Dept. of HEW, "Girls as young as 
12 and 13 can get contraceptive information and or medical 
care through our program without parental consent...." 

Mr. Schaffer. who. is handling the OEO project stated 
that in addition to obtaining a quick test for pregnancy . "We 
counsel pregnant girls.. ..determine if a therapeutic abortion 
is possible, or if the baby is definitely wanted" 

"The basic plan is to keep unwanted children from 
being born." he explained, "and since responsible kids are 
engaging in sex, they should obtain accurate medical in- 
formation." The family planning project includes in- 
formation in the areas of birth control, maternity care, 
sterilization and abortions. I Reprint No. 115-20cl. 



PLANNED PARENTHOOD Pl^BLICATION NOW 
FEDERALLY FUNDED 

In the Oct. 1971 issue of PP's Family Planning 
Perspectives (pg.5l. the transfer of the "Literature and 
Comment" section of this publication to a new publication 
called Family Planning Digest was announced. As of Jan. 
1972, the Digest has been published and financed by the 
National Center for Family Planning Services of the 
Dept. of HEW but prepared by Planned Parenthood- World 
Population's Publication Unit of the Center for Family 
Planning Development. 

According to Mr. Richard Lincoln, PP's Director of 
Publications, articles to be digested are selected by the 
NCFPS which is the technical assistance Division of PF- 



WP, in consultation with NEW's NCFPS. All over 
responsibility for materials published and editorial comment 
lie with Mr. Lincoln. 

The Digest, according to Mr. Lincoln, is nut a periodical 
of primary publication but rather a digest of materials 
already published. Selection is based on "usefulness fur 
professionals involved in organized family planning activ itiefi 
in the United States." 

The most frequently covered topics covered in this bi- 
monthly 'government' publication are vasectomy, teenage 
contraceptive programs, abortifacient drugs, Sangerite 
philosophy, "unwanted children ', sex education, and the 
poor and birth control. 

The March issue of the Digest contained a large article 
on "Prostaglandins: New Birth Control Hope "r 
Headache": the July issue contained another entitled. 
"Health and Social Impact of Legalized Abortion ": and the 
Sept. issue evaluated Tietze and Lewit's study on the medical 
complications of legal abortion. In the May issue under 
"contraceptive practice" an evaluation of the Human Life 
Foundation's Conference on Natural Family planning was 
made. Of the five issues published between Jan. and Sept. 
1972, the latter was the only reference made in the Digest to 
regulation of family size by sexual continence based on the 
natural rhythms of the body. 

The Digest also publishes a want ad section for Planned 
Parenthood affiliates at home and abroad and a few 
governmental family planning agencies. 

NOTE : Before taking any action regarding the 
government financing of this publication, the Coalition plans 
to offer the Dept. of HEW an opportunity to balance the 
content of the Digest. The USCL therefore requests that Pro- 
Life groups submit published articles on any of the topics 
mentioned above to: Lynn C. Landman. Editor 
F. P. Digest, Center for F. P. Programs 
315 Madison Ave.. PP-WP. NY.Y. N.Y. 10022 



FEDERAL AGENCY SPONSORS STERILIZATION CONFERENCE 



The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID I has granted to the International Project of the Association for 
Voluntary Sterilization, a contract of $2,000,000.00 for an international conference on voluntary sterilization as a potential 
method of family planning and fertility limitation. 

The four day conference, to be held in Geneva from Feb. 25 - March 1, 1973, "will provide the groundwork for an in- 
ternational communications network of voluntary organizations, professional and governmental agencies, and other interested 
groups." 

The many aspects of the International Project involve public campaigns, training programs; the formation of an in- 
ternational sterilization federation ; research and information and communication activities. 

AID public tax dollars have in recent years been used to finance a numbe* of similar conferences and workshops including 
(II a Johns Hopkins Conference on Population Dynamics 119651 121 a National Academy of Sciences Symposium on 
Population Policiesl 19701 131 a gTant to support the general conference of the International Union of Scientific Study of 
Population in London 1 1970) (41 the Third International Conference on Prostaglandins held by the N.Y. Academy of Sciences 
(1971) (51 a grant to support a regional meeting of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in Korea ( 19651 161 a 
grant in support of a 4-day international conference relating to Social Work and Population Dynamics and Family Planning. 
(1969) (7) International Communication Seminar at U. of North Carolina (19681 (8) Financial support of World Assembly of 
Youth (WAY) conferences to promote family planning (1969; 1970; 1971) (91 International Conferenc of Midwives. London 
(1971) (10) Family Planning Seminars, PP-Chicago (1970:1971) 



42 



;oro 



FEDERAL GOTCR.NMENT CONDUCTS "STOP THE STORK" CAMPAIGN 



"Can Mass Media Advertising Increase Contraceptive Use?", was the subject of a mass media experiment in family 
planning, conducted by the Family Planning Evaluation Project of Maternal and Child Health of the U. of North Carolina. 

The 6 month, multi-media advertising campaign undertaken in four U.S. cities.-Columbus. Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee. 
Altoona. Pa. and Jackson, Miss., - was financed by the Dept. of HE W's Health Services and Mental Health Administration and 
the Rockefeller Foundation 

In addition to covering all research costs, the Division of the Maternal and Child Health Service of HSMHA advanced the 
project. $30,000 specifically for media plans and basic layouts developed by the J. W. Thompson Company. 

The Rockefeller grant of $85,000 was used for actual production of advertisements for radio, t. v. magazine, and 
newspaper ads. while the National Center for Family Planning Services kicked in $252,000 directly for funding family plan- 
ning projects in the four cities for purchase of media time and space. 

The Thompson Agency's STOP THE STORK ad, featuring a teenage couple necking on a park bench was directed at the 
unmarried and the child-saturated married couple while the Robert Blake ads placed emphasis on married couples who want 
children later. The ads were run in Life and Look magazines and on radio and t.v. 

Conclusions of the mass media campaign indicated that generally it is not an effective means of increasing clinic attendence 
or in increasing nonclinic sales of contraceptives. (Source-Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 3 July 1972 Reprint 
from P.P. at 30c per copy. I 

Ed. Note-A national prolife delegation may want to investigate a Dept. of HEW grant involving the use of the mass media 
to promote a pro-life mentality in the U. S. 

NOTE. .ABC's TV "Population: Boom or Doom!" documentary made reference to this project involving the mass media 
and birth control advertising. 

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL OF FEMALE WELFARE RECIPIENTS PROPOSED 



109th General Assembly (State of Ohio) 

Regular Session 

1971-1972 



H.B.No.512 



Mr. Netzley 



A BILL 
To amend section 5107.03, and to enact section 3709.41 of the Revised Code to 
make injections of a contraceptive drug an Aid to Dependent Children eligibility 
requirement. 
The contraceptive drug specified in Mr. Netzley 's bill was DEPO PROVERA, to be administered on "an every third 
month treatment basis" to any person attempting to qualify for ADC support. No ADC child would be eligible for aid unless his 
mother possessed a written certificate of pregnancy immunization from the Board of Health of a city or general health district. 
Such immunizations could be administered by ( 1 ) a voluntary nonprofit PLANNED PARENTHOOD SERVICE, or (21 a 
licensed physician. 

DEPO-PROVERA is a registered drug of the Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo Michigan. In the April 1972 (Vol. 8, No. 41 
issue of The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Dr. T. J. Vecchio, of Upjohn's Medical Research Division outlines the 
international experience in over 20,000 cases using DEPO-PROVERA for primarily three month regimens. 

Among the complications listed by Dr. Vecchio were unpredictable patterns of bleeding, some complete amenorrhea, with 
most women showing olito-amenorrhea i.e. sporadic-irregular menstrual cycles. A few cases required curettages to stop 
hemorrhaging; others, supplemental dosages of oral estrogen; and there were six thrombotic episodes reported. The average 
delay in return of fertility was five months. 

(USCL Reprints No. 121 and No. 122- 40cl 



POPULATION CONTROL AND FUTURE HOMEMAKERS OF AMERICA - 



On Nov. 11th, UPI (N.Y.I ran a wire service feature on a survey on society and the family, conducted by the national 
Future HomenuuVers of America IFHAI Public Relations Committee. The report was carried in the Nov. Journal of Home 
Economics, published by the American Home Economics Association (AHEAI. The association and the U.S. Office of 
Education (USOEI jointly sponsor FHA. 

Among the areas of concern expressed by the 75 respondents, which supposedly "delivered a kind of consensus among the 
FHA's half million members" were pollution, overpopulation, male and female roles, etc. 

One of the selected replies aired by UPI on the subject of family planning was: 

"My mother contributed more than her fair Bhare to the population explosion. I plan to bear no children as I feel there are 



43 

too many unwanted babies brought into the world and I can better help in other ways than through motherhood..." 

Seven months prior to the survey release. Teen Times IMay-721 the official mouthpiece of the Future Homemakers of 
America, which is funded by the American Economics Assoc, and the U.S. Office of Education ran a feature entitled, The 
Population Liberation Crisis". 

The introduction of the article is a hard sell for the N.Y. Times population supplement prepared by PP-WP and the 
Population Crisis Committee from which Congresswoman Patsy Mink's (D-Hawaiil statement was taken and reprinted in full 
in Teen Times. 

In addition to the usual population control rhetoric, Mrs. Mink views the question of abortion as a matter of women's 
rights rather than a population control issue. "Women seeking legalized abortion want the right of control over their own 

bodies it makes more sense to prevent pregnancy that to seek its termination, but the right of termination must exist as a 

human choice " 

"...When we achieve population control, all society will benefit, but the women will win the most, with a new promise of 
equality," Mrs. Mink concluded. 

Recommended action by Future Homemakers included writing for the Times supplement ; and contributing some ideas 
for classroom discussion of "this population crisis". 

(FHA, National Hdqs. 2010 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036.1 

POPULATION CONTROL AND THE MASS MEDIA - 

In 1967, a series of Summer Workshops were held at the University of Chicago by the Community and Family Study 
Center. The proceedings of these workshops were compiled by Donald Bogue into a soft-bound text entitled Mass Com- 
munication and Motivation for Birth Control (Ed. note - the terms birth control and population control are used in- 
terchangeably in the text.) 

Funds for these workshops and the U. of Chicago's Population Control and Demographic projects and student programs 
are derived from the following sources: 

• Ford Foundation 

• Population Council 

• U.S. Agency for International Development 

• U. S. Public Health Service 

• U. S. National Institute 

• Pan American Union 

• OCED 

• Pan American WHO 

The Bogue compilation includes a student contribution, "A Sign for the Times" by Harry L. Levin I pgs. 315-323.1. Among 
the suggestions made by Mr. Levin were- 

1 1 1 Standardization of population control data into a language system similar to Fortran to analyze and develop input into 
meaningful terms. 

( 2 1 The harnessing of material profit in population control programming, i.e., an IID ("Instant Identification Device"!, a 
simple symbol to be used by every population control institution in the state, nation and world. 

131 A Demographic Computation Institute, designed to collect and analyze population control matters perhaps under the 
U.N. 

(41 A CEASE CORPS - the enlistment of recruits to carry forth the population control message to schools, colleges ect. 

(51 IUD Holiday Centers - using medical traveling teams and facilities 

(61 Catholics Unanimous or any Group Unanimous - the cultivation of Catholic and other groups who will support 
government financing and action in population control field. 

(71 A Birth Control Products version of Avon Products or Fuller Brush. 

(8) Emphasis on commercial aspects of birth control products.... "the sale of contraceptive products offers the largest mark- 
up, fastest turn-over of inventory, and largest net profit of any item other than prescription items." 

(91 A population-birth control version of Dear Abby! 

(101 Photo, entertainment or sports ticket incentives for Planned Parenthood visit. 

(Ill Development of youth indoctrination material similar to Dr. Seuss stories.. ."Jack and Jill Went on the Pill", the 
creation of early reading and primary grade books on population-birth control theme 

Order from Community and Family Study Center, 1 126 E. 59th St., Chicago, 37. 111. 



44 



MAUDE IS A FRAUD - The L'SCL joins with Women Concerned for the Unborn Child and our Pro-Life colleague 
around the nation in a one-year boycott of all sponsors of MAUDE, CBS's comedy of liberal theology which featured on Nov 
14th and 21st, an abortion-sterilization-population control trilogy. 

Sponsors, listed below have been notified of the USCL decision : 

Lipton Tea. Office of the President, Thomas J. Lipton. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.. (17632 

Krito-Lay Office of the President, Dallas. Tex. 

Norelco, 100 East 42nd Street, New York, N.Y. 10017 

General Electric. 570 Lexington Avenue, New York. N.Y. 10022 

Mattel Toys. 5150 Rosecrans Boulevard. Hawthorne, Calif., 90025 

Breck. Berdcn Avenue, Wayne. J.J. 07470 

and Alberto Culver, 2525 Armitage Avenue, Melrose Park, III., 60160. 



NOTE IN LIGHT OF THE FACT 

THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT VIA AID 
HAS GRANTED MILLIONS OF TAX 
DOLLARS AT HOME AND ABROAD TO 
COMMITTED ANTI-LIFE GROUPS. CON- 
FERENCES SUCH AS THOSE SPONSORED 
BY THE INTERNATIONAL PLANNED 
PARENTHOOD FEDERATION. AND HAS 
FINANCED SEMINARS ON ABORTIFACIENT 
RESEARCH. THE U.S.C.L. HAS BEGUN 
INITIAL PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN A 
MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR AID-STATE DEPT. 
GRANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING 
AN INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR LIFE 
CONFERENCE WHICH WILL FEATURE 
SPECIALISTS IN A WIDE VARIETY OF 
FIELDS RELATING TO FETAL DEVELOP- 
MENT: REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR: THE 
MEDICAL. LEGAL. SOCIAL AND ETHICAL 
ASPECTS OF ABORTION. STERILIZATION, 
AND ENTHANASIA AND OTHER RELATED 
AREAS. DETAILS TO FOLLOW. 



POPULATION CONTROL, ABORTION, 

AND 

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 

In November, Dr. Cynthia Wedel, president of the 
National Council of Churches, told an interviewer in 
Michigan that abortion is not a matter to be handled by the 
criminal law or the courts. "Abortion should be decided by 
the woman and a doctor," Dr. Wedel said, "The length of 
time before the abortion - none of these things ought to be 
handled by law. This is just not a criminal situation." 
iSource - National Catholic Register - Nov. 12, 1972). 



It should also be noted that Dr. Wedel sits in the 
population control camp of the Population Institute - the 
troika which, also features Harold Bostrom lof the Victor- 
Bostrom Fund, the fund raising arm of Planned Paren- 
thoodl. Rodney Shaw, Assoc, for Voluntary Sterilization, 
Willard Wirtz. Congress for Optimum Population and Rev. 
John ' O'Brien, population control advocate from Notre 
Dame, and Bill Ryerson, of ZPG, 

The Population Institute's Population Communication 
Center. 1475 Riverside Dr. NY 100271 faffed by David 
Poindexter and Casey Derrick feeds the mass media their 
population control pabulum on a regular basis while the 
Institute's Student Project, (Population Institute, 100 
Maryland Ave., NE, Washington, DC 200021 caters to 
youth and the Institute's Ethics Project, (Wesley Theological 
Seminary, 4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington. 
D.C. 200161 to "ethicicists, theologians, and population 
experts". 

The Population Institute is currently offering a 
$5,000.00 award for the best 30 minute script on population 
control produced on prime-time television between Sept. 
1972 and June. 1973. 



PROSTAGLANDIN-ABORTIFACIENT RESEARCH 
AND AID 

In the January, 1972 Health Services and Mental 
Health Administration Report IDept. of HEW, Vol. 87, No. 
1-4 Pgs. 41-421 an anonymous article entitled, "Birth 
Control Method Tried Alter the Fact" describes federally 
sponsored abortifacient research and clinical testing at tin' I 
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

According to the HSMHA report, the work of Dr. S. 
Bergstrom at the Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm in the 
induction of abortion using prostaglandins, in the late 
1960's, stimulated the interest of U. of N.C. researchers. 

"In August 1970, a research team at the university, 
headed by Dr. Charles Hendricks, chairman. Department of 
obstetrics and gynecology at the University'9 Memorial 
Hospital began using prostaglandins as abortifacients." 

In 1971, 46 experimental abortions were carried out on 
women 6-20 week9 pregnant. 



45 



"Besides being effective abortifacienls, prostaglandins 
were found to bring on menstruation prior to implantation of 

the egg which normally occurs about six weeks (?l after 

intercourse." 

Team researchers Dr. William Brenner and Dr. 
Frederick Kroncke see prostaglandins as being superior to 
other birth control methods. 

The report article concludes, "Until recently, most of 
the funds for the prostaglandin research have come directly 
from the U. of N.C., Dept. of Ob.-GYN. with some 
assistance from the Upjohn Company, which supplies 
prostaglandins to the investigators. Since mid-July 1971, 
money has also been received from a grant from the Agency 
for International Development to the North Carolina 
Population Center." 

USCL Reprint No. 120 -30c 

The N.C. Population Center was established in 1966 by 
a $268,000 grant from AID to provide training facilities and 



consultative services to AID for development and im- 
plementation of population programs. (Project 031.11-570- 
814; csd-10591. Between the period of 1965-1971. the 
university has received more than $12 million in AID 
population funding including; $1.6 million for population 
program designs; 3.1 million for the establishment of an 
international network of field trial centers to evaluate new 
methods of fertility control INCLUDING THK SUP- 
PORT OF PROSTAGLANDIN FIELD TRIAL 
STUDIES. 

In addition. AID grants for prostaglandin-abortifacient 
research have been awarded to Worcester Foundation ($2.9 
million I; U. of Wisconsin ($227,0001 Washington 
University ($293,0001 and Makerere U. in Unganda 
($821,000). 

According to AID's Office of Population, all research 
and testing of "family planning drugs and devices" carried 
out by AID are in keeping with Title X of the Foreign 
Assistance Act. 



CHILD DEVELOPMENT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Dept. of HEW, Office of the Secretary. 

The U. S. Coalition for Life and its Pro- Life associates have been invited by the Dept. of HEW, Special Projects Division, 
to submit the names of candidates to be considered for appointment to the Child Development Advisory Committee. The 
following information is needed in order to consider a candidate for appointment: 

1. Name 

2. Home address (If student, a parent's address! 

3. Business address (If student, a college mailing address) 

4. Date and place of birth 

5. Education and or Training 

6. In Detail - Professional background or Community Contributions 

7. In Detail - Special interests as they relate to Professional Background, Community Contributions, or Education and 
Training. 

NOTE : Recommendations and endorsement information should be transmitted separately. 
ACTION LINE 

Pro- Life agencies as well as individuals are asked to submit this resume information for committee evaluation of candidates 
for appointment to the Child Development National Advisory Committee: 

TO: Director, Special Projects 

Child Development Committee 
Dept. of HEW 
Office of the Secretary 
Washington, D.C. 20201 

Additional information on the authority, structure, and functions of the Committee are available on request from the Dept. 
of HEW. 



The U. S. Coalition for Life was created to serve as a 
national and international clearing house for Pro-Life 
organizations and individuals seeking information and 
research materials in the areas of population control, 
euthanasia, genetic engineering, abortion and related areas. 
Its primary function is one of service rather than 
organization or control. 

The U.S.C.L. Reprint Service is designed to provide 
documentation and resource materials for the Pro-Life 



Movement. Costs include both copying and postage ex- 
penses. All reprints are to be used as study copies only. In 
case of copyrighted materials, permission must be obtained 
from the publisher or author directly, except for brief quotes 
which may be used with proper credit. 

Subscription Rate is $3.00 a year which includes both 
the Newsletter and special USCL mailings relating to current 
areas of controversy or Pro-Life interest. 

Editor - Randy Engel 



46 




Vol. 2 No. 3 

May, 1973 

Mrs. Randy Engel. Editor 



Published by 

U.S. Coalition for Life 

Box 315, Export, Pa. 15632 



Fetal Experimentation 



The U.S. Coalition for Life in conjunction with 
Women Concerned for the In born Child filed written 
testimony on human experimentation involving unborn 
children and clinic patients with the Senate Health Sub- 
committee on Human Experimentation on March 6, 1973 
after being refused seating at the public hearings 
scheduled late in February and the first week in March. 

Dr Lawrence Horowitz, charged with hearing 
scheduling, stated that seats for oral presentations had been 
booked months in advance and that the final day of 
hearings, i.e. March 8th was reserved for "world experts". 
Furthermore, Dr. Horowitz stated that the committee 
would not be investigating abortion or any aspect thereof 
and that Coalition testimony relating to the use of poor, 
clinic patients for abortifacient experimentation was not 
relevant to topics being discussed at that time. Another 
government official said that the hearings called by Sen. 
Edward Kennedy were simply restricted to those issues the 
Senator wished made public and that anything related to 
abortion was not applicable at this time, including ex- 
perimentation on the unborn. 

One month later. Capital newspapers exploded with 
the news that the National Institutes of Health (HEW! 
have been deliberating the issue of experimentation on 
children bom alive via abortion for more than a year, and 
were considering the possibility of adopting guidelines on 
such experimentation similar to those approved in England. 

On April 18, the NIH stated publicly that the 
government agency which is the prime source of funds for 
American research laboratories, will not support "research 



on live, aborted human fetuses." 

77ir Coalition has documented evidence to the con- 
trary. We know that there arc numerous medical-research 
(enters in the U.S. which receive NIH funds, that are using 
live aborted babies for a wide variety of experimental 
purposes, and that NIH personnel have been sent abroad to 
Finland, Sweden and elsewhere to conduct experiments 
using such children. 

Clearly, a full, public congressional investigation into 
this matter is necessary since it is unlikely that the NIH can 
be counted on to make such disclosures on such ex- 
perimentation, any more than it is able to disclose the 
millions of tax dollars it is currently awarding for abor- 
tifacient research and clinical testing. 

Action Line - Write to your federal legislators and ask 
them to support a Congressional investigation of such 
experimentation including "research" on live aborted 
babies and abortifacient experimental drugs which turn 
wombs into tombs. The Coalition has wired Sen. Kennedy 
asking that he set a date for public hearings on these and 
related topics by his Senate Health Subcommittee. Also, 
President Nixon has been asked to take action on 
withholding NIH funds until such time as the agency sets 
down specific guidelines ruling OUT the use of live aborted 
babies for experimentation purposes by research labs and 
medical schools receiving federal funds. 

The Coalition has prepared a packet of materials on 
fetal experimentation in the U.S. and England and Europe, 
for the use of pro-life groups. Cost per packet is $5.00 to 
cover postage and printing costs. 



TAX-FUNDS TO UPJOHN COMPANY FOR 
ABORTIFACIENT RESEARCH 

Portions of the millions of dollars of federal funds 
being used to develop "effective and safe" abortifacient 
drugs which will meet FDA requirements have found their 
way to the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company via the U.S. 
National Institute of Health (NIH). Population 
Research, an inventory of federally sponsored programs, 
fiscal year 1971, clearly documents this fact. 

For example in 1969, John Johnston of the Upjohn 
Company was awarded a four year contract from the NIH 
for prostaglandin research in new developments of "fertility 
regulation techniques". Total project cost: $200,587.00. 

In 1971, Kenneth Kirton of Upjohn received $42,913 
fur research relating to "Quantification of Prostaglandins 
(monkeys, humansl." 

The Upjohn Company has jusi petitioned the Food 
and Drug Administration IFDAI to ok the use of 



prostaglandins as abortifacient agents. An FDA agent told 
the Coalition that they are currently studying English 
research and data on the commercial sale of prostaglandins 
as abortifacient agents since England approved use of the 
drug late last year. 

Other contracts, of immediate interest to prolife 
researchers and federal legislators, include: 

( 1 ) $24,604 - Black resistance to Family Planning Cen- 
ters, M.F. Roseman, Moorehouse College, Atlanta, Ga. 
(21 $249,735 to a Yugoslavian teaching hospital to 
compare medical effects of induced abortion by suction and 
curretage. 

(3) $49,998 to I.M. Cushner of Johns Hopkins for clinical 
testing of prostaglandins during first trimester. 
(41 $107,148 to W.C. Oppel of Johns Hopkins U. for 
behavioral study of "therapeutic abortions - with special 
reference to teenagers." • 



47 



(51 GOALS AND CONDITIONS oR'OPULATION 
CONTROL - An Nfh six year grant of $337,652 to 
Kingsley Davis of the U. of California 1 1 69 - 1 741 
When writing for this information, ask for HEW 
Publication No. NIH 72-133. No Charge. Order from: 
Center for Population Research, NIH, Dept. of HEW. 
Bethesda. Md. 

I PJOHN AND DEPO-PROVERA 

Depo-Provera. a proven carcinogen in animals, not 
approved by the FDA as a contraceptive, is patented by the 
I'pjohn Company. 

Country profiles, publication of Rockefeller's Population 
Council. Feb. 1973 issue on Nigeria by David Lucas and 
Gabisti Williams states that women attending Family 
Planning Council clinics who do not want to have any more 
children are encouraged to try the injectible steroid con- 
traceptive (Depo Proveral. which is also now available. 
(p.9l 

Depo-Provera has also been used in Chilian studies at the 
U. of Chile as well as clinical testing in the McCormick 
Hospital. Chiang Mai, Thailand. Women in the rice fields 
of Sarawak, Malaysia are Depo-Provera guinea pigs under 
the guidance of Canadian Dr. Robert McClure of Toronto, 
who also promotes sterilization. iSource: International 
Planned Parenthood News, Oct. 1972 and Jan. 19731. 



AID 

AID's War on Hunger features abortifacient 
research. The research activities of Suhanali Magan Karim 
of Uganda were featured in the AID publication War on 
Hunger. Vol. V No. 9, Sept. 1971. 

Dr. Karim, a leader is prostaglandin-abortifacient 
research stated that by 1975 use of such drugs would be 
very common. "Prostaglandins are now readily synthesiaed 
and as such will become available at a low cost - a few 
pennies per use." He described it as an "after-the-fact" 
approach. Dr. Karim sees abortion as a means of 
population control as present religious and medical 
restrictions change. 

Dr. Karim's "research" takes place at Makerere 
University in Kampala. Uganda. His "research" which 
includes prostaglandin abortions past 13 weeks gestation is 
financed by the American tax payer via an AID contract 
(No. 931 1 75705401 for project period 6/7 1 - 6/74. 

Ten clinic patients, five Caucasian and five Negro, 
ages 15 to 27 years, and all in their second trimester of 
pregnancy were aborted by the administration of Intra- 
Amniotic Prostaglandin F2d with a 40% success rate 
based on the 24 hour criterion. 

The study was conducted by D.C Leslie, M.I), and 
Leonard E. Laufe, M.D„ F.A.C.O.G. of the 
Reproductive Counseling Institute, West Penn 
Hospital in Pittsburgh and reported in the Dec. 19T2 
issue of The Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 

Side effects of the prostaglandin "therapy" in this 
series included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, flushing, 
pyrexia, headache, bronchospasm. Nausea and 
vomiting occurred in all patients with an average of 2 
to 3 episodes per patient. 



If the prcgnanl^termination did not occur within 
24 hours, additional methods including uterine 
evacuation and saline injections uere carried out. 
Curettage was performed on all patients aborted 
during the first 24 hours. 

Of the ten patients "chosen" from the clinic 
population, three were minors 1 17 or under!. The 
report brings into focus the problem of using clinic 
patients in general, and using minors in particular, for 
abortifacient experimental research. The Coalition has 
the matter under further investigation at both the state 
and federal level. 

OEO MAILING LISTS PROVIDED TO 
POPULATION CONTROL AGENCY 

Since May of 1971, the Office of Economic Op- 
portunity IOEOI has provided over $100,000 to 
Population Services, Inc. of Chapel Hill, N.C. for the 
purpose of increasing use of condoms among sexually 
active, young, unmarried low-income males in urban and 
rural settings. 

Population Services, Inc., directed by Dr. Timothy 
Black of England, a postgraduate of the UNC Chapel Hill 
Population Center, and Philip Harvey, former director for 
CARE in India, has a tax-exempt status to qualify for 
governmental "research funds", while its twin agency - 
Population Planning Associates-serves as the retail firm 
doing the buying and selling of birth control devices. 

Using OEO "anti-poverty" funds. Population Services 
directly contacted over 25,500 individuals between the 
ages of l.t and 20. Local OEO Community Action 
Agencies and commercial sources provided the 
tnailintf lists. 

The letters of the unsolicited mailings included such 
questions as "Has one of your friends made a girl pregnant 
recently?" and reassures the young male that condoms help 
prevent babies as well as V.D. Also included in the mailings 
is provision for obtaining a condom stamp coupon worth 
$1.00 from a North Carolina outlet. 

According to an informed source in Washington, D.C, 
of the 25,000 young men contacted, 2,260 responded 
favorably and were sent materials via unmarked envelopes 
while 86 requested no further materials be sent. At no time 
was parental consent solicited for minors. 

The OEO grant to Population Services Inc. in 1971 
totaled $61,905 while the 1972 grant totaled $47,066. The 
latter OEO funds are intended to expand work among the 
"target" populations" with emphasis placed on reaching 
coaches and other supervisory "outreach" personnel. 
Information gleaned from the "research" will be refined in 
order to "establish a model which can be used elsewhere." 
A proposed program ending in 1974 with the OEO carrying 
the TOTAL costs for Population Services. Inc. - services 
which will cost the American tax payer some $152,274! 

Letters asking that OEO funds to Population Services, 
Inc. be immediately impounded and calling for a 
Congressional investigation of OEO "family planning" 
programs in general may be directed to : Howard Phillips, 
Office of Economic Opportunity, Dept. of HEW, 
Washington, D.C. 20506, with carbons to your 
Congressman and Senators, and to President Nixon. 



48 



PLANNED I'Wtl \lll(M>|^lll \\ Mil 

Planned Parenthood Association, Chicago Area, 
an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of 
America. Inc. (PP-WPl, is a family planning-population 
control training center with hoth national and international 
programs funded by HEW and US-AID. at a cost to 
taxpayers of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. 

Costs for non-Planned Parenthood or government 
financed participants range from $12.00 to $15.00 per 
person per training day. 

This federally -funded enterprises's prototype training 
program includes the following: 

General Training - studies of the "Contraceptive 
Movement" and the "Population Crisis" ... 
Administration and Organization - Organizing, 
developing, establishing, maintaining and evaluating 
family planning programs .... 

Medical - Methods of contraception, male and female 
sterilization, and the training of para-medical personnel 
including "counselors for abortion referral and for 
standard clinics" as well as pregnancy testing and other 
laboratory procedures.... 
Communications - Utilizing mass media for opinion 

formation and the reinforcement process of the public 

Male Education - male sexuality programs geared to 

youth.... 

Research - Medical, biological and contraceptive research 

in U.S. and abroad 

Education - Developing community programs 
"TRAINING FOR ABORTION COUNSELING AND 
REFERRAL COUNSELING". AN OVERVIEW OF 
THE LEGAL AND MORAL ASPECTS OF ABORTION 
IN THE U.S. : removal of sexual inhibitions and barriers to 
human sexual communications by "demythologizing" 
sexual hangups.... 

( Training and Education Dept., PP-Chicago, 185 North 
Wabash. Chicago, III., 606011 

TEEN SCENE 

"Teen Scene" is a special youth oriented program 
operated by Planned Parenthood of Chicago. A substantial 
portion of its funding comes through a grant from the Dept. 
of HEW to the Illinois Family Planning Coordinating 
Council. 

Under HEW Grant No. O5-H-O03O1 173371, Teen 
Scene received: 

FY 1971 -$69,000 FY 1972 -$190,000 
Teen Scene is located at 185 N. Wabash Av., home of 

the Chicago P.P. 

The objectives of Teen Scene as outlined in their 

brochure "Straight Sex Talk for Teens" include: 

1. To provide a non-judgmental atmosphere in which 
teenagers may explore human sexuality through education 
and dialogue. 

2. To eliminate unwanted pregnancies by making effective 
means of family planning, including contraception and 
voluntary abortion, available to all. 

3- ,. < Ibjectives also involve exploring attitudes, establishing 
ongoing model programs, evaluation of programs and in- 
service training programs. 



Office of I'opul^Pfi Affairs in a letter dated Nov. 1, 1972, 
HEW funded activities of "Teen Scene" include pregnancy 
testing and contraceptive information to eligible 
cnadidates. Pregnant teens are referred to a "Teen Scene" 
social worker for discussion, but not counseling on abor- 
tion. If a "Teen Scene" client wants abortion counseling 
she is referred to CARES and no followup of such patients 
is made by "Teen Scene", stated Dr. Shultz. 

Now it just so hap/H'ns that the main CARES office 
i Cooperative Abortion Referral and Evaluation' Ser- 
vice! is located at the exact same address, I8.~> \. 
If abash, as Teen Scene and Chicago P.P.! 

Established in July. 1971, CARES operates a five- 
state abortion referral service which shuttles (prior to Jan. 
22. 19731 women from Illinois. Indiana. Michigan. Ohio 
and Wisconsin to New York at a package deal rate of about 
$145-$350. incl. transportation for a legal abortion. 

In Teen Scene Handbook under the title. Pregnancy 
Testing, individual counseling by TEEN SCENE 
counselors DO IN FACT include making plans, for among 
other things, "legal safe abortion referrals". Dr. Shultz's 
comments not withstanding. 

Furthermore, a pre-arranged phone call to Teen Scene 
in the Spring of 1972 verified the fact that Teen Scene is 
also involved directly in abortion arrangements. The caller, 
an 18 year old boy contacted Teen Scene to arrange an 
abortion for his 15 year old girl friend. He was told that the 
must make his own plane reservation on a flight which 
would be pin-pointed by Teen Scene and that he must bring 
in a signed notarized statement of responsibility by a 21 
year old (any 21 year old I. Teen Scene said they would 
arrange for a limousine to meet the girl at the airport in 
N.Y., take her directly to the clinic where the abortion 
would be performed and she would then be transported 
back to Chicago the same day. 

In the meantime, while tax-payers fund the abortion- 
fornication center of Planned Parenthood, Birthright of 
Chicago suffers financial hardship and must compete with 
HEW funding - YOUR funding. 

Action Line - Write your federal legislators and ask 
them to provide you with specific details on Teen Scene 
including an audit for the period 1971-1972 outlining how 
HEW funds were spent. Request that matching funds be 
made available to Birthright Chicago. Ask if he or she 
would initiate or support a Congressional investigation of 
such programs as Teen Scene in which abortion is clearly 
stated as a means of family planning. 

USCL will provide all the necessary documentation. 
Please include $2.50 to cover copying and postage. Ask for 
Teen Scene Packet. 



INVASION OF PRIVACY ISSUE 

Two recent events involving, tiie, Dept. of Health, 
Education and Welfare funded - "family planning" 
programs, bring into sharp fopus the further erosion of 
marital privacy by government agencies. 

In P.P.'s publication. Family Planning Per- 
spectives, Vol. 5, No. 1 Winter 1973, details are provided 
on Tennessee's Statewide Data System for Family Planning 
begun in 1970. The system consists of centralized computer 



49 



processing of individual patient m.^B I>;i>»mI on th<- 
patient -oriented family planning data system developed in 
Atlanta. In Tennessee, staff from all 95 local county health 
departments have had to be taught the new data system, via 
teach-in sessions. 

Under this data system, both patient's name and a 
unique ID number are recorded on the data form in order 
to "evaluate continuity of care". In Tennessee, the 
patients number is her Social Security number. When a 
new patient doesn't have a S.S. number, the clinic staff is 
instructed to apply for one and to give the patient a tem- 
porary number. Data information includes: patient 
identification, clinic identification, date of visit! s I 
METHOD OF CONTRACEPTION, and information on 
subsequent visit. 

Under this data system, each patient's record folder is 
filed at the local clinic. Patients missing appointments can 
be easily tracked down for formal or "informal" visits by 
home visiting teams under the computer's direction, and 
guidance. 

Collected data are utilized for a number of purposes 
including "community education", and generation of life 
tables as well providing data on "fertility rates and 
illegitimacy rates, and designation future target groups." 

"Since each patient is UNIQUELY identified no 
matter in which clinic she has received services, and has an 
up-to-date longitudinal history file of all visits to the family 
planning din, it becomes a computer programming task to 
extract the information in a format appropriate for life- 
table calculations." (pp. 50-54). 

The second incident involves a National Birth Survey 
conducted by the Public Health Service of HEW with the 
approval of local State Health departments. 
Information from the survey is being collected on a sample 
of approximately 7,400 mothers of live births who 
represent the nearly 3.7 million women having deliveries 
(luring I "72. 

Each physician and each patient in the survey was sent 
a questionnaire about the patient's recent pregnancy. 

The survey cover letter to physicians includes the 
name, address, date of delivery, name and sex of child 
and a survey number, and assurance that all the material 
given to the government will be kept "completely con- 
fidential", and used for statistical purposes. Doctors failing 
to fill out the form receive a followup letter from the 
Division of Vital Statistics charged with carrying out the 
survey. Neither the attending physician or the patient 
require the consent of the other to reply to the survey. 

National Birth Survey includes: 

I. Information about this mother.. incl. number of live 
births, abortions etc. 

II. Prenatal and Postpartum Care of mother.. .incl. 
number of pre-natal visits, nature of post-partum and 
mother's CONTRACEPTIVE HISTORY including what 
method used if any. 

III. Name, Address, and phone number and date of 
survey completion with any notes and comments, by 
physician or patient. 

Concerned tax-payers who ultimately fund these 
programs may wish to bring these matters to the attention 
ol their congressman and senators. The Coalition position is 



that Congress shoiil^^fcce the necessary action to forbid the 
use of Social Sectu^ry numbers as a means of patient 
identification for medical treatment surveys and data 
taking, and prohibit the federal government from soliciting 
confidential information which violates the privacy of the 
physician-patient relationship, and or other relationships 
including that of parent and child. 

Note: Medical World News. 4-13-73 in Big Brother \> 
'Dr. Feelgood' notes that the ACLU. AMA, and Phar- 
maceutical Manufactures Assoc, are protesting the new 
N.Y. Controlled Substances Act requiring drug 
prescriptions (containing name of patient, addresses etc.) in 
be fed into programmed computers manned by the state 
health department, as an invasion of patient-doctor privacy. 



ROCKEFELLER FILM PACKET BATTLE RAGES 
ON - 

On March 22, 1973, members of the U.S. Coalition for 
Life and allied pro-life groups were scheduled to meet with 
Dr. Louis Hellman of the Office of Population Affairs, Mr. 
John Fuller of the Office of Education and Dr. Walter 
Bogan of the Office of Environmental Education to review 
the "population packet" originally designed to accompany 
the Rockefeller film, which was to be distributed by HEW 
until pro-life popular pressure forced its withdrawal. 

The packets containing student and teacher film 
guides and other population teaching aides were prepared 
by the Population Reference Bureau and its associates with 
tax-funds from the Office of Education. 

The meeting with HEW officials was cancelled, 
however, when Dr. Hellman and John Fuller informed the 
Coalition that the packets were not yet prepared for 
evaluation, the final drafts having not as yet been com- 
pleted. Coalition Director Randy Engel received assurances 
that she would be contacted as soon as the drafts were 
ready, prior to their printing for distribution. Casper 
Weinberger was then informed of the cancellation as well as 
the OE agreement with the Coalition. 

Early in April, the Coalition was informed by a federal 
employee in the family planning field that the 80 page 
teaching guide, and also a student guide, had been on his 
desk for some time, where upon the Coalition immediately 
wired Weinberger asking for a meeting with him in the 
presence of Dr. Hellman and other OE officials involved in 
the controversy. Letters in support of the meeting with the 
Secretary of HEW may be sent to directly to Casper 
Weinberger. Office of the Secretary. Dept. of Hew. 
Washington. D.C. 



AMERICA WILL ROCK CHAIRS, NOT CRADLES 
An HEW-funded grant to the Center for the Study of 
Democratic Institutions for the purpose of analyzing 
"long range social futures" for the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare utilization in planning for health 
care delivery in the coming decades examines the social 
implications of an ever-increasing aging population in the 
United States. 

The full report, co-authored by Center Senior Fellow 
and project director Harvey Wheeler and R. J. Carlson was 



50 



completed in December, while a Ix^Hcngth publication is 

scheduled for 1973. ^^ 

In their February, 1973, Center Report, a number of 
capsule conclusions are listed under various sub-sitles. 

Under the sub-title People: the Center stud) suggests 
that in the coming decades few couples "ill have more than 
two children and many will have none. ...that there will be a 

drive for negative growth thai our youth base will 

shrink.. ..that qualit \ of | >u I >l i< ■ sen ices will deteriorate if the 

talents of growing numhers of elderly are not utilized 

that family planning will mean planning for the elderly, not 

children and that a significant portion of the 

population may. at any given moment, be under the in- 
fluence of mind-altering drugs 

Under the sub-title, Medical: the ('enter studv 
suggests that amniocentesis might facilitate effective 

treatment of the genetically defective the appearance of 

cloning and mood-altering drugs on the horizon a rise 

of general physical and emotional disability due to 
prolonged life spans of an aging population. 

I hher information included under Politics and 
Government, Culture and Ethics, Education and Places 
highlights the problems of a nation who will be preoccupied 
with rocking chairs rather than cradles in the 21st century. 

A.I.I). 



Population Report is a publication of the Population 
Information Program of George Washington University 
Medical Center, a new population control brainchild of the 
I S. Agency for International Development. 

Administrator for the program is P.T. Piotrow, Ph.D., 
Secretary of the Population Crisis Committee, policy 
researcher for the Rockefeller Commission and editor of the 
Victor- Bostrom Fund Report IV-B -F is the fund raising 
arm of Planned Parenthood I. 

Areas of new developments in family planning are 
reported in a regular series of reports dealing with each of 
the recognized birth control methods in the following 
categories : 

A. Steroidal contraceptives 

B. Intrauterine devices 

C. Sterilization, female 

D. Sterilization, male 

E. Rhythm 

F. Pregnancy Termination 
(i. Prostaglandins 

H. Local Methods of Fertility Control 
I. Experimental Methods of Fertility Control 

Editor's Note - Prostaglandin "Therapy" has not 
hen approved l>> the FD \. and is still classified as an 
experimental procedure to induce abortions in various 
stages of pregnane} . 



Copies of Population Reports mav be obtained upon 
request from Population Information Program. 201)1 S. 
Street, N.W., Washington. DC 20009. 



Federal (, overrent Mandates Complaince With HR- 
1: Parental And States' Rights Usurped 

The Clearinghouse Review is a publication of the 
National Clearinghouse for Uegal Services funded by the 
Office of Economic Opportunity, and Northwestern 
University. 

The November. 1472 issue of the Review contains an 
article by attorney Alan Charles entitled "Enforcing Legal 
Rights to Family Planning and Abortion" followed by a 
Dei-.. I<)72 article "H.R.I: Changes in Family Planning 
Requirements. Every pro-lifer should immediately obtain a 
copy of these publications from the NCLS, Northwestern 
School of Law. 710 N. Lake Shore Dr., Chicago, III. 
606 1 1 . ">0c per copy. Also a copy of the Senate Committee 
Report on the Social Security Amendments of 1072. S. 
Rep. No. 92-30, 92nd Congress., 2d Sess. 11072). 

With the Senate passage of H.R.I, Title IV, Aid to 
Families With Dependent Children IAFDCI and Title 
XIX, Medicaid programs have undergone significant 
changes. 

As clearly stated in the Senate Amendment Revision 
Report, ALL states are required to make a particular effort 
to provide family planning services to minors...."who have 
never had children but who can be considered to be sexually 
active". Requirements for parental consent are INVALID. 
Services must be provided by states without regard to 
marital status, age or parenthood. Furthermore, the poor 
should receive Medicaid payments for abortion since to do 
otherwise would descriminate against them, says attorney 
Charles. 

Federal matching funds for family planning 
services are now available to states at the rate of 90%. 

"In view of the stricter. ..more definitive requirements 
in H.R.I, states should not be allowed to ignore and avoid 
their statutory duty as they have been doing successfully for 
the past five years, " says attorney J. B. Stern. If they do, 
they will lose their federal funding. * 

Federal C-O Amendment Nullified By Javits 
Amendment 

No sooner had Sen. Frank Church (D.Ida.) in- 
troduced a conscientious objector amendment to the ex- 
tension of the Public Health Service Act prohibiting 
abortion, sterilization, coercion of medical facilities and 
personnel than Sen. Jacob Javits (R.N.Y.) introduced a 
second amendment which reads as follows: 

"...Such hospitals or other health care institutions 
(that is. one receiving Federal funds), shall not discriminate 
in the employment, promotion, extension of staff or other 
privileges or termination of employment of any physician or 
other health care personnel on the basis of their personal 
religious or moral convictions regarding abortion or 
sterilization or their participation in such procedures." Hiis 
amendment was approved along with the Church amend- 
ment. Result: Nullification of Church amendment. (See 
detailed debate on amendment in the Congressional Record 
of March 22nd between Senator Pasture of R.I. and Javits 
of N.Y.I. 



51 



Florence Criltenlon Aboritorium is pVKntly gearing up 
for an estimated kill ratio of between 7200-9600 unborn 
per year. 

The new extermination service carried out in con- 
junction with Pregnancy Counseling Service, Inc. will 
augment existing services at the Crittenton Hastings House 
in Brighton. Mass. thanks to a seed grant of $100,000 from 
the Scaife Foundation of Pittsburgh, (T. Mellon and Sons). 

All abortions will be carried out by licensed 
gynecologists affiliated with six local hospitals, or under 
their guidance. Clients whose pregnancy is greater than 12 
weeks gestation or have medical contraindications 
prohibiting out-patient precedures will be referred to one of 
the local teaching hospitals. 

According to the Pregnancy Counseling Service, two 
operating rooms can handle a MINIMUM of 20 abortions 
a day. five days a week. At a charge of $200 per procedure, 
the gross annual income will be about $1,000,000 per year 
(based on 5000 abortions). 

"The development of this program could establish a 
precedent in meeting the needs of the people, and serve as a 
PROTOTYPE for other Florence Crittenton Leagues 
around the nation for broadening their horizons." (em- 
phasis added). 

MARCH FOR LIFE OR DEATH? 

A policy letter currently circulated by the National 
Foundation-MARCH OF DIMES states that legal 
abortions are outside the purview of the Foundation and 
that "the decision to terminate or not terminate a 
pregnancy is solely a parental decision." 

"The National Foundation is not authorized to direct 
that decision and further, we believe it should not be 
directed by any individual scientist, physician, or coun- 
selor the foundation shall not indulge in lobbying with 

governmental bodies neither the foundation nor its 

component chapters finances abortions or abortion 
research." 

Background — Abortion Symposium 

On October 13-14, 1970, the Committee on Social 
Issues of the American Society of Human Genetics 
sponsored a Symposium, "Intrauterine Diagnosis and 
Selective Abortion" at Indianapolis, Indiana. The 
proceedings of the meeting were published in the March of 
Dimes Foundation's Original Article Series, Vol. 7, No. 
5. April 1971. 

The use of fetal flesh and normal amniotic fluid 
samples obtained from the products of pregnanoy ter- 
mination to develop expertise in the cultivation of amniotic 
fluid cells and for accurate assessment of human fetal data 
was discussed by Michael M. Kaback, M.D. Researchers 
involved in the X project include staff of the NIH (National 
Institutes of Health I and the U.S. Public Health Service. 

The United Cerebral Palsy Research and 
Educational Foundation. Inc. of New York City 
has already supported similar research using live 
babies ■■ byproducts of abortion — in an attempt 
to isolate attenuated rubella-vaccine virus from 
human products of conception and uterine 
cervix. 



/IWi 



. . . .According l^kwn abstract which appeared in 
the May 18, 1972 New England Journal of 
Medicine, 35 women, certified for legal abortion, 
were vaccinated with the live rubella virus and 
subsequently aborted by hysterotomy 13) and 
curettage 151. 

.... "After repeated washings with balanced salt 
solution these SURGICAL. SPECIMENS (em- 
l>hasis added) were homogenized in a ten-broeck 
tissue grinder.. .tissue suspensions were similarly 
prepared from placental and fetal specimens and 
from segments of extra-embryonic membrane. 
Most of the samples, obtained by hysterotomy, 
were delivered to the laboratory still surrounded 
by intact membranes. Repeated washings with 
balanced salt solutions were performed before 
and after dissection," the report stated. 

Dr. Henry Nadler, in Indications for Am- 
niocentesis, stated that the physician undertaking am- 
niocentesis to detect a genetic disorder prenatally must be 
committed to providing "therapy" if the results indicate an 
abnormality and the parents wish termination of the 
pregnancy. This committment would include abortion 
referral if the obstetrician was not performing the abortion. 

Similarly, Dr. Orlando J. Miller, in Discussion of 
Symposium Papers, greets with excitement the possibility 
of detecting and diagnosing serious untreatable, genetic 
disorders, aborting these fetuses, and thus preventing the 
birth of many individuals who would have been doomed to 
severe mental retardation or other mental or physical 
disorders. 

Another article listed in the Original Article Series is 
the Psychosocial Aspects of Selective Abortion by Dr. 
E. Lieberman, who insists that abortion be a matter bet- 
ween a woman and her physician. Dr. Lieberman is author 
of "Informed Consent for Parenthood", in which he states 
that until our society does a good deal more to aid the 
handicapped children "it is too much to ask women to carry 
their pregnancies to term unmindful of possible or probable 
fetal damage." 

"In the meantime, the prevention of unwanted 
pregnancy, including abortion when necessary, is more 
than mere prevention. It is an enhancement of life, and it 
supports the right of every child to be reared by someone 
who cares." 

Additional articles in the Series make reference to the 
identification of genetically defective children and "their 
selective abortion", the difficulties of aborting women in 
the second trimester of pregnancy and public health im- 
plications if intrauterine diagnosis and selective abortion. 

The U.S. Coalition is not only concerned about the 
anti-life company the National Foundation is keeping, but 
also the awarding of grants to pro-abortion physicians. 

For example, the 1973 directory of the foundation 
includes a $25,474.00 research grant to Charles J. Epstein, 
M.D. of the U. of California, San Francisco. 

According to Mary Livacich. Chairman. Right to Life 
of Tulare County. Dr. Epstein has stated for publication 
that he will not go through with an amniocentesis test 
unless he has a verbal commitment from the mother that 



52 



she will go through with an atmion if he so advises. 
<Tim,<s-Delta. 1-20-73. RA) 

A large number of foundation grants have been 
awarded to researchers at Columbia University, New York 
City. In his book. Brave Mew Baby, author David Rorvik 
quotes Columbia's Dr. Karles Adamsons, a pioneering 
fetologist. who invariably attempts to get the mother to opt 
fur an abortion where pre-natal testing shows a mother is 
carrying a seriously defective child. 

"If necessary," he says," he says, "we will take the 
mother to visit groups of incompetents (mongoloids and 
other retarded or deformed children I to help her realize 
what will happen if she insists on going through with the 
pregnancy." (p. 681. 

The directory (available from The National Foun- 
dation, Box 2000, White plains, N.Y. 106021 also lists 
Francis H. C. Krick, Ph. D. as a Nonresident fellow of the 
Salk Institute, supported by foundation funds. 

This Nobel Prize physicist and molecular biologist has 
suggested, among other things, a license for parenthood and 
germinal choice whereby women are artifically inseminated 
with prize male stud service semen. 

Krick, along with Dr. Linus Pauling, a foundation 
grant recepient and other eugenic zealots support a national 
genetic registry'. In Brave New Baby Pauling suggests 
(only half in jest I. that people with defective genes have the 
information tattooed on their foreheads. 

POSITION 

The March of Dimes credo is, 'Be good to your baby 
before it is born.' The Coalition respectfully suggests to the 
•.-owrningbody of the National Foundation that abortion is 
the ultimate harm of an unborn child. Until such time as 
the National Foundation reverses its growing anti-life 
orientation in both word and deed, the Coalition joins with 
other pro-life groups in stating that it deserves no public 
support, financial or otherwise. 

Abortion ■ Population Control - Eugenics 

"Fertility Control Through Abortion" Carl Djerassi, 
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan. 1972, pp. 0-12, 
41-45. 

"Can Man Control His Biological Evolution? A 
Symposium on Genetic Engineering - Probabilities and 
Practicalities". Carl Djerassi, Bulletin of the Atomic 
Scientists. Dec. 1972. pp. 25-28. 

Dr. Carl Djerassi is Professor of Chemistry at 
Stamford University and president of Syntex Research, 
manufacturer of synthetic hormones for fertility control 
drugs, and publisher of the now-defunct, vomitous Family 
Planner newsletter. 

Population control involves not only limiting the 
quantity of human stock but also regulating the quality of 
human stock, hence the inborn interest of eugenic zealots in 
the population control field. 

Djerassi thus sees abortion, via abortifacient drugs and 
devices! as not only being "one of the most effective 
methods of fertility control in countries - or in certain 
population sectors within a given country" be they 
developing or highly advanced countries, but as also being 
an intimate link in genetic engineering. 



Back isstn^Rf this publication may be obtained from 
Bulletin of the Scientists, 1020-24 E. 58th St., Chicago. 
111. 60637. $1.00 per copy. The Dec. Symposium issue also 
contains some very fine comments by Dr. Paul Ramsey and 
Dr. Paul A. Freund. 

Role of Planned Parenthood-World Population in 
Abortion 



George Langmyhr, Medical Director, PP-WP, N.Y. in 
a candid discussion of the history of this anti-life agency in 
abortion, taken from the book Planned Parenthood- 
World Population and reprinted in Clin. Obstet. Gynec. 
14:1190-6. Dec. 71. 

Dr. Langmyhr addresses himself first to P.P. as a 
public service agency which should not be involved in 
abortion and secondly P.P.'s role in abortion reform 
legislation. 

"I think it is fair to say that most professionals and 
volunteers associated with Planned Parenthood have ac- 
cepted, for a long time, the necessity of abortion as an 
integral part of any complete or total family planning 
program. The dilemma of a women who has a legitimate 
method failure, or any type of unwated pregnancy, cannot 
be avoided by Planned Parenthood personnel..." 

With regard to P.P.'s non-profit, tax-exempt agency 
status, Dr. Langmyhr explains that while P.P. is 
specifically unable to overtly lobby, "many dedicated 
volunteers and professionals from Planned Parenthood 
Affiliates" work with other concerned citizens and reform 
groups. He mentions Dr. Alan Guttmacher's "outspoken 
advocacy of abortion law change" and P.P.'s legal staff role 
in preparing abortion briefs. 

In his outline of P.P.'s early role in abortion, activities 
which were "necessarily unpublicized". Dr. Langmyhr 
states his agency's involvement in abortion information, 
counseling, and referral prior to the 1960's, and following 
the "advent of abortion reform movements" P.P.'s role in 
pregnancy detection, "clergy counseling ", and the opening 
of P.P.'s own aboritorium units in N.Y.C. and Syracuse, 
and national abortion hotlines. 

Detailed descriptions of P.P.'s activities in California. 
Colorado, and N.Y.C. including the role played by private 
foundations, is highlighted in this anti-life expose - must 
reading for every pro-life advocate. (See also. The Death 
Peddlers, Paul Marx, O.S.B., Ph.D., St. John's University 
Press, Collegeville, Minn. pp. 34-37. $.95.1 

Pla nned Parenthood and the Educators 

Planned Parenthood of Pittsburgh, which recently 
supplied an executive director for the Women's Services. 
Inc. abortitorium which swung into action in the city 
during Holy Week, is conducting a nine-week course in 
"sexuality" for city public school teachers who receive $ 1 50 
from P.P. (Scaife Foundation grant I and one increment 
credit leading to a higher salary from the Pittsburgh Board 
of Education- 
Women Concerned for the Unborn Child will soon 
submit a pro-life parallel in-service program to the Pitt- 
sburgh Board of Education. 

7 



53 



ASA Finances 

The Association for the Study of Abortion*s 
President's Report by Robert E. Hall, M.D., January, 
1973 featured an assessment of its 1972 program and 
hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 22 January, 
1973 as a decision sought by ASA since its foundation in 
1964 - "virtually our organizational raison d'etre." 

Original founders of the ASA who contributed $5,000 
or more to the agency's annual budget included the 
Chichester DuPont Foundation, the Hopkins Charitable 
Fund. Stewart R. Mott. the Population Council, John D. 
Rockefeller 3rd. the Rockefeller brothers, the Rockefeller 
Foundation and Mrs. Cordelia Scaife May. ASA current 
officers include Joseph Fletcher, S.T.D., Alan F. Gutt- 
macher, M.D., Christopher Tietze, M.D. and Allan C. 
Bames, M.D. 

Activities of the ASA in 1972 included newsletter, film 
and reprint services as well as: 

ASA granted $1,000 to a Pennsylvania group to 
produce an educational brochure dealing with the position 
of Roman Catholics who oppose the stand of their church 
on the abortion question .... 

ASA funded an opinion survey in Pennsylvania, the 
results of which were used by the Governor's Abortion 
Stud) Commission to bolster the Governor's decision to 
veto a pro-life bill 

ASA contributed $12,000 toward Wisconsin's 
abortion law test case, and assisted in the preparation of the 
Texas and Georgia briefs and in the filing and preparation 
of amicus briefs in these two cases 

ASA cooperated with Citizens Committee on 
Population Growth and the American Future, ASA was 
responsible for a pro-abortion obstetrical statement in the 
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 
signed by 100 professors of obstetrics 

Abortion Techniques and Services, a book based on an 
abortion conference sponsored in part by the ASA and 
published by Excerpta Medica, Netherlands, Ed., S. 
Lewit. contains a number of discussions on various aspects 
of the abortion business, Ipp. 203-51 which will be of in- 
terest to pro-life readers. 

LawTence Lader IN ARAL, N.Y. I is despondent over 
the high price of killing, while ASA President Robert Hall, 
suggests an abortion backlog could be handled if only the 
20,000 obstetricians in the United States would perform 
only two abortions each per week. ..one million per year. As 
to the problem of what to do about hostile hospital abortion 
personnel, Dr. Hall reassures the conference attendees that 
it need not take long to weed out the "bad" assistants and 
cultivate the "good" ones. 

Dr. Bernard Nathanson of Women's Services, N.Y., 
the oldest and largest of New York's abortion clinics, states 
that his agency used a large core of paraprofessional women 
who are neither nurses nor have they medical training of 
any kind. The two simple standards for their selection are 
that they be over 23 years of age and have had an abortion 
in the past. Dr. Nathanson said the experiment should be 
copied in every abortion clinic in the Nation. 

3 



n mTni 



YWCA on Abortion Trandwagon - In an Associate Press 
feature on the "changing image" of the Y, staff writer 
Lynne Olson notes that the YWCA in recent years has been 
joining in legal suits based on the principle of the "woman's 
right to choose." 

Hence, the Loop YWCA in Chicago offers counseling 

on legal matters, abortion and rape a student Y in 

Seattle sponsors a Gay l?l Women's Resource Cen- 
ter provides an extensive information service for women 

on everything from abortions to schools and job hun- 
ting 

Dr. Clair Fulcher, of the National YWCA Resource 
Center on Women in N.Y. concludes the article with 
comments on the growth of 'Woman Power'. It is tragic 
that such power will serve Death rather than Life. 

PTA and Abortion - The N.Y.S., Parent-Teachers 
Association Congress, meeting in Nov., 1972 passed a 
resolution supporting "family planning" and "population 
control" information dissemination on a voluntary basis 
and supporting "the concept of legal abortion where desired 
and requested." The resolution according to the Delanson 
Right to Live Committee was not based on membership 
vote, but on delegate vote following discussion. (For a 
glimpse at the large family grand-slam read the statement 
of the National Education Association in the Senate 
Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare hearings on 
the 1970 Family Planning Act. (USCL reprint No. 125 - 
30cl 

Suicide Clinics Proposed - The Rev. Warren Briggs, 
pastor of the Chapel of the Valley Church suggested, at a 3- 
day suicide conference held in San Diego, California under 
the auspices of the San Diego County mental health service, 
a proposal for the establishment of suicide clinics. 

The suicide clinics, an extension of "mercy-killing" 
centers, would "provide a painless, dignified exit for its 
clients to persons whose physical life has no meaning or 
value to himself or society," he said. (USCL Reprint No. 
127 - 20c) 

Euthanasia Linked to Abortion 

Euthanasia INews, the quarterly publication of the 
Good Death Fellowship 1853 Ogden St. No. 5, Denver, 
Dolo. 802181, Winter 1973 issue, hailed the Abortion 
Supreme Court Decision with "new cheer". 

"...it becomes more and more clear that in intimate 
health matters, the right to decide what to do-or not to do- 
rests with the patient and her doctor, not with "society" or 
some hospital's rules and regulations, the article concludes. 
(Ed. comment - Medical personnel and facilities seeking 
CO status for abortion and sterilization may want to add 
euthanasia as well as infanticide to their growing anti-life 
listings.) 

Just One More Pill - An early issue of the Euthanasia 
News containing a recipe for a good death states that 
"Several major industries are poised and ready to make 
available not merely "another pill", but a wide and colorful 
range of products and methods to meet the needs of those 



54 



who have alread) lived their lives^Bare about ready for a 
good death." (Comments made by Henry W. Hough, a 
Unitarian Minister and editor of the Euthanasia Newsl. 

Ford Funds Rockefeller 

The Ford Foundation has awarded a three year grant 
of $1.5 million to John D. Rockefeller 3rd's Population 
Council for the formation of the I nternal ional Committee 
for Contraceptive Research designed to identify and 
explore promising compounds and devices including 
chemical-releasing vaginal rings and copper-wire-wound 
intra-uterine devices. US. federal funds are expected to 
cover a most costly second phase of clinical trials of "new 
contraceptives". Project director of the ICCR is Sheldon 
Segal of the Population Council. 245 Park Ave., NY 
10017. lexerpts from Ford Foundation Letter. 7-15-71). 

Note: In 1969, AID awarded a $3 million dollar 
contract to Dr. Segal for anti-progestational contraceptive 
development. Project period 6/69 - 6/73. 

Organized Religion and Healthy Sexuality a detailed 
account of what clergy can do in their localities, is the 
monthly feature in The Institute for Family Research and 
Education's publication. Say It So It Makes Sense I Winter 
- 19731, a newsletter for professionals devoted to com- 
municating with youth. 

The Institute, 1760 Ostrom Ave., Syracuse, N.Y. 
132101 is directed by Sol Gordon, who distinguished 
himself as a researcher for the Rockefeller Population 
Commission by proposing that contraceptive, sterilization, 
and abortion services be made available to adolescents with 
or without parental consent, and as the author of comic 
Imoks on birth control, abortion, masturbation and other 
sexuality-oriented activities. 

Members of the clergy, the Institute report suggests, 
can take initiatives in several areas including parent-child 
sex-education, sexual teen rap-sessions, referral services for 
\ .!>.. birth control, abortion, adoption ect. ; a "well-limed, 
well-planned, campaign for some sex information in the 
school"; and a thorough study of the Rockefeller Com- 
mission Report on Population Growth. 

The Institute is part of Syracuse University's College 
for Human Development programs to "improve the quality 
of life". The College for Human Development will conduct 
a workshop on teenage sexuality. July 2-July I 3. as part of 
Syracuse I niversity's summer program. Details may be 
obtained by contacting Mrs. Alison Deming at the In- 
stitute. 

Foreign News 

Brazil Pro-Life Forces Score Victory for Life 

Under the leadership of the Brazilian Society for the 
Defense of Tradition. Family and Property ITFPI, 
attempts to alter the Penal Code to legalize permissive 
abortion were defeated last year. 

In a 23 page brief prepared by the TFP Medical 
Commission for Professor Alfredo Buzaid, Minister of 
State of Justice, President of the National Council, Plinio 
Gorrea Oliveira declared that the fundamental right of the 
human person to life is valid for "the life yet inside the 
mother - womb or for the one alreadv born". 



The sour^^^f pro-life opposition according to the 
report comes from the Gynecologic and Obstetric Society of 
Rio de Janeiro with the open support of the Maternity 
Institute (sic! I of the Medical and Surgical School of Rio 
de Janeiro and the Maternity Infirmary of Rio's Charity 
Hospital, all of which are accused of using the mass media 
and influential speciality publications to make people 
believe that this is what the majority of gynecologists and 
the medical class in general want. 

Some of the arguments put forth by the abortion 
advocates include, the unborn is a mere part of the mother's 

tissue abortion will liberate women .... the theory of 

retarded animation the unborn is an unjust agressor 

abortion is a lesser c\il science, not the Church. 

has the last say in matters of operatory intervention and so 
forth. This list proves, among other things, that pro-life 
forces throughout the world are fighting a common enemy, 
and therefore should be seeking international links with 
each other a long range U.S. Coalition goal. 

Of special interest is the Brazilian medical attack on 
the IUD. described as "cry pto-abortive" device. 

Die TFP brief is available at a cost of $3.00. A 
summary of the contents of the brief is also available from 
the USCL for $.80. The TFP representative in the U.S. is 
the Crusade for a Christian Civilization. 303 West 42nd 
St.. N.Y. 10036. 

India Kycs New FIVF) ^ FOAR Plan for Population 

Control 

Vocording to a Nov. 1972 New Delhi wire service 
release. India's future population control schemes may 
include the "right" of an Indian woman to have an abortion 
or be sterilized without a husband's consent and com- 
pulsory sterilization of the mentally, physically, or 
emotionally unfit. 

Tara Ali Baig. an Indian Sangerite who has been 
chosen by India's government to serve on the Task Force 
on Family Planning for the Fifth Plan which liegins in 
1974 claim., that such action would insure the right of 
children not to be born of irresponsible parents. 

Since the American tax-payer is one of the prime 
sources of funds for India's "family planning" package 
deals which promote everything from colored condoms to 
aborlifacient lUDs to operating units for "family plan- 
ning" procedures (incl. sterilization and abortions), the 
question arises as to whether or not the U.S. Government 
will permit tax funds to be used in programs of a com- 
pulsory nature. 

Thus far, the Agency for International Development 
has refused to answer this query for the Coalition as well as 
other questions relating to CO-ahnrtinn status in foreign 
nations whose population control programs are financed by 
the U.S. or the United Nations Fund for Population Ac- 
tivities in which AID is the biggest "stockholder". 

Action : Please contact your federal legislators and ask 
their opinions on the use of tax-dollars abroad to fund 
abortions, abortifacient research, mass sterilization 
campaigns, and programs of COMPULSORY 
POPULATION CONTROL as envisioned by India. 
(For information on India's abortion program see Jan. 
1973 issue of USCL Newsletter) 



9 



55 



World Population Brief;. ^P 

West Germany in Absolute Population Decline - In 
1972. West Germany [juried more people than were born, a 
birth deficit of about 30.000. (N.Y. Times 1-28-73 p.4). 

Hungary in Period of Kapid Aging - An ever in- 
creasing shrinking youth base coupled with increasing 
pensioners is worrying Hungarian economists in a nation 
where 1 7 per cent of the population is over the age of 60. 
(Journal of AMA. Vol. 2 1 5. No. 4, p. 6501. 

Israel Concerned about Arab Fertility - There is an 
Ongoing birthrate battle between Jews and Arabs and the 
Ar;il>~ are clearly winning, and increasing their proportion 
of Israel's population. One of the factors keeping down the 
Jewish birthrate is said to be induced abortions which are 
illegal in Israel except to preserve "the woman's health". 
IL.A. Times. 12/61*721. 



M.i 



Media 



Population Control Ads - The Atlantic-Richfield 
Company ran a full-page colored ad in WORLD, 3-27-73 
Describing the critical problems presented by over- 
population and population imbalance. 

"Nations must work together while there is still time. 
One-lions must be asked: solutions must be found. 

Medical World News Ad featuring a LIFE photo of an 
unborn child, just over 5 V: weeks old was run by the Syntex 
Laboratories, manufactures of NORINYL, low dosage 
birth control pills. Mode of action stated as "The primary 
mechanism of action of the oral contraceptive is 
gonadotrophin suppression. It is pointed out however that 
the high efficacy of oral contraceptives may not be entirely 
due to suppression of ovulation but may result from other 
mechanisms such as change in cervical mucus and en- 
dometrium." This statement supports Dr. Alan Gutt- 
macher's claim that the combined-therapy endometrium 
undergoes such drastic changes from a normal premen- 
strual endometrium that it is doubtful it could support 
implantation of a fertilized egg. 

Another Syntex ad for NOR-Q.D. states as mode of 
action: "NOR-Q.D. has a progestational effect on the 
endometrium. The exact mechanism, of how it prevents 
conception is not known at the present time " 

WNBC-TV 4 Finances Population Attitude Study - 
During the month of June, 1972, designated as 
POPULATION MONTH, WNBC-TV prepared 50 
programs on population which were run by NBC stations 
throughout the U.S. 

In conjunction with the programming, NBC com- 
missioned an attitudinal study conducted by the Home 
Testing Institute, Manhasset, N.Y. using the Random 
Digit Dialing method. 

Some of the questions used in the survey relate to 
choice of family size, abortion, sterilization, unwanted 
pregnancies, adoption, contraceptives to minors and 
domestic population growth. 

10 



For a copy of the ^Bage study -results write: 
George A. Hopper. Director, Marketing Services, NBC, 
Inc.. 30 
Rockefeller Plaza. N.Y., N.Y. 10020. 

Environmental News Service - Operating under a grant 
from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Scientists' Institute 
for Public Information. 30 E. 68th St., N.Y. 10021 is 
developing as "environmental press service under the 
direction of Terri Aaronson. 

Ingenue magazine - A pre-teen publication for young girls, 
featured in its April 1973 issue, an article on sexual per- 
version, specifically a do-it-yourself step-by-step description 
of achieving oral sex orgasm. The Coalition has notified the 
publishers iThe News Ingenue, 635 Madison Ave., N.Y.I 
10022 of the magazine that we will conduct a national 
boycott of their publication in libraries, schools and other 
pre-teen facilities across the nation. We ask your co- 
operation in contacting local schools, etc. asking that the 
April issue be removed from the shelf and that the sub- 
scription be withdrawn immediately. 

Population Control Ad 

r'arly this year, the Wall Street Journal ran an ad 
designed to attract a corporation sponsor for a film titled 
"Sorry No Vacancy". 

This "completed one hour television documentary", 
narrated by Rod Serling features Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Rev. 
Rodney Shaw. Sen. R. Packwood, and other advocates of 
population control. 

According to the Wilhite Productions ad, "Spon- 
sorship of this film will INSURE national prime time 
television release. 

An resume of the film may be obtained from Wilhite 
Productions. 3742 Seahom Drive, Malibu, Ca. 90265. 

Planned Parenthood and the Pause that Refreshes - 

The Family Planning Federation of Canada (IPPII has 
just completed a $400,000 bid for a pregnancy pause. The 
campaign includes massive circulation of newspaper ads, 
radio spots and transit cards. Said Brian Strehler, FPFC 
director, "When we begin to use abortion as a means of 
birth control we're in trouble." One of the slogans aimed at 
the young is ..."If you're old enough to get pregnant, you're 
old enough to know how not to". 

For the Record - Subject : Abortion prohibition amend- 
ment to S.2108. the Family Planning Act of 1970. Memo 
from American Law Division: 

The question of abortion never came to a vote as an 
amendment on either floor of Congress. The house version 
of the bill IH.R. 193181, however, did contain a provision 
forbidding the use of funds appropriated under the act for 
programs using abortion as a means of family planning. 
This provision eventually became part of the law IP.L.91- 
5721 which was approved by the House on Dec. 8. 1970 
voice vote, and by the Senate on Dec. 10, 1970 by voice 
vote. 

Subject: The Hugh Moore Fund. In November, 1972, 
the grand-daddy of the population control movement. 



56 



Foreign News continued ^^ 

Hugh Moore, died. The Morning Call 3-10-73 of 
Allentown, Pa. noted that Moore helped fund both the 
Population Institute and its offshoot, the Population 
Communication Center. In 1971 he liquidated the Hugh 
Moore Fund in order to aid organizations which he helped 
establish. For an indepth look at these agencies read 
Breeding Ourselves to Death by Lawrence Lader, 
available from ZPG. Palo Alto, California. $4.95. 

For the Record 



Subject: Medical treatment of minors without 
parental consent. The American Academy of Pediatrics 
Committee on Youth have proposed a model law giving 
physicians the right to treat minors without parental 
consent in such areas as treatment for pregnancy, v.d., and 
drug abuse and without fear of legal liability. (Medical 
World News 3-23-73.1 



Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
currently in formation will meet in Miami Beach, Fla. 
Monday, May 21st during the annual American 
College of Ob.Gyns. For further details contact: 
Matthew Bulfin. M.D.. 4701 North Federal High- 
way, Ft. Lauderdale. Fla. 33342. 
Marriage and Family Life Education Workshop, 
Director. Paul Marx. O.S.B., Ph.D.. June 3-June 16, 
1973 St. John's University. Collegeville. Minn. 
56321. Write for information on accomodations, 
credits etc. 
Special note: Wednesday-June 6 Topics - Abortion 

and Euthanasia 

Thursday -June 7 Topics - Youth Pro- 

Life Movement and 

Monday -June 11 Natural Family 

Planning 

"The Population Question-Limited Government 
or Limited People?" James A. Weber, The 
Freeman, Oct. 72. A fine resource article available 
from Jim Weber. 6314 N. Drake, Chicago. III. 60659 
25c each. 

Citizens For Constructive Kiluration. Box 25704, 
Seattle. Washington 98 1 25. Citizens I nited for 
Responsible Education, Box 9864. Chevy Chase, 
Md. 20015 The above parents' rights groups in the 
Held of education are among the finest of their kind. 
I documented and a valuable source of pro-life in- 
formation. For details and sample CCEX AND 
CURE packets send $1.00 to cover printing and 
postage. Areas covered include sex education, secular 
humanism, child development etc.. 



MEETINGS — PI BI.ICATIONS — NEW SLETTERS 

American Psychiatric Association. May 7-11, Honolulu. 
Topics to be covered include studies of pregnancy. al>or- 
tion. suicide, and homosexuality. 



The Human H^P Amendment. Charles E. Rice. Available 
from Professor Rice. Box 104. Notre Dame, Indiana 
46556; 4 for $1 and special bulk rate. This pamphlet gives 
an excellent summary of the Human Life Amendment. For 
further details also write HLA Committee, 15 E. St., NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20001. 

"Abortion-The Role of Private Foundations". 
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, No. 4, December. 
1971, Pgs. 1181-1189. Article by Donald H. Minkler, 
Ml) \1PH. 

Animals and their Legal Rights. Emily Stewart 
Leavitt available from the Animal Welfare Institute. Box 
3492. Grand Central Station. N.Y. NY. 10017 $1.00 per 
copy. 

Euthanasia 

"Licensed to Kill" and other assorted articles and 
clippings on euthanasia are available from England's 
Human Rights Society. 27 Walpole Street, London SW3. 
England. Director of HRS is Mr. Bill Cooper. $1.00 per 
packet to cover printing and postal charges. 

"Abortion for the Asking", Helen Dudar, Saturday 
Review, SOCIETY issue, April, 1973. (An arithmetical 
and practical application article with a selection of in- 
terviews by abortion clients. Of special note is Miss 
Dunbar's comments on Catholics undergoing abortions. 
She states "In this ear of radicalized and politicized clergy, 
it is no longer even surprising when a woman shows up at a 
clinic with the blessing of her priest." She then refers to a 
Catholic patient at Parkmed aboritorium, in N.Y. who 
brought in holy water from her priest, was aborted by 
suction aspirator, and then had 'the tissue' blessed by a 
Jewish social worker since she was unconscious during the 
operation, (p. 321 

When Should Abortion Be Legal, Hariet F. Pilpel and 
Kenneth P. Norwick, A Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 429. 
May be ordered from PAP, 381 Park Ave. South, New 
York 10016, 25c each. (PAP publications are frequently 
used in schools to supplement text book educational 
materials. The conclusions reached oy Pilpel of P.P. and 
Norwick sum up the bias of the presentation.. "Eventually, 
all proponents of reform I abortion I are confident, the 
presently restrictive abortion laws will be either revised or 
repealed entirely. The only question, they say, is how long it 
will take before it happens." Oct. 1970 

Demography, publication of the Population Association of 
America, Box 14182. Benjamin Franklin Station, 
Washington. D.C. 20044. Issued on a quarterly oasis to 
members of the PAA. this population journal is a valuable 
asset to pro-life students and researchers in the 
demographic field despite pro-abortion bias of PAA leaders 
and many of the contributors to the publication. PAA 
membership is $20.00 per year. For further details contact 
the PAA at its D.C. office. 

Abortion Research Notes published by the International 
Reference Center for Abortion Research of the Tran- 
snational Family Research Institute. 8555 10th St., Silver 
Springs. Md.. 20910. Sample copies available on request 



11 



57 



Kmko Newsletter, published by Krnkn^Rrin;il Foam Co., 
7912 Manchester Ave., St. Louis, Mo. 63143. Available 
free. Editor, Elizabeth Canfield. 



As the Stomach Turns 
anti-life quotes 



an assorted selection of 



"...when a Supreme Court decision in March 1971 ex- 
panded the grounds for legal termination of pregnancy in 
Washington, D.C., requests at the Planned Parenthood 
Association of Metropolitan Washington for pregnancy 
detection increased at such a rate that a social worker was 
required to devote at least half her time to the problem of 

pregnancy counseling and abortion referral" from 

"Pregnancy Detection: A Critical Service Link", by 
Katherine B. Oettinger (First Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Population and Family Planning of HEW I in Family 
Planning Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 4 Oct. 1971. 



" Anything we do to fortify the stench-to increase the 

population-is a disservice both to Europe and to ourselves. 
Stabilization and eventual reduction in population in 
Europe would be one of the longest steps that could be 

made toward world peace and well being " from Road 

to Survival by William Vogt, former president of Planned 
Parenthood. 1948. 

"Where the dogmatists read black, the world today 

reads white.. .what they consider "morality", we consider 
moral imbecility. ..Our morality is not a morality concerned 
with melodramatic rewards and punishments, with ab- 
solute rights and wTongs. with unhealthy lingering interests 
in virginity and chasity." Margaret Sanger quoted in The 
Catholic Church vs Planned Parenthood" by Rev. G. A. 
Kelly. The Sign. 1964. 



" The methods Iq^nirh population growth was curbed 

in other cultures and other times were drastic - abortion, 
infanticide, starvation and other forms of early death. No 
one wants to return to these methods." Quote taken from a 
Planned Parenthood reprint from Cosmopolitan 
Magazine, Mr. 1965 entitled "What The Planned 
Parenthood People Are Up To" by Glenn White. 

" To those of us in the mental health field, there is no 

doubt that the child development center, with its emphasis 
on the early and crucial years in the emotional and 
educational maturation of the child, is an ideal whose time 
has finally come," Quote by Mike Gorman, a U.S. mental 
health official in address to the Church and Society In- 
stitute of Pittsburgh, Feb. 21, 1973. ( Editor's comment - I 
think we call such centers "home!") 

" Non-feminist private (abortion) referral agencies 

operate for a profit. Anything that cuts profit is curtailed 
with the result that counseling and followup are 
inadequate:. ...these fees go into some man's pocket....." 
from The Monthly Extract, An Irregular Periodical, Box 
3488 Ridgeway Station, Stamford, Conn. 06905 

" Whether the ideas we espouse at this meeting can be 

freely offered to our people or whether they will remain 
bottled up by a 'know-nothing society" depends on us 

" Lest we part on an overly optimistic note, we should 

remain aware of the increasing activity and perhaps power 
of the radical right. The far right is made up of people of all 
creeds, colors, and diverse economic and social 

backgrounds " Louis M. Helhnan, Dept. of HEW, 

Office of Population Affairs in a speech before the 
American Association of Sex Educators and Counselors, 
Washington, D.C. March 30, 1973. (Editor's comment: 
Hellman's problem is not with 'know nothings' but with 
Americans who know too much.) 



U.S. Coalition for Life was created to serve as a national 
and international clearing house for Pro-Life organizations 
and individuals seeking information, documentation, 
research materials in the areas of population control, 
euthanasia, genetic engineering, abortion and related areas. 
Its primary function is that of service. 

The U.S.C.L. Reprint Service is designed to provide 
documentation and resource materials for the Pro-Life 
Movement. Costs include both copying and postage ex- 



penses. All reprints are to be used as study copies only. 
In the case of copyrighted materials, permission must be 
obtained from the publisher or author directly, except for 
brief quotes which may be used with proper credit. Portions 
of Newsletter may be reproduced with proper credit. 

Subscription Rate is $3.00 a year which includes both 
the Newsletter and special USCL mailings relating to 
current areas of controversy or Pro-Life Interest. Bulk 
order rate to single address is $.25 each. 



Editor - Randy Engel 

Associate Editor - Barbara Rutkowski 

Technical Editor -G.H. Fink 



58 



Vol. 2 No. 4 
August, 1973 



Randy Engel, Editor 



Published by: U.S. Coalition for Life • Box 315, Export, Pa. 15632 




USCL FEATURE 

lUDs - ABORTIFACIENTS and the PRO LIFE MOVEMENT 

"Scientifically, abortion methods are being investigated with greater intensity than ever before . . . Professor Hardin suggests 
that in the future abortion may be considered preferable to contraception." 

Scientific reports on the "morning after", the "week-later" or the "second thoughts" pill are multiplying. Eliminating a newly 
implanted ovum by the use of a pharmaceutical product is, of course, abortion. However, the psychological reaction of the woman 
aborting in such a manner cannot be compared to that of the woman undergoing surgical abortion . . ." 
Editorial by Morris Fishbein, M.D. 
Medical World News - May 8, 1970 

". . . The idea of a morning-after pill has much to commend it, but with frequent coitus such a pill may well become a daily 
pill. A more rational approach, perhaps is menstrual regulation, the drug being taken only at a certain time in the cycle. At present 
a 'deimplantation' pill seems to offer most promise . . . Developments in prostaglandin analogues . . . suggest that this method of con- 
traception is just around the corner." 
Editorial, Lancet 11:314 
August 12, 1972 

"No formal action was taken on abortion but it was much discussed . . . The term 'menstrual regulation' was disapproved, 
since it is a misnomer. Scientific studies have shown that 85% of women who undergo menstrual regulation are pregnant at the time. 
The CMC (Central Medical Committee. IPPF) thought that the procedure should be termed early abortion, but realized that many 
people would continue to prefer the name 'menstrual regulation' , a subterfuge in terms which enables them to avoid the self-realiza- 
tion that they are probably pregnant . . ." 
Comments on IPPF Meeting 
Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D. 
President's Letter 5/4/73 

"All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote at any time between the instant of fertilization and the completion 
of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion." 
Dept. of HEW, PHS publication 
1066 Washington: 1963, p.27 



EDITORS COMMENT: 

Abortion by any other name is still . 



Clearly, the advocates of abortion know that life begins 
at conception/fertilization. They also agree that the fertility 
control measures of the future will probably be abortifacient 
in nature, even though they may be disguised by appropriate 
euphemisms. 

Today, much controversy centers upon the IUD and so- 
called mini-pill. The question is whether or not, the primary 
(and secondary) modes of action of these agents are contra- 
conceptive or abortifacient. 

However, while the question is asked, it is not at all 
clear that some pro-life people wish to find the answer. Causes 
for this ambiguity are numerous. 

Some do not wish to get into the area of "contraception" 
which is held to be an area of private concern between the 



individual couple involved. Others are actively prescribing 
and/or inserting the IUD or mini-pill, or actually wearing an 
IUD or ingesting the mini-pill. In the latter case, the argu- 
ments of "when in doubt, the doubt should be resolved in 
favor of life" gives way to the argument that "we really don't 
know that the IUD or mini-pill causes an abortion every time." 

It has also been stated that the Pro- Life Movement should 
support a constitutional amendment which would be appli- 
cable to surgical abortion only and would sanctify early 
abortion via drugs and devices. Acceptance of such a rationale 
would be akin to admitting that there are various stages of 
being dead - dead . . . deader . . . deadest. 

The U.S. Coalition for Life believes that when in doubt, 
the doubt should be resolved in favor of LIFE. We do not 
believe, however, that this doubt is even applicable to the IUD or 
so called mini-pills since there is ample scientific documenta- 



59 



tion that the primary mode of action of these agents and 
devices is not contra-conception but abortifacient. 

The Coalition has assembled in packet form a selection 
of documentation and articles on the IUD as well as a smaller 
sampling on the newer pills and techniques relating to early 
abortion. The "IUD packet" is available directly from the 
Coalition, Box 315, Export, Pa. 15632. Cost: $6.00 per packet. 

Such documentation includes: The Department of 
HEW's new Five Year Plan, (May 1973) which states: 

"Recent study results support the hypotheses that the 
IUD alters the uterine environment in such a manner that 



blastocysts are destroyed or are not able to stay in the uterus 
until an estrogen surge permits implantation . . ." p. 15. 

And the Hilger's report. The Intrauterine Device: Con- 
traceptive or Abortifacient? which concludes: 

". . . it is evident that the IUD exerts its birth-preventa- 
tive effects primarily through the destruction, at a uterine 
level, of the pre-implantation blastocyst. In addition, it is 
clear that the IUD in the small number of cases in which 
implantation is allowed to occur in its presence, is a frequent 
initiator of the abortive process and, as a result, well- 
developed fetuses are aborted . . ." 



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 



"Abortion — Compulsory Population Control" 

Title X-Programs Relating to Population Growth of the 
Foreign Assistance Act, the legislative vehicle by which the 
Agency for International Development funnels out millions of 
tax dollars into such agencies as the International Planned 
Parenthood Federation, the Pathfinder Fund and the U.N. 
Fund for Population Activities provides: 

Sec. 291 (c) In carrying out programs authorized 

in this title, the President shall establish reasonable 

procedures to insure, whenever family planning assistance 

from the United States is involved, that no individual will 

be coerced to practice methods of family planning 

inconsistent with his or her moral, philosophical, or 

religious beliefs. 

The abortion prohibition amendment does NOT apply 
in the case of funding by AID under this act but only to the 
Family Planning Act of 1970 as amended. 

With increasing frequency, a number of AID recipient 
nations are initiating population control programs containing 
coercive elements. 

In India, the government withdrew their advertisements 
from a Catholic newspaper which refused to carry anti-life 
materials sent to it for publication by government agencies. 

In Palliport, last year, when Catholic officials refused 
to permit the Indian government to open a local sterilization 
"festival" to coincide with the Feast of Our Lady of Snows, 
the area was declared to be "cholera infested" and the area 
quarantined. 

Under recent rulings by the Medical Council of India, 
medical students will be REQUIRED to perform at least 10 
sterilization operations under appropriate supervision in order 
to receive their medical degree. 

The Indian Ministry of Health has not supported a "con- 
sciencious objection" clause for Catholic physicians working in 



public hospitals and in at least one state, Tamil Nadu, public 
officials have stated that Catholic physicians refusing to do 
their share of abortions should leave government service. 
Prominent Indian leaders are already calling for the "cum- 
pulsory sterilization" of the mentally, physically and emotional- 
ly unfit. 

Likewise, in Singapore, the government has publicly 
stated it will PENALIZE families refusing to participate birth 
limitation, and declared 4th and 5th children born into a 
family as an "anti-social" act. Henceforth, families with more 
than 3 children will suffer in terms of housing priorities, 
maternity benefits and increased taxation. 

ACTION LINE 

As of July 18, 1973 the House has passed the foreign 
aid bill and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent to 
the floor a similar bill for debate. It is expected that the two 
bills will have to go to a conference in order to have the 
differences reconciled. 

The Coalition is moving to have an anti-abortion prohi- 
bition rider attached onto the bill and an amendment which 
would forbid the funding by AID of "family planning" pro- 
grams which are coercive, in nature and thus violate both the 
spirit and letter of the volunteerism class of Title X Sec. 291 
(c). The issue of AID's funding of Los Supermachos should 
be brought to the foreign relation committees of both houses. 

By the time this issue reaches pro-life groups, sometime 
in late August, the Coalition will have found a senatorial 
sponsor to introduce such an amendment on the floor of the 
Senate when the bill comes up for approval following the Labor 
Day recess. 

As soon as the amendment is given a number we will 
inform pro-life groups immediately so that thev may inform 
their senators on the issue. 



'Medical Ghouls Continue Experimentation on Aborted Babies" 
from Medical Intelligence. Vol. 288 No. 23 as printed in The 
New England Journal of Medicine, June 7, 1973. 

The paper, Transplacental Passage of Erythromycin and 
Clindamycin was presented at the Twelfth Interscience Con- 
ference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Sept. 
27, 1972, Atlantic City, N.J. 

The primary purpose of the experiment was to test the 
transplacental passage of certain antibiotics on pregnant 



women and their unborn children. 

The project was aided in part by the U.S. Public Health 
Service, and one of the participants is a recipient of an NIH 
career-development award. 

There were 33 women, ages 15 to 43 years of age, 
carrying children from 10 to 22 weeks of gestation. The 
authors state that "informed consent" was obtained from 
fourteen of the women although we would question the 
degree to which a young girl 15 could issue such consent. The 
majority of the women were aborted by hysterotomy while 



60 



eight were aborted via saline infusion. An additional number 
served as a control group. 

The paper states that following procedures, an assay 
for antibiotic content was performed on the amniotic fluid 
and various body organs including the liver and lungs as well 
as brain, muscle, bone and blood. The authors however do not 
indicate how such procedures were conducted given the fact 
that a hysterotomy produces a live baby. 

In Hemoglobin A Synthesis in the Developing Fetus, 
The New England Journal of Medicine, July 12, 1973 
authored by staff members from the Department of Pediatrics, 
John Hopkins University School of Medicine, we read of a 
similar experiment. The contract was supported by the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH). Authors, Kazazian and Woodhead 
acknowledge their gratitude to members of the Department of 
Obstetrics, John Hopkins Hospital for assistance in obtaining 



"fetal specimens". 

Twenty-five of the aborted women were black, seven- 
teen white. No mention is made of "informed consent" by 
the pregnant women, all of whom were aborted by elective 
hysterectomy or hysterotomy. 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER DELIVERY, the peripheral 
blood cells were taken from the live babies and whole 
blood drained off from the babies who range in size from 3.5 
to 20.0 cm from crown to rump, the youngest being 55 days 
old. 

The National Institute of Health is currently preparing 
a set of "guidelines" on such experimentation by staff 
scientists. A set of English "guidelines" are included in our 
Fetal Packet (Price $5.00), along with documentation on 
experiments on live aborted babies. EVERY pro-life group 
should contact the NIH and request seating when public debate 
opens this Fall. 



"Federal Abortifacient — Population Control Funding" 

An Inventory of Federal Population Research (FY 72) 
including grants and contracts for abortifacient and popula- 
tion control research is now available from the Center for 
Population Research of the National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland 20014. Ask 
for - DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 73-133).* 

In FY 1972, Federal agencies invested $61 million in 
population research — research in which primates, mostly 
humans, were used as "research subjects" in behavioral science 
and basic biological fields. 

The Federal agencies engaged in population research 
included the Center for Population Research (HEW), AID, the 
National Science Foundation, the Office of Economic Oppor- 
tunity and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

The Agency for International Development (AID) pro- 
vided $2.7 million for a large program to develop "simplified 
techniques of postconceptive fertility control." (p.5) 

Center grants went to Rockefeller's Population Council, 
Harvard University, the University of Wisconsin, the University 
of Texas, and Vanderbilt University. 

•Reference copies « 



Included in the eight pages of grants and contracts for 
abortifacient research, primarily in the area of prostaglandins 
are the - 

Worchester Foundation for Experimental Biology, 

Shrewbury, Mass. 
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 
University of West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica 
John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 
Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan 
Population Council, N.Y., N.Y. 

Two HEW-NIH contracts totaling more than $250,000 
include the growth of human trophoblast cells in culture and 
fertilization of human ova in vitro. 

Catholics in particular may be interested in an HEW- 
NIH grant of $13,629 to J. Mayone Sytcos of Cornell 
University to study "DIOCESAN MOBILIZATION A- 
GAINST ABORTION LAW REFORM" (p.98) 
In the area of population education, a three-year HEW- 
NIH grant of more than $50,000 went to R.H. Monge of the 
University of Syracuse, Sol Gorden's stomping grounds. Pro- 
ject title "Communicating Population Facts to Adolescents". 
nlable at no charge. 



"Hud Enters Family Planning Field" 

"Children bring great joy . . . when they are wanted." 
(Cover of HUD Familv Planning Packet! 

Titled Family Planning, the United States Department of 
Housing and Ubran Development series, is the product of an 
18-month technical assistance effort involving 20 Model Cities 
during 1970-71 (H-1306), now part of Community Develop- 
ment. 

The objects of the project, carried out under a HUD 
contract with Westinghouse Learning Corporation, were "to 
increase Model Cities capability in functional programming, to 
increase the effectiveness of the operating agency, and to aid in 
improving the Model Cities planning processes." 

The HUD monograph contains four booklets: 

I. The Concept II. Program Planning 

III. Getting and Keeping Your Program Going 

IV. Improving Your Existing Program 



The series introduction (I) explains that the purpose of 
these publications is to assist local decision makers as they 
undertake family planning projects as part of a "local health 
care system, and to provide public officials with the rationale 
for the agency's legitimate involvement in family planning", 
thus lending support for including a family planning component 
in the city's Comprehensive Demonstration Program Plan. 

The Model Cities receiving Family Planning Technical 
Assistance under the HUD-Westinghouse contract were: 
Akron, Ohio E. St. Louis, III. Portland, Oregon 

Athens, Georgia Charlotte, N.C. Rochester, N.Y. 

Bowling Green, Ky. Manchester, N.H. Rock Island, III. 
Buffalo, N.Y. Newark, N.J. San Antonia, Tex. 

Texarkana, Tex. Youngstown, O. Springfield, Mass. 
Texarkana, Ark. 

The basic components of the HUD family planning pro- 
gram include a full range of services designed to "educate the 
general public as well as patients" about the principles of family 



61 



planning. Delivery of such services can be made through (1) 
clinics such as Planned Parenthood affiliates (2) hospital post- 
partum programs (3) private physicians and others (ex. Mobile 
units). 

Series I. includes a brief history of the Sangerite Move- 
ment and how such obstacles as "longstanding values and 
attitudes about pro-creation", religious teachings such as "be 
fruitful and multiply" and sex is sinful except for procreation- 
theology are fading into the distant horizon and replaced with 
the new Planned Parenthood ethic. Also mentioned is the intro- 
duction of birth control clinics into Puerto Rico "under the 
guise of maternity services", and the flooding of P. P. units by 
millions of middleclass women anxious to "control their fertil- 
ity" after the advent of the Pill. 

Additional obstacles to HUD programs also includes 
charges of genocide by minority groups and RESTRICTIONS 
OF WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS (emphasis added). 

Cited as an example of how pressure groups can team ur 
with service providers using public funds is the Shaw University 
teen program funded by the OEO. (USCL Reprint No. 114) 
In this federally funded innovative program, teenage family 
planning pimps solicited pre-teen black youth operating out of 
a health clinic in a public housing neighborhood known as HIP. 
Their "meetings" included distribution of condoms and foams 
to youth as young as twelve years old. 

According to the HUD publication "many public officials 
now consider it their responsibility to support this expression 
of the nation's will" (p.1 7). 

Besides, family planning helps avoid illness and can be 
thought of as part of arvy preventative health care program. This 
makes pregnancy a disease against which there is immunization. 

There is also the matter of economics. Included in the 
section are charts detailing the economics of "unwanted fertil- 
ity" and the cost-benefit ratio of avoiding "unwanted births" 
with the admonition that the cost of raising one child on wel- 
fare is 26 times greater than the $300.00 which could have been 
used to keep him out of this world in the first place. 

Series 1 1, highlights the various task forces and community 
action approaches. HUD administrators are warned that the 



clergy might object to such programs to be sure and state that 
all methods including rhythm are to be offered. The goal - a 
comprehensive range of family planning services "to all persons 
of child bearing age in the target area". 

Series III. includes a variety of clinical tasks including 
abortion counseling services. 

For "high-risk" females "contraceptive counseling by a 
physician should be considered mandatory". 

Appendix I offers a sample copy of the PROVISIONAL 
REPORT FORM FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES OF 
HEW which ALL OEL, DHEW, and Planned Parenthood pro- 
grams are REQUIRED to submit to the National Center for 
Health Statistics. 

Included in the report is a detailed account of the patient's 
"sexual history" including frequency of intercourse, age of first 
intercourse, attitudes of partner toward contraception, and type 
of contraception used. 

A sample of the IUD consent form used by Dr. Joe Beasley 
at his Louisiana family planning clinic absolving the physician 
from liability for any ill-effects the patient may suffer from the 
IUD insertion, is also included. 

This series lists distributors of contraceptive supplies and 
abortifacient devices. For rhythm information and supplies 
Planned Parenthood is listed as a reference despite the fact 
the Human Life Foundation which has been in existence 
since 1968 is the nation's prime source of updated information 
on natural family planning methods. 

Series IV. attempts to establish standards by which one 
can measure the effectiveness of family planning programs. The 
HUD publication insists that all barriers must be removed which 
inhibit teens from getting the services they need. Planned 
Parenthood's Teen Clinic is selected as a model program. 

Pro-lifers may recall in the Fall of 1972, a Youth Resource 
Handbook funded by HUD and provided by Kentucky's Human 
Resources Coordinating Commission, which gave a detailed fact 
sheet on where teens could obtain out-of-state abortions along 
with prices and transportation information. 

References throughout the series include Planned Parent- 
hood, the Population Council, the Population Reference Bureau 
and Westinghouse Learning Corporation. 



Each cover of the series includes a disclaimer which reads in part that the opinions expressed in this publication do not 
necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of .any U. S. Government agency. 

The Coalition is ready to admit that this is true. The opinions expressed are those of Planned Parenthood and Company 
who just happen to use the agency's name and funding to propagandize their policies and philosophy in much the same way 
as it has prostituted numerous other Federal agencies. We do however, hold the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- 
ment responsible for permitting its agencies to be used for purposes other than specifically called for in the DHUD Act of Sept. 
9, 1965 and for its circumvention of legislative intent by bureaucratic fiat. 

The Coalition has informed HUD Secretary George Romney and Assistant Secretary for Community Development, 
Floyd H. Hyde of these violations and asked that all HUD "family planning" activities be brought to an end. 

Address: Department of Housing and Urban Development 
451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20410 

The complete four-part monograph is available for $4.50 from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing 
Office, Wash., D.C. 20402. 



"Tax Decentives First Level of Population Control" 

On January 31, 1973, Senator Robert Packwood intro- 
duced S.650, a bill to extend to all unmarried individuals the 
same tax benefits enjoyed by married couples filing joint returns. 



The following month The Report of the Tax Policy Ad- 
visory Committee to the Council on Environmental Quality 
recommended that the Federal Income Tax should be changed 
to give higher exemptions for adults than for children on the 
grounds of equity and "as a symbol of population policy". 



62 



In Beyond Conception: Our Children's Children, Martha 
Willing of Population Dynamics, Seattle, Washington illuminates 
the meaning of tax decentives within the context of population 
control programs. 

"One by one, as individuals come to accept Stop at Two 
for themselves, the need to persuade and coerce others will 
also develop," states Mrs. Willing. 

The "three stages of mutual legislation coercion" include 

(1) the removal of a $700 tax deduction for third and fourth 
children 

(2) replace incentives "to breed" with incentives and rewards 
for small families 

(3) "to penalize deliberate violations of a small family norm, 
and to set up controls which prevent such violations." 

In order to be democratic or uniformly totalitarian, Mrs. 
Willing suggests that tax decentives for upper and middle-class 
parents be matched by turning the screws on welfare families 
with excess fertility. The author also includes programs limit- 
ing free public schooling for two children per family and the 
granting of college scholarships to parents with only one or two 



children. 

And what about punishments for violators? 

"Again, after the third child is born, both mother and 
father will have to present themselves at the hospital to undergo 
sterilization procedures. If the couple does not appear, or if only 
one appears, there will be NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED 
to the third child, but instead a third-child paper. The mother 
can be tattooed or marked to signify a third birth to any sub- 
sequent doctor. Instead of the missing parent, THE CHILD 
CAN BE STERILIZED ON THE SPOT, insuring that this undue 
share of the gene pool will not be carried forward." (p. 174) 
(Editor's Note: the only thing more physically revolting than 
having to read the above paragraph is having to print it.) 

According to Mrs Willing, half of the battle of coercion 
is won since we have birth certificates which state who had had 
children and how many. She therefore sees little difficulty in 
persuading couples wishing to obtain the birth certificate for 
child No. 3 to either sterilize themselves or agree to abort all 
subsequent children. 



"Office of Economic and Other Opportunities (OEO)" 

A moratorium on the use of Federal funds to sterilize 
minors and legal incompetents is currently in force until new 
Federal guidelines are put into effect about September 1st. 

The Coalition has petitioned Casper Weinberger, Secre- 
tary of HEW to extend the moratorium to include abortion 
of minors without parental consent and the use of experi- 
mental drugs on minors and legal incompetnets for the pur- 
pose of temporary sterilization and/or as an abortifacient 
agent We have also asked for an impartial investigation of 
agencies receiving Federal funding such as Planned Parenthood 
which is currently involved in both the aborting of minors 
without parental consent and the use of experimental birth 
control techniques on minors and the retarded. 
Planned Parenthood Films 

The OEO has funded three films produced by Seattle's 
Planned Parenthood Center for Moms and Dads. The first of 
the sex education series is "Old Enough to Know". Other 



films will be directed at pre-teens and mature adolscents and 

their parents. 

OEO Legal Services Lawyers and Abortion Litigation 

On June 21, 1973, Congressman Hogan detailed the anti- 
life activities of certain OEO Legal Services lawyers and pro- 
posed an amendment to the pending legislation which would 
prohibit the Legal Services Corporation from providing legal 
assistance to any proceeding or litigation relating to abor- 
tion. (For full statement and working of final amendment see 
the Congressional Record - June 21, 1973, H5129-H5131). 

Evidence linking OEO legal services attorneys with cases 
attacking anti-abortion statutes in New 'York and California 
were clearly documented. Additional evidence related to OEO 
attacks upon parental rights and the constitutionality of anti- 
abortion statutes, as well as support for aborting minors with- 
out parental knowledge or consent. 

The House voted 301 to 68 to accept Hogan's amend- 
ment to the Legal Services Corporation Act. 



"U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Cooperative Extension Service" 

On the evening of February 22, 1973 the Cooperative 
Extension Association of Chemung County (N. Y.) co-sponsored 
a workshop entitled "Issues in Population" wi th Planned Parent- 
hood of the Southern Tier. 

Publicity sheets announcing the program bore the letter- 
head: 

Cooperative Extension Service - New York State 

Cornel University-State University of N. Y. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture 

Packets distributed to the teachers at the workshop in- 
cluded Guttmacher's "The Tragedy of the Unwanted Child", 
"The Viewers Guide to Population and the American Future, 
Kathryn Horsley's (Population Reference Bureau) Sources, 
Resources: Population Education, and an assortment of other 
PP-WP and PRB materials. 

The film shown prior to the lecture was 1985, a drama- 
tized news broadcast reporting on the environmental disaster 



brought about by overpopulation and associated ills. Produced 
by Metromedia, the film is distributed by the Denver Chapter 
of ZPG. 

Lectures included Prof. J. Mayone Stycos of Cornell 
University. Professor Stycos is a technical consultant to the 
Population Reference Bureau. In September 1972 he received 
a grant of $13,629 to study "DIOCESAN MOBILIZATION 
AGAINST ABORTION LAW REFORM" from the DHEW's 
National Institute of Health. 

Mrs. Sally Auman, Cooperative Extension Specialist in 
Population Affairs, Cornell University also spoke on population 
change. 

The program was moderated by a local Planned Parent- 
hood physician. 

Jane Callahan, president of Chemung County Right to 
Life has protested the use of tax funds for such programs and 
demanded a full investigation of the financing, staffing, and 
salaries of the Chemung County Coop-Extension Association. 



63 



BACKGROUND 

This workshop is the outgrowth of PERSPECTIVES FOR 
THE 70's, developed by the Program Planning and Development 
staff of Cornell in cooperation with other agencies including 
the program staff of the Extension Administration and designed 
for state-wide (N. Y.) educational programs. Among the "prior- 
ity areas" for Cooperative Extension Service in this decade is 
Population - Growth, Dispersion, Control. 

The pilot project in population-communication has been 
in operation for MORE THAN ONE YEAR. Sponsor of the 
project is COSPA/NY (Communications Specialists in Popula- 
tion Affairs/New York). 

Funding for the project is derived mainly from the Inter- 
national Population Program of Cornell University directed by 
Professor J. M. Stycos, as well as from the Extension Admini- 
stration and the Human Ecology College. Total budget for 8 
month pilot project - $13,900. 

COSPA/NY chose to use the Cooperative Extension Ser- 
vice in its opening phase because of the agency's built-in-state- 
wide communication network. Project objective: to explore 
the possible roles for extension agents in the areas of popula- 
tion-family planning. 

In the past two years, N. Y.'s Cooperative Extension 
Agency has been "orientating" its agents in these fields parti- 
cularly through special sessions at annual conferences. In late 
1971, the agency's director approved the training of agents and 
paraprofessionals in family planning communication. Popula- 
tion-family planning are seen as being easily integrated into 
Extension 4-H programs and nutritional programs for low in- 
come groups. 

To prepare agents, a notebook POPULATION AFFAIRS 
AND NEW YORK STATE was prepared by COSPA/NY. This 
"guide" intended for the long Range Planning Committees 
of the Coop-extension staff include in its table of contents; 
A Plan for Study: Population and the American Future, and 
assortment of P. P. - W. P. and Population Reference Bureau 
literature, and tapes by Stycos, Cole and Guttmacher. Note- 
book topics include abortion, family planning, population con- 
trol. These population-family planning "services will eventually 
be extended to all counties of New York State." 

Funding for state Coop-Extension Services is shared by 
State Governments, county governments and the U. S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. 

Extension programs include 4-H youth development, home 
economics and special programs for low income people. 

In a letter to Sen. Schweiker of Pennsylvania intended 
for the U. S. Coalition for Life, Edwin L. Kirby, Administrator 
for the U. S. D. A. Extension Service stated: 

(1) The U. S. D. A. has no policy on family planning or 
population control education. Any state university Exten- 
sion Services conducting such programs are doing so "in 
response to the expressed needs of the citizens of those 
states . . ." 

(2) I nformai, out-of -school extension programs areauthorized 



under Smith-Cever legislation (as amended). 

(3) The U. S. D. A. has made no survey of the State Exten- 
sion Services to determine if they are conducting any 
family planning education programs. 'The Department 
does not have this information." 

(4) 'The role of the agricultural Extension agents is entirely 
educational. No agent would ever distribute contracep- 
tive devices. 

(5) There are presently no plans for the D. A. to assume a 
role in family planning, in population control or in abor- 
tion referrals. 

Answers to (4) and (5) are in reference to a Planned 
Parenthood reprint of January 1972 entitled, "Agricultural 
Aides: A New Manpower Resource" by Jean Brand, Extension 
Education Specialist with the Extension Service of the U.S.D.A. 
The article is based on a graduate thesis and reflects the author's 
views and not necessarily those of the U.S.D.A. or the Extension 
Service. 

Of interest is Brand's outline of mechanisms by which 
the U. S. Department of Agriculture via the Extension Service 
could become involved in the family planning field. Recom- 
mendations include the announcement by the U.S.D.A that it 
would support funding for such programs; getting local exten- 
sion committees to relay their "interests" in such programs to 
State Extension Services; and getting ECOP (Extension Com- 
mittee on Organization and Policy) to create a "consensus" 
favoring such involvement. 

The U.S.D.A. currently employs more than 9,000 agricul- 
tural aides in its nutrition education programs reaching more 
than 1.7 million people, mostly low income women. 

Objective of the program would be to have these aides 
trained in family planning education, the information would 
thus be incorporated into their presentations and the aides 
could then make appropriate referrals to family planning agency 
for their problem. 



The Coalition has requested that Mr. Kirby, the head ad- 
ministrator of the U.S.D.A. 's Extension Service to: 

(1) Conduct a survey of State Extension Services to 
assess the degree, if any, of such agencies in family planning- 
population education programs and make the results of such a 
survey available to the public. 

(2) To investigate whether or not ECOP has taken up 
the question of including such programs as a matter of policy 
into existing Extension programs including the nutritional 
aides projects. 

(3) To state whether or not the U. S. Department of 
Agriculture is considering supporting, directly or indirectly, 
this agency's involvement in family planning or population 
education programs. 

Support for Coalition action may be directed to: 
Mr. Edwin L. Kirby, Administrator and Earl L. Butz, Secretary 
of Agriculture — USDA, 14th St.-lndependence Ave. SW - 
Washington, D.C. 20250. 



"East-West Center — Hawaiian Population Control Base" 

The East-West Center is "An Educational Institution of 
the Government of United States of America in Cooperation 
with the University of Hawaii". 



Formally known as the Center for Cultural and Technical 
Inter-Change Between East and West, the Center was established 
by Congress in 1960 to promote better relations and mutual 
respect between the U.S. and the Nations of Asia and the Pacific 



64 



BACKGROUND 

In 1971, the E-W Center's Communication Institute, one 
of five institutes conducted by the Center, received a grant 
from USAID for the establishment of an international popula- 
tion communication center. "A major goal of the resource base 
is the training of population program communication specialists, 
planners, and administrators primarily through scholarship and 
workshop programs. The activity of the E-W Communication 
Institute is coordinated with the E-W Population Institute and 
the University of Hawaii. 

The official organ of the E-W Communication is the IEC 
Newsletter (Information, Education, communication in popula- 
tion) Address: 1777 East-West Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822. 
Anti-Baby Propaganda Center 

The following sampling of "messages" from the Commun- 
ication Center were selected from five IEC Newsletters. With- 
out exception, the messages are anti-large (anti-moderate) size 
family. They are distinctly pro-population control including 
pro-sterilization and pro-abortion. 
July, 1972 Contents included: 

Promotion for Rockefeller Report 

Sol Gorden's Ten Heavy Facte About Sex 

First "Love Boutique" at Chapel Hill 

Choice Not Change - P. P. Nigerian style brochure 

"None Is Fun" promotion on the National Organization 
for Non-Parents. 

True to Life - Birth Control - Abortion confession mag- 
azine. 

Pop Goes the World explosion poster 
November, 1972 - Contents included: 

P. P.'s comic book, Facte of Life 

Korean family planning song on happy children — only 
those who are planned . . . planned . . . planned . . . 

Population posters on spacing children like you space 
bananas 

Snakes and Ladders - P. P. style game with such label- 
ing as "Tired, Sick Mother" vs "Strong Nation" 

Population Reference Bureau — Jr. High and Secondary 
School population texts 

Market Research and STOP AT TWO 



January, 1973 - Contents included: 

ZPG-PP poster featuring a baby in his birthday suit 
laying on an ancient symbol beneath which is 
scribbled, "Have me if you want But: if you can't 
give me love, security and support, Please Wait, 
I Can". 

Diana Ross's song "Love Child" about an illegitimate and 
unplanned child and its value as a family-planning 
song in the mass media. 

Population Council's Walt Disney Family Planning Film- 
strip — modified Indian version. 

"Paste Your Umbrella" student population control book- 
let • India Poster Contest - Winner's themes 
include, Make Love Not Babies, Population Ex- 
plosion and Two are Enough • P.P.'s Love . . . 
Carefully posters and stickers 
March, 1973 - Contents include: 

Promotion of condom sales 

Anti-large family posters from Afghanistan 
May. 1973 - Contents included: 

Promotion of condom sales 

Sol Gorden's Planning Your Family 

"Pregnant Male" promotes sterilization clinic 

Population Institute's Poster winners 

American Home Economics Population Packets 

AID's Population Information Program at George Wash- 
ington University in D.C. 

Promotion for Rockefeller film 

ACTION LINE 

All IEC Newsletters- contain anti-life references. To date the 
1-W Communications Center has never published any prr>life 
Information sent to it by the Coalition over an extended period 
■of 1 5 months. 

All these newsletters and workshops and scholarships are 
funded by the Federal Government, and promote an idealogy 
yvhich many Americans find repugnant 

The Director ot the E-W Center has been notified by tele- 
gram that if there is no immediate balance brought into the 
newsletter and workshop programs, the Coalition will move for 
appropriate Congressional action beginning in September to cut 
oft *heir population funding. 



NON-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 



"American Psychological Association" 

TASK FORCE ON PSYCHOLOGY, FAMILY PLANNING AND 
POPULATION POLICY 

The Fam-Pop Task Force of the American Psychological 
Association began in December 1969, following the creation 
of the Task Force by an APA Council Resolution. Funding for 
a March workshop to discuss the role of psychologists in this 
area was provided by Rockefeller's Population Council. A 
questionnaire was submitted to the APA membership to meas- 
ure the degree of interest and research, training, and service 
areas related to population, and members were encouraged to 
get on the Population Council mailing list. Suggested abortion 
readings include D. Callahen's Law, Choice, and Morality (Popu- 
lation Council grant) and R. Hall's Abortion in a Changing 
World. 



Listed among the Task Force consultants are Sidney H. 
Newman, Ph.D., Behavioral Scientist Administrator at the Cen- 
ter for Population Research of the NICHD. and Vaida Thomp- 
son of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Dr. 
H. P. David. AIR/Transnational Family Research Institute. 

In 1971, the Population Council funded the 2nd invita- 
tional workshop at Berkeley on "Psychological Measurement 
in Studies in Family Planning". The Ford and Rockefeller 
Foundations also announced a Program in Support of Social 
Science and Legal Research on Population Policy, with a maxi- 
mum one year award of $50,000. 

Recommended population resources listed in the Task 
Force newsletter of December 1970 included Planned Parent- 
hood, the Population Crisis Committee and the Population 
Reference Bureau. 



65 



The June 1972 Newsletter announceWKat the Task Force 
was now in its third and last year and contained a petition to 
establish a DIVISION OF POPULATION PSYCHOLOGY with- 
in the APA. It also announced an invitational workshop on fer- 
tility counseling to be held in Hawaii sponsored by the Federal 
Government's National Center for Family Planning Services and 



APA. A-ttached was a^Kpy of the Population Program of the 
1972 Annual APA Convention. 

Among the topics and papers covered were Toward Train- 
ing Population Psychologists, Attitudes of Health Professionals 
Toward Family Planning and Abortion, and Population Control, 
Family Size, and Family Planning. 



I 



ACTION LINE 



The A. P. A COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING THE 
ESTABLISHMENT OF A DIVISION OF POPULATION PSY- 
CHOLOGY AT ITS UPCOMING CONVENTION IN MON- 
TREAL IN SEPTEMBER. 

Pro-life groups are now organizing under a variety of 
professional banners, i.e. Pro- Life Nurses Association, Pro- Life 
OB & Gyns. Pro- Life psychologists may want to do likewise 
in order to provide pro-life input into the new Division of Pop- 
ulation Psychology of the American Psychological Association. 



Additionally, pro-life editors and writers should begin 
sending their publications and articles on a regular basis to the 
newsletter editor of the upcoming division, at the following 
address: 

Ad hoc Committee on Psychology, Family Planning 
and Population Policy 

Newsletter Editor 

Division of Population Psychology 

1200 17th Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 



"Children's Television Workshop Health Series" 

On March 27-28, 1973 the Children's Television Work- 
shop, creators of "Sesame Street" met with a number of family 
planners to discuss topics including contraception, abortion and 
sterilization. The Family Planning Task Force was one of seven 
groups assembled with writers and staff personnel of CTW, 
each meeting held at separate times, over a period of three 
months. 

In his Friends of P. P. May 4 Newsletter, Dr. Alan Gutt- 
macher described a portion of the discussion as well as the 
attitudes of the participants relating to contraception and abor- 
tion. 

According to Dr. Guttmacher, most participants in the 
"free and frank" discussion agreed that the topics be handled 
"openly and sympathetically". "One participant suggested that 
abortion be mentioned at least 16 of the 26 hours to detoxify 
the viewing audience from cultural shock at the word" he states. 
One of the show's producers upon hearing Ella McDonald of 
N.Y.'s Human Resources Administration discuss the predica- 
ment of a pregnant eight-year old and the distress of the staff 
when the mother refused to have the child aborted, suggested 
the episode be included in their script. 

"The plan is to integrate family planning as an important 
segment in several different shows rather than isolating it as a 
separate topic. The television amateurs were reminded by the 
professionals of the value of repetition," concludes Dr. Gutt- 
macher. (all emphasis added) 



"Cartooning and Population Control" 

Last year, the Population Institute's Population Commun- 
ication Center (475 Riverside Dr., N.Y., N.Y. 10027) sponsored 
a $5,000 award for the best 30 minute script on population con- 
trol produced on prime-time television between Sept. 72 and 
Jan. 73. 



The "different shows" Guttmacher refers to will be based 
on the following topics (each having been given a separate dis- 
cussion period): 

Parenting: Adolescent Health Problems 
Parenting: Prenatal, Infant, and Child Care 
Modification of Personal Habits: drugs, smoking . . . 
Seeking Care: Access, Use and Participation 
Chronic Diseases 
Family Planning 
Death 

The 26 part CTW Health Series project involves three 
phases with Fall, 1974 the date of the anticipated broadcast (s). 
The task force seminars were part of Phase II and designed for 
possible series content and to generate program ideas. 

Given the task force participants in the family planning 
unit, the Coalition believes that Dr. Guttmacher's evaluation 
of the orientation of the seminar was accurate. 

ACTION LINE 

Mr. William Kobin, Future Works Division of CTW has 
offered to meet with the U. S. Coalition of Life to discuss our 
views on the topic of "family planning". As this newsletter 
goes to print, we are in the process of arranging such a meeting 
as a preliminary action for full dialogue with the Children's 
Television Workshop Production Staff. 



This year, the Communication Center has launched a 
contest for cartoonists through several major cartoonists' soci- 
eties. The goal - use of cartoons in the mass media to influence 
and persuade in the area of population control and family 
planning. 



66 



"Planned Parenthood and Media TIMWANKS" 

Richard K. Manoff, ad man for Planned Parenthood and 
a member of Dr. Louis Helman's Population Committee, has 
complained that despite the approval of the Advertising Council, 
some stations have turned down his broadcast spots. 

In a statement carried in Advertising Age (10/30/72), 
Manoff suggested that Congress require radio-tv stations to set 



'Law and Population Programme" 



In 1970, the Agency for International Development con- 
tracted with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts 
University (administered with the co-operation of Harvard 
University) to establish a Law and Population Programme, at 
a cost of $640,000. 

With its main thrust directed at the development of a 
reporting network on legal data from developing nations, the 
Programme has also conducted seminars and initiated in-depth 
national studies on how the law effects human fertility behavior 
(ex. laws restricting distribution or importation of contracep- 
tives or laws prohibiting contraceptive sterilization and/or 
abortion.) Currently, it is compiling and analyzing country 
monographs and in co-operation with UNESCO is sponsoring 
an inter-regional workshop to teach "population dynamics" 
in law schools. 

Programme Director Luke T. Lee also serves on the United 
Nations Fund for Population Activities enabling the agency to 
co-ordinate its activities on an international scale - activities 
which will culminate in the 1974 World Population Conference 
for which the Programme is preparing reference documentation. 

While the earlier newsletters of the Programme repeatedly 
emphasized the U.N. declaration that family planning is a basic 
human right, the developing orientation of this group is clearly 
directed along population control lines in which all means of 



aside 10% of their total commercial time for public service in- 
formation on such things as family planning, education, etc 
. . The public service "time bank" would be administered by 
a non-political, new public corporation. 

This system could be used by such "starved" govern- 
men programs as HEW's family planning services, Manoff 
suggested. (Editor's note: Just a little bit of humor, folks!) 



fertility control including abortion, sterilization and contracep- 
tion are supported by law. 

For example, the May 1973 newsletter briefly described 
the legal maneuvers of the International Planned Parenthood 
Federation (IPPF) at its Indian Ocean Regional Seminar at the 
University of Ceylon in July, 1972 at which time the IPPF re- 
commended that countries in the region set up special commit- 
tees to study the feasibility of liberalizing present laws, regard- 
ing "pregnancy termination". 

Such an admission is of critical importance to pro-life 
agencies since the U.S. Agency for Internation Develop- 
ment is the major source of funding for the IPPF. Sec- 
ondly, the IPPF has maintained that where abortion is 
illegal, its policy is merely to insure medical aid in cases 
of incomplete abortions backed up by contraception pro- 
visions. (See Abortion - Classification and Techniques, 
published by the IPPF, 18-20 Lower Regent Street, Lon- 
don SW1 Y 4PW, England Price $1.00). 
The IPPF is currently funding Law and Population Pro- 
jects in Latin America including a Mexican venture begun in 



1972. 



ACTION LINE 



Pro-life attorneys and other legal personnel may obtain 
additional information on the Programme by contacting Mr. Lee 
at Tufts University. Medford, Mass. 02155. 



"Rockefeller Foundation and Abortion and Dr. Know-LEK' 

On March 14, John H. Knowles, President of the Rockefeller Foundation addressed the National Advisory Council of the Cen- 
ter for Family Planning Program Development, in New York City. The CFPPD is the Technical Assistance Division of Planned 
Parenthood-World Population. 

The subject: An affirmative Response of the Health System to the Supreme Court Abortion Decision. 

Accordingto Dr. Knowles, the key ingredients in securing implementation of the S.C. mandate involves (1) an informed public 
policy and (2) an effective action program. Thus enabling a capacity load of from 1 ,200,000 to 1 ,800,000 killings a year throughout 
the nation to take place. 

Part of the public education program would include promoting the advantages of the early detection of the presence of the 
child within the womb and then as promptly and efficiently as the "health services" could react, destroying that child, with tax funds 
if necessary. 

While forcing anyone to have an abortion or to perform an abortion is not indicated by the S.C. decision, Dr. Knowles sug 
gests that the "service" must be available and accessible to those who need and want them. Unless communities take the necessary 
steps to make abortion facilities readily available and accessible, it is "unfortunately", predictable that legal and other pressures will be 
brought to bear to compel the existing institutions (including hospitals and health institutions with religious affiliations) to meet 
community needs. 
RF and Population Control 

In the June 1973 issue of RF Illustrated, Dr. Allan C. Barnes, Vice-President of the Rockefeller Foundation attacks the pro- 
blem of how to reach "the ignorant, the uneducated, and the lowly motivated" with the New Malthusian Gospel according to the 
new St. Paul. 

"Do not tell me what the Old Testament says, because the Old Testament was written on the flat side of the curve" (referring 



67 



to world population growth chart), suggeSrc Dr. Barnes, who sees the problem as not merely one of making birth control available 
but one of getting people to do as they are told. 

The combined population control budget for Ford-Rockefeller grants in 1972 was $23 million. Grants to 26 social scientists 
and legal scholars from the Ford-Rockefeller Foundation in 1972 totalled $647,702 for a variety of population projects involving 
the effects of the U.S. income tax on fertility patterns to motivations for delayed marriage in Hong Kong. 

Some 1972 Rockefeller grants which may have special interest for pro-lifers include: 
$ 25,000 - Operating costs of Citizens Committee on Population Growth and the American Future. 
$ 25,000 - To the Population Crisis Committee for their special population report. 
$ 5,900 - To the family planning program of Emory University, Georgia publishers of TRUE TO LIFE, the true confession birth 

control-abortion magazine. 
$ 86,000 - Grant to the Planned Parenthood Association of MARYLAND for population education in the BALTIMORE schools. 
$500,000 - To the Population Council for "new Approaches" to conception control. 
$ 50,000 - To the James Madison Constitutional Law Institute for programs in population law. 
$ 98,000 - Grant to Wake Forest University for RESEARCH IN REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY. 

"The Playboy Foundation" 

Citing its role in aiding "the right-to-abortion movement" the Playboy Foundation listed the following orgainzation as grant 
recipients: Association for the Study of Abortion (ASA), the Illinois Citizens for Medical Control of Abortion, the Clergy Consul- 
tation Service on Problem Pregnancies, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAD, Women's National 
Abortion Coalition (WNAC), Center for Constitutional Rights, and Texas Citizens for Abortions. 

Additionally, the Playboy Foundation supplied the Supreme Court with copies of an article by Professor Means on the history 
of abortion in both English and American Law, which was quoted in the Court's Texas opinion. (Playboy, May 1973, p. 71). Now 
who said the Supreme Court didn't do their homework? 



"Population Control through Home Economics" 

The American Home Economics Association has signed 
a three-year contract with the Agency for International Develop- 
ment (USAID). 

In 1971, AID awarded a grant of $1 18,000 to the AHEA 
to assess "needs and opportunities" for home economics asso- 
ciations and institutions in developing countries to provide 
family planning concepts and information. When field surveys 
proved "so enthusiastic" AID increased its first year funding 
in order to support three family planning workshops in 1972 
at Lincoln, Nebraska, Washington, D.C. and Atlanta, Georgia. 

Participants in the workshops were home economics stu- 
dents from developing countries studying in the United States. 
The workshop format centered on ( 1 ) Community Experiences 
- designed to develop "population awareness" (2) Home Coun- 
try Studies - population trends showing need for family plan- 
ning material made available to students and (4) Spreading the 



Information - students project in area of population. 

The theme of the three-year AID funded project is "A 
Quality Life Through Family Planning" in which the concept 
of family planning will be integrated with home economics 
programs. 

The International Family Planning Project PACKET is 
available in English and Spanish editions for $2.00 each. Order 
from: AHEA, 2010 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20036. 

The packet includes a brochure "The Time is Nowl 
Home Economics and the World's Population Problem". 

References and publications listed in the AHEA Project 
bibliography will provide a fairly comprehensive list of anti-life 
agencies in the United States, both private and governmental. 
These sheets are available upon request from the AHEA. Pro- 
life references are conspicuous by their complete absence from 
the AHEA material. 



"Child Welfare League Policies" 

The Consortium on Early Childbearing and Childrearing 
operates under the aegis of the Child Welfare League of Amerita 
(Suite 618, 1145-19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036) 
and is funded by the Federal Government. 

The Consortium's two major concerns are (1) the preven- 
tion of pregnancy in adolescence and (2) the development of 
comprehensive services for school-age parents. A variety of 
workshops, conference and consultation services come under 
its sponsorship. 

In its Winter, 1972 issue of SHARINGS, Planned Parent- 
hood's legal brain, Harriet Pilpel discusses the legal rights of 
young people — legal rights pertaining to contraceptive services 
and abortion. With one exception, the views expressed in this 
particular issue are similar to those of Miss Pilpel. The excep- 



tion appears to be that of Linda Jenstrom, of the Consortium. 

However, for the record, it should be noted that under 
the revised Child Welfare League Association standards we read: 
Recognition of availability of birth control and legal abortion. 
Thus the league's interest in child abuse and child protection 
does not extend to occupants of the mother's womb. 

Though the information concerning SHARING is some- 
what dated, the Coalition is bringing it to Pro-life attention 
because of the Office of Child Development's Parenthood Edu- 
cation program which will effect 500.000 teenagers in 500 
school districts by September 1973 as a "pilot" project In 
addition to "parenthood" courses, existing programs, such as 
home economics are expected to be altered to include the 
course also. 

Head of the program is W. Stanley Kruger. The curricu- 



68 



lum materials were prepared by the Education Development 
Center of Cambridge, Mass. with a more than $570,000 grant 
from the Office of Child Development. 



Additionally $500,000 in grants was made to several 
national voluntary youth-serving organizations. We will pub- 
lish this listing in our next mailing. 



ABORTION SEMINARS 



"Advance in Death Technology - Abortion Symposiums" 

C/n May 16, 1970 the Society for Humane Abortion 
sponsored the FIRST AMERICAN SYMPOSIUM ON OFFICE 
ABORTIONS in San Francisco. Seventy-two people attended, 
42 of whom were physicians. 

The panelists included attorney Richard Bowers, founder 
of 2PG and currently on the Board of Directors of NPG; SHA 
President, Patricia T. Maginnis, abortionist W.J. Bryan Hernie, 
D. O. of Grove, Oklahoma, David B. Cheek, M. D. of the Pacific 
Medical Center of San Francisco and NARAL V. P. Lana Clarke 
Phelan. 

John Lang, represented the Berkeley Tonometer Com- 
pany, manufacturers of Berkeley vacuum aspiration machines 
— vibrodilator probes and vacurettes. 

The following comments were selected from the proceed- 
ings of the symposium — 

Following the showing of "Uterine Aspiration" prepared 
in the Dept. of Ob-Gyn at the University of Michigan Medical 
Center, the audience asked Mr. Lang what pressure he recom- 
mended for aspiration. 

He replied: "All you can get. The Berkeley machine 
should be set for maximum vacuum ... 73. Holding the vacuum 
down to minus 55-60 may not accomplish evacuation." 

When questioned about the advantages of the vibrodila- 
tor, Dr. Gregory Smith who claimed his experience to be with 
150 abortions stated: "Well, you can't live without it once 
you've used it . . ." 

When Dr. Cheek was asked if he told his abortion patients 
about the risks (informed consent) he replied, "No. Would you?" 
and explained that informed consent "is the worst kind of con- 
sent you can get" because you are telling the patient the ex- 
pectancy of trouble . . ." Asked about the use of non-anxiety 
provoking words by a Planned Parenthood worker. Dr. Cheek 
said he didn't use the word scrape but rather "we're going to 
take out some tissue . . ." 

The abortionists in the audience complained that while 
they were operating all they wanted to on Saturdays and 
Sundays, they were often stymied by the lack of nurses and 
anethesiologists to which Dr. Nancy McCall replied, "Yes. We 
have a problem of a lot of up-tight nurses who for some reason 
or other won't help, and if those happen to be the same ones 
on call, we're up a creek." 

Speaking on attitudes about pain control. Dr. Cheek 
claimed that "The sooner we get rid of those laws, and make 
abortion a common sense extension of contraceptive care, the 
easier the problem of pain control will become." 

(In October 23, 1971 a second Symposium on Clinic and 
Office Abortion Procedures was held in Madison, Wisconsin. 
The proceedings were later published by the Society for Humane 
Abortion. 



Symposium participants and moderators included: 
E. James Lieberman, M.D. Psychiatric Consultant, Preterm 

Clinic, Washington, D.C. 
Sadja Goldsmith, M.D., Director of Teenage Services, P.P.-W.P. 

San Francisco 
Sarah Lewit, Biomedical Division, Population Council, N.Y. 
Harold Rosen, M.D. of Johns Hopkins, Baltimore 
Alfred L. Kennan, M.D. Director, Midwest Medical Center, 

Madison, Wisconsin 

Speaking on the role of preparing the patient. Dr. Gold- 
smith of P.P. says she uses the analogy that (up to about six 
weeks gestation) "an abortion is something like bringing on a 
period." She also tells her young patients that "When I was 
about your age I had an abortion, and later on when the time 
was right, I had children." According to Dr. Goldsmith, who 
later describes abortion techniques with Dr. Alan Margolis, 
the young teenager wants to see someone as a model to make 
having an abortion acceptable. 

However, the question of doing too many abortions was 
raised by abortionist Dr. Joseph Blanchard who admitted that 
at first he could do twelve abortions a day, but that he found 
the procedure to be too big of an emotional drain. Now he 
doesn't schedule any more than two saltings and four vacuums 
in any one day. 

In a discussion of techniques and procedures using para- 
medics. Dr. Bernard Nathanson of Women's Services, N.Y. 
stated that he ran into strong resistance against using paramedi- 
cal abortionists when he spoke in and around Harlem and other 
black areas of N.Y.C. "I was virtually stoned out of every one 
of these meetings . . . nobody was going to experiment on them 
. . . they wanted doctors and only doctors . . ." 

Regarding the status of minors seeking abortions. Dr. 
Rosen of John Hopkins stated that "any female in our state, 
once pregnant (the youngest I have seen was eleven and one- 
half) is, in the eyes of our law, not a minor, but an adult. It is 
neither necessary or obligatory to inform her parents about an 
abortion . . ." 

Dr. A. Frans Koome summed up the proceedings very 
well when he said, "The whole question of abortion is pretty 
much a matter of economics . . ." 

| hree months later, on December 9-10, 1972, the Battelle 
Population Study Center in Seattle, Washington organized and 
conducted a workshop on current and improved means of preg- 
nancy termination. The proceedings were summarized by 
Diana Schneider Johnson. Ph.D. of the Medical College of Vir- 
ginia in "Termination of Pregnancy: Current and Future Direc- 
tions." 

Participants included: 
Malcolm Potts, M.D., Medical Director, International Planned 

Parenthood Federation 
Leonard E. Laufe, M.D. of West Penn Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa. 



69 



Dr. Harvey Karman (Los Angeles) 

Dr. Ronald J. Pion and Harry J. Levin Univ. of Hawaii 

Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, Director of the Aid Population Office 

According to Dr. Potts, IPPF, those people who use fairly 
reliable contraceptive methods are more likely to use abortion 
than any other group and the availability of legal postconception 
fertility control reinforces interest in family planning and in- 
creases the credibility of family planning programs. Dr. Potts 
suggested that abortion when combined with traditional con- 
traceptive methods was safer than either abortion or use of orals 
alone. 

Dr. Pion, playing the semantics game suggests that the 
termination procedure is similar to an "endometrial biopsy" 
for which very little patient preparation is necessary. 

Discussion of the advances in death technology included 
demonstration of various vacuum machines and discussion of 
current and new abortion techniques including vacuum aspira- 
tion, use of hand and foot pumps (Goldsmith), modified bicycle 
pump (Potts), chemical abortifacients (Pion), the "supercoil" 



(Karman), and electric probes (Pion). 

On the .subject of pre-aspiration procedures, the author* 
reports that "Dr. Ravenholt proposed that it might be feasible 
to use a jet injector similar to that used in mass innoculations 
..." in administering paracervical anesthesia, (from: Contra- 
ception, an international journal published by Geron-X, Inc. 
Box 1108, Los Altos, California 94022. Subscription rate - 
$30.00 per year) 

All of the above symposiums reveal the classic anti-life 
mentality of the abortion establishment. To obtain file copies 
write: 

Society of Humane Abortion, Box 1862 - San Francisco, 

Cal. 94101 
First American Symposium on Office Abortions- $2.00 

per copy 
Abortion in the Clinic and Office Setting - $1 .00 per copy 
D. J. Prager, Battelle Population Study Center - 4000 
N.E. 41st Seattle, Washington 98105 - no charge 
for single copy. 



"Abortion - The Freedom Not To" 

On May 30, 1973 a dozen representatives of national reli- 
gious, civil liberties and women's organizations appeared in 
Washington, D.C. to protest Federal health legislation which 
would permit any hospital or any other facility funded by the 
Federal government to refuse to allow abortions and/or sterili- 
zations in their institution. 

Among those in attendance at a news conference to dis- 
cuss the protest was Carol Foreman of the Women's Equality 
Action League. Mrs. Foreman is perhaps better known in her 
position as the Executive Director of Rockefeller's Citizens 
Committee on Population Growth and the American Future. 

The other agencies represented were: 
American Civil Liberties Union • YWCA • NOW • Planned 



Parenthood • Church of the Brethern • National Council of 
Jewish Women • United Church of Christ • United Methodist 
Church • American Baptist Churches, USA • National Women's 
Political Caucus 'Women's Lobby, Inc. 

As of July 2, 1973, nine lawsuits to compel public hospi- 
tals to perform abortions are already in full swing with plans 
being readied for the rest of the nation. Prime movers are the 
ACLU and NARAL. Current target states are New Jersey, 
Massachusetts, Texas, Minnesota, Missouri, Florida, Ohio, Wis- 
consin and Indiana. 

The action was predicted in the January 1973 USCL 
Newsletter following the evaluation of OPERATION LAWSUIT 
relating to sterilization. 



"Planned Parenthood School Scandal Breaks in Maryland" 

On February 9, 1973 the public spotlight was turned on procedures used for obtaining secretive abortions for minors, when a 
young girl developed a serious infection resulting from a saline abortion requiring that her parents be informed of the operation on 
their child. 

Involved in the controversy were public school personnel, Montgomery County (Md.) public officials. Planned Parenthood and 
various abortion clinics. 

It was confirmed that an average of 10 minor girls PER WEEK were given preliminary tests in Montgomery high schools by a 
representative of the County Health Department called into the schools by either the school nurse or a counselor. 

Should the pregnancy test prove positive, the girls are referred to the Planned Parenthood Association by the County Health 
Department employee. Planned Parenthood then carries out the scheduling of the abortions in Baltimore and elsewhere. At no 
point in the procedure are parents notified of the action up to and including the abortion fee which is paid by the county. Under 
the system, members of the high school staff, teachers and nurses are given the option of referring students to parents or a minister 
or doctor or school nurse when they seek contraception and/or abortion assistance. 

In Maryland as of mid-1971 minors can obtain abortion, contraception and venereal disease treatment without parental con- 
sent or knowledge as the result of the passage of State Senate Bill 201 . 

Senate Bill 690 has been introduced which would require that persons under the age of 16 obtain parental consent before 
receiving the above "services". Montgomery County curriculum on contraception and abortion if approved will begin with 13 year 
olds this Fall. 

Pro-life action has been lead by Parents Who Care (PWC) of Bethesda and Chevy Chase, Maryland. 



70 



FOREIGN NEWS 



"Los Supermachos Brings Congressional Inquiry" 

The funding by the Agency for International Development 
(USAI D) of the blasphemous Spanish birth control comic book, 
Los Supermachos which features a Mexican woman kneeling 
before a statue of the Blessed Mother praying 

'Little Virgin, you who conceived without sinning, 
teach me to sin without conceiving.' 
has prompted a Congressional inquiry into the agency's popula- 
tion activities. 

Congressman Clement J. Zablocki of Wisconsin has asked 
for a full explanation of the matter from Dr. John A. Hannah, 
head administrator of AID. Following a national press release 
by the Coalition on June 30, demanding a public apology from 
Dr. R. T. Ravenholt who administers the AID Office of Pop- 
ulation Affairs, Dr. Ravenholt was asked for a statement by the 
Washington Press. Response: No comment. 

For the record, the comic book was ordered by the Pana- 
manian Health and Population Ministries on Nov 15, 1972 and 
funded by AIData cost of $1,100 under Title X of the Foreign 
Assistance Art. 

The AID grant is also under investigation by the Justice 
Department based on pro-life charges of violation of Church 
and State. 

EVERY CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR should be 
sent a copy of the Los Supermachos cover with details of AID 
funding and a request that he support a FULL Congressional 
inquiry into the anti-life activities of the Agency for Inter- 
national Development's Abortion- Sterilization-Population Con- 
trol programs abroad. Coalition Los Supermachos reprints 
are available at cost: 20 cents each. USCL No. 132. 

Editor's Note: The origin of Los Supermachos is Mexico. 
On December 12, 1972, the Mexican Bishops issued a Pastoral 
letter on Responsible Parenthood in which they welcomed the 
government's announced Family Planning Program and laid 



special emphasis on the married couple's inalienable right to 
decide its family's size in accordance with the concrete circum- 
stances of their lives. (Full text available from the Division for 
Latin America of the USCC.) 

According to a ZPG report, the author of this booklet, 
Lie. Octavio Colmenacres says he received a letter of congratu- 
lations from the head of the family planningoff ice of the Mexi- 
can government's Secretariat of Health and Assistance. 

Additionally, the International Planned Parenthood Fed- 
eration has its anti-life rear in full gear in Mexico and there have 
been an assortment of statements on the use of Mex ican women 
to test new "contraceptive" agents which will probably be 
abortifacient in nature. 

The Coalition thus commends the following sobering re- 
flection by Anthony Zimmerman of Japan to the Mexican bish- 
ops and other pro-life colleagues at home and abroad as well: 
". . . in the context of today's INSTANT POPULATION 
CONTROL programs, which are detonating abortion ex- 
plosions all over the world, a Bishop might find himself, 
sadly, the camp of pro-abortionists from the moment he 
joins the anti-population clique. He might be excused 
because of ignorance; but we hope that Bishops will not 
be ignorant, to the detrimentand death-of the unborn. 
Dreamers and naive people might still believe that it is 
possible to launch a national population control policy 
successfully via mass media, the manipulation of public 
opinion, and economic inventives, with the expectation 
that no great increase in abortions will follow; but 
country after country has exploded the dream. THE 
HARD FACT IS THAT ANTI-BIRTH POLICY AND 
ABORTION IS A PACKAGE PURCHASE: YOU 
CAN'T BUY ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER . . ." 

from A Criticism of Assumptions and Objections 
of the Manila Population Seminar May 9, 1973 
Nagaya, Japan 



"Children's Aid Society - Vanguard for the Unborn" 

The Children's Aid Society and all such societies should 
come forward to speak on behalf of the rights of the unborn 
and the sanctity of all human life. "Let us protect the unborn, 
intact and deformed. Let us protect the unborn, illegitimate 
or high-born. Let us protect the unborn, wanted or unwanted. 
Let us proclaim as a Children's Aid Society that we are for life 
and preservation of life." 

These stirring words were taken from a 34-page Brief to 
the Board of Directors of the Ottawa Children's Aid Society 
prepared by David Dehler of Ottawa, a legal advocate for the 
unborn child. 

A summary of the Brief is available from the Coalition. 
(USCL Reprint No. 128-50 cents) 

Retarded Patients and Sterilization and Abortion Counselling 
Writing in the Canadian Family Physician, March, 1973 
issue, Mr. Charles W. Smiley, the chief social worker at the 
Rockwood Mental Retardation Unit of Kingston Psychiatric 
Hospital, Kingston, Ontario attempts to provide some basic 



guidelines to family physicians in the area of the retarded and 
sterilization and abortion counceling. 

The two mainareasof concern of Mr. Smiley center upon 
(1) the improvement of the retarded patient's physical and 
emotional health by eliminating or limiting the stress of child 
bearing and rearing and (2) the PRIMARY prevention of poten 
tially severe mental retardation in certain high risk pregnancies. 

According to Mr. Smiley, retarded persons capable of liv- 
ing in the community are almost always willing to be sterilized 
or have "therapeutic abortions". If the IQ of the patient is 
under 55, consent must be obtained from the family, or if no 
next-of-kin is available the superintendent of the institution in 
consultation with another medical person. 

Among the recommendations offered are that sterilization 
and abortion be recommended and be easily available for 
retardates when their IQ is less than 55. This should apply also 
to retardates with an IQ range of 55 to 70 where significant 
emotional instability factors are present. Grounds for abortion 
also include "deleterious effect" on the health of the mother 



71 



who must care for a retarded child. Here Smiley mentions the 
new "preventative" techniques such as amniocentesis to make 



"Intervention" more reliable and selective. Mr. Smiley's IQ is 
not indicated in the article. 



"European Birthrate Declines" 

It is not advisable to permit the birthrate on the Conti- 
nent to drop any lower advises Dr. Leon Tabah of the Pans 
National Institute of Demographic Studies. Two factors cited 
as having the most influence on birth control practices are (1) 



socioprofessional status of each couple - the higher the 
husband's income, the more numerous the children and (2) the 
working or non-working status of the wife - difficult working 
conditions outside the home for wives depress the birth rate. 
(Medical World News 4/27/73) 



"Mental Health and Sweden - the Malthusian State" 

In People! Challenge to Survival, William Vogt, a former 
President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America 
(PP WPI cites Malthusian Sweden as an example of the ideal 
population control state. No doubt he must have turned thrice- 
over in his grave when the Department of Social Affairs in 
Sweden recently concluded that 25% of the total Swedish pop- 
ulation is in need of psychiatric treatment, that alcoholism has 
risen 424% in a decade; that suicide among the young and 
middle-aged has almost doubled in less than 20 years; that 
there is widespread dissatisfaction among young mothers in 



maternity wards on how to cope with their newborns after they 
leave the hospital and other problems related to young people 
including drug ingestion. (L.A. Times, 4/1 1/73) 

Thus while Swedish dollars flow into an assortment of 
international population control schemes including the United 
Nations Fund for Population Activity in order to help develop- 
ing countries in their struggle against the predominance of 
people, the Swedish Department of Social Affairs has recom- 
mended that there be an extensive mental health campaign in 
order to cure the people and relieve their stress and strains 
prompted, in part at least, by their Malthusian values so ap- 
propriately detailed in Vogt's anti-life classic. 



S The United States Coalition for Life joins with Prince 

P Juan Carlos to honor the pro-life activities of Dr. Soroa Pineda 
A of Madrid. 

I Dr. Pineda has recently authored "El Aborto es un Cri- 

N men" (Abortion is a Crime) and is engaged in creating the de- 
sign and printing of a pro-life stamp to be used throughout the 
world in three languages - English, Spanish and French. 

The Coalition has been in contact with Dr. Pineda and 
the French "Laissez les Vivres", as well as pro-life groups and 
individuals throughout Canada, Latin and South America, India, 
Ireland, and England in order to form a World League for the 



Defense of Lite. Our initial project is to establish communica- 
tion bases in every nation of the world so as to exchange infor- 
mation on such topics as international laws on abortion and 
strategy for the 1974 World Population Conference. The USCL 
will issue a special mailing on the 1974 World Population Con- 
ference-Year in September. 

We ask that you send a sampling of your newsletter and 
available literature to: 

Dr. Antonio De Soroa Y Pineda 

Jenner, 8 

Madrid - 4 Espana 



London — The population of the United Kingdom increased by 
only 131 ,000 last year. Births declined by an astonishing 7.7%, 
while the death rate was higher than usual. (World 7/31/73) 

Japan — The Supreme Court decision has hurt anti-abortion 
sentiment in Japan. In June of 1972, the Diet was prepared to 
pass an amendment to eliminate economic reasons for abortion, 
but the move was unsuccessful since the opposition party was 
blocking practically all bills before the election. 

In late May, the Mainichi Daily News carried a feature, 
"Lib, Pills and Morals in Abortion Discussion" based on the 
current struggle for revision of the Eugenic Protection Law. 

The Institute of Population Problems has stated that af- 
ter the last world war there have been 8 abortions for every 10 



births in Japan. Newspapers are carrying an increasing number 
of stories of the desertion of newborns as well as pregnant wo- 
men of seven and eight months who are trying to be talked out 
of abortions and give their child to a childless couple seeking 
adoption. 

The revision is directed at both the economic clause for 
abortion, as well as the "fetus" clause permitting about to eli- 
minate defective unborn. The latter drive is being launched by 
handicapped people who see the killing of imperfect beings as 
being discriminatory and in violation of the equality of all men 
guaranteed in the Constitution. 

Women's Lib protestors have staged layins in Japanese 
ministry offices stating that contraception and abortion are 
necessary to give them full control of their own bodies. 



Zimmerman's Works Now Available - The Coalition is proud to announce that a number of Anthony Zimmerman's (SVD. STD.) 
works on population and abortion are currently being reprinted for use by pro-life researchers. 

"How to Get 6,000 Abortions a Day" (USCL Reprint No. 1 16 - 50 cents) 

"Population Growth Can't Be As Bad As All That" (USCL Reprint 129-90 cents) 

"The Manila Population Seminar - A Critique" (USCL Reprint No. 131) 

Also available: Japan's 22 Year Experience With A Liberal Abortion Law, Marriage and Family Newsletter, Box 6066, 
Collegeville, Mn. 56321 - $1.25 each. 



72 

REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS 

Research in Prostaglandins - Published by the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology. 222 Maple Ave., Shrewsbury, Mass. 
01545 and the Population Information Program of George Washington University Medical Center, 2001 S Street, N.W. Suite 702, 
Washington, D.C./No Charge. 

Contains data on the clinical use of prostaglandins in fertility control research 1970-1972. The report based on studies involv- 
ing endogenous prostaglandins, human tissue IN VITRO, and animals was financed by the U.S. Agency for International Develop- 
ment (AID). 



World Health Organization and Human Reproduction Research - Pro-life physicians will be particularly interested in the WHO's 
projects relating to fertility control. Projects involving^bortifacient research, the implantation process, sperm regulation, ovulation 
detection, and the sequelae of abortion and vasal occlusion. 

The WHO has initiated a number of task forces in these and related areas concerning human reproduction, and has established 
at least 20 reproductive research centers including one in Los Angeles at Women's Hospital, USC Medical Center (prostaglandins). 
Pro-life physicians and researchers wishing to obtain additional information concerning membership on such task forces and 
participation in WHO's program should write: Richard Wilson, M.D. 

Human Reproduction Unit 

World Health Organization 

1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland 



Center for Disease Control: Abortion Surveillance Report - published by the Department of HEW and available without charge 
from: PHMHA, Center for Disease Control, Epidemiology Program, Family Planning Evaluation Branch, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. 
Well known abortion advocates and abortitoriums make contributions to this government publication. Pro-life input is necessary 
and should be sent directly to CDC Director, David J. Sencer, M.D. after reviewing samples of the report. 

Abortion Research Notes published by the International Reference Center for Abortion Research, 8555 — 16th St, Silver Spring, 
Md. 20910. Available on request. The Center was organized in mid- 1972 by the Washington Office of AIR/Transnational Family 
Research Institute. Leading abortion advocates such as Dr. M. Potts and Dr. C. Tietze sit on the I RCAR international advisory board. 
This publication is an excellent source of anti-life references and information. 

Population Dynamics Quarterly — A new publication of the International Program for Population Analysis. Available on request 
from the Smithsonian Institute, Interdisciplinary Communications Program, 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036. 
(English, French or Spanish editions issued simultaneously.) 

Family Planning/Population Reporter — A Review of State Laws and Policies. Published bi-monthly by Planned Parenthood. Avail- 
able on request from: Center for Family Planning Program Development, 1660 L. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Provides 
an excellent listing of current legislation related to abortion, contraception, sterilization and population control. Also included is 
information on hearings, health and welfare policies, court decisions and government programs in the above areas. Editorials anti- 
life bias throughout. 

Population Report — Available on request from: The Population Information Program, George Washington University Medical Cen- 
ter, 2001 S St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009. Program funded by AID. Information on a variety of topics related to fertility con- 
trol including prostaglandins, abortion, and intrauterine devices. Order information by topic. 



Pro- Life Materials 

The Great American Stork Market Crash by Frances Freeh. Published by Liguori Publications, Liguori, Mo. 63057 $1.50. One 
of the finest pro-life works on population control. The author is Missouri's representative on the National Right to Life Committee, 
Inc. 

The Best of Father Paul Marx, author of the classic, The Death Peddlers is now on cassettes. Topics include abortion and euthanasia. 
For details write: Right to Life, 2550 Via Tejon, Palos Verdes Estates, Cal. 90274, Tel. (213) 378-5243. 

Natural Family Planning editor's packet. Excellent material for newsletters and general membership. Write: Human Life Founda- 
tion, Larry Kane, Director, 1776 K. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. 

Population Growth - The Advantages by Colin Clark. Find population resource book which is as readable as it is accurate and infor- 
mative. A companion guide to Robert Sassone's Handbook on Population. Order both from L.I.F.E., 900 N. Broadway, Suite 725, 
Santa Ana. Cal. 92701. 



73 



U.S. Coalition for Life was created to serve as a national and 
international clearing house for Pro-Life organizations and 
individuals seeking information, documentation, research 
materials in the areas of population control euthanasia, genetic 
engineering, abortion and related areas. Its primary function 
is that of service. 

The U.S.C.L, Reprint Service is designed to provide docu- 
mentation and resource materials for the Pro- Life Movement 
Costs include both copying and postage expenses. All reprints 
are to be used as study copies only. In the case of copyrighted 
materials, permission must be obtained from the publisher or 
author directly, except for brief quotes which may be used with 



proper credit. Portions of Newsletter may be reproduced with 
proper credit 

ATTENTION 
New subscription rate will become effective September 1, 1973. 

Individual subscription: $5.00 a year. 

Organization subscription: $25.00 a year. 

Bulk rate for August issue: $.50 each. 

Back issues: $.25 each. 

REMINDER 

This is the last complimentary copy to be made available 
togroupsand pro-life individuals who are not USCL subscribers. 



COMING EVENTS 

Special Fall issue and mailings on Population Education including: 

The Rockefeller Population Packet 

Harvard's Plan-A-Fam classroom game 

The Anti-Lifers Invade the Classroom 

as well as the latest information on World Population Year - and Conference 1974. 



74 



Vol. 3 No. 6 
Spring, 1974 



Randy Engel, Editor 



Published by: U.S. Coalition for Life Educational Fund • Box 315, Export, Pa. 15632 




S. 1708 - H.R. 11511* 
A PROLIFE GUIDE TO FEDERAL ANTILIFE ABUSES 



Coalition Testimony on H.R. 11511 - March 8, 1974 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON S.1708 AND H.R. 11511 

Mr. Chairman: Members of the subcommittee: I am Randy 
Engel, Executive Director of the United States Coalition for 
Life, and lam offering this testimony on HR 11511, the Health 
Revenue Sharing and Health Services Act of 1973 on behalf of 
the United States Coalition for Life, an international research 
agency and clearing house on all aspects of population control 
and so-called government "family planning" legislation and 
programs. My remarks will be directed primarily to Title III. 
The Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1973. 
Background 

In order that my testimony be viewed in its proper context, 
I wish to comment briefly on the manner in which the public 
hearings on HR 11511 were conducted and my general obser- 
vations and experience with its companion bill in the Senate. 
S. 1708, the Family Planning and Population Research Act of 
1973. now before the Labor and Public Welfare Committee. 

The interest and concern of the United States Coalition for 
Life in the Senate and House version of the Family Planning 
and Population Research Act of 1973 and similar measures is a 
matter of public record. 

On May 8, 9 and 10. 1973 the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public 
Welfare held public hearings on HR 11511's companion bill 
S. 1708. 

As with the similar hearings on family planning — popula- 
tion control such as the pioneer Gruening Committee hearings 
on S. 1676 of the mid-60's and Cranston hearings on S.J.R. 
108 calling for a national policy of "population stabilization", 
the hearings on S. 1708 were carefully orchestrated so as to 
produce an overwhelming record in favor of continued and 
expanded federal family planning-population programs. 

On the afternoon of May 10, 1974, the last day of the 
hearings, I was permitted approximately twelve minutes of 
hearing time to present an oral summary of my testimony for 
the U.S. Coalition for Life as part of a "pro-life" panel of 
approximately one hour duration. 

My full testimony consisted of a summary of violations of 
the 1970 Family Planning and Population Services Bill 
(Tydings Act) by governmental and private entities and a 



documented brief in support of the charges which was given to 
Senator Alan Cranston, at the conclusion of my oral presenta- 
tion, for inclusion in the final record. 

Gentlemen, the record for S1708 hearings have been 
published. I draw your attention to the fact that not only 
was my documentation excluded but that there is no indication 
that such documentation is contained in the files of Senator 
Cranston's subcommittee office. I am sure you would welcome 
Senator Cranston's explanation on this matter should he chose 
to reply. 

CALL FOR CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION 

My testimony on S. 1708 was designed not only to sub- 
stantiate charges of violations of the Tydings Bill but moreover 
to provide the impetus for a full Congressional investigation 
of the multitude of abuses of government population control 
programs which run the gamut from abortifacient research to 
violations of civil and constitutional rights, from fertility 
control experimentation on the poor to promotion of the 
Sangerite credo and others. 

Since my appearance before Senator Cranston last year, 
there have been three major events to support such an investi- 
gation of the entire spectrum of federal family planning-popula- 
tion control programs, namely (1) the involuntary sterilization 
of two black girls in Montgomery, Alabama and welfare women 
in Aiken County, South Carolina, (2) the National Institutes of 
Health investigation and debate on fetal experimentation and 
(3) federal grand jury indictment of Louisiana's Birth Control 
Czar, Joe D. Beasley, M.D. for alleged mishandling of $12.2 
million in federal family planning grants. 



"As of May 20, 1974 H.R. 11511 (incl. Title III) 
has been withdrawn and H.R. 14214 (Title II - the 
Family Planning and Population Research Act of 
1974) offered as a substitute bill. It is scheduled 
to go before the full House Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce for markup. No hearings are 
scheduled by Rep. Rogers' Subcommittee on Public 
Health and Environment. 



75 



Thus far Secretary of Health, trocation and Welfare 
Casper Weinberger has chosen to evade a Coalition request for 
an impartial investigation, referring the matter instead of the 
office of Louis Hellman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Population Affairs.' J Likewise, Senator Henry Jackson of 
the Subcommittee on Governmental Activities has refused to 
take up the matter. 3 We are currently exploring other avenues 
including of course you. Representative Rogers, as both 
sponsor of HR 11511 and chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Public Health and Environment. So much for S. 1708. 

Now let us turn briefly to the matter of public hearings on 
HR 11511 held for six days beginning on Thursday, February 
14th and concluding on Friday, February 22, 1974. As I 
mentioned earlier, our interest in bills related to family planning 
and population control are a matter of public record. 

On November 1, 1973 I received a reply from clerk W. E. 
Williamson of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce to my request to testify at future hearings related 
to federal family planning programs including H.R. 3381 
(Mr. Dellums). 4 

Similarly on November 5th I received a communication 
from Lee S. Hyde, M.D. also a committee staff member 
confirming hearing information on H.R. 6021 (Mr. Dellums) 
and H.R. 6139 (Mr. duPont). 5 

Additionally I understand that members of Life Lobby Inc. 



met with Representative' Rogers on January 22, 1974 and 
expressed an interest in testifying at future sub-committee 
hearings on family planning and related measures. Their names 
were to be added to the clerk's register. 

How is it then, that with the exception of Msgr. McHugh of 
the USCC, neither the U.S. Coalition for Life, or Life Lobby 
nor any other independent pro-life group was informed of the 
hearing date or invited to give testimony on H.R. 1 1511 while 
a litany of well-known anti-life agencies including Planned 
Parenthood and Zero Population Growth were given an oppor- 
tunity to air their views on this piece of legislation. I believe a 
detailed explanation of the reason for omitting pro-life 
groups' testimony at the public hearings should be entered by 
the Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Paul Rogers and Committee 
Clerk Williamson, since there appears to be some disagreement 
as to who is responsible for the "oversight". Such an explana- 
tion is necessary to dissipate fears that the hearings were 
"rigged" so as to make an overwhelming case for continued 
and expanded family planning and population control programs 
via H.R. 11511 or the Administration bill sponsored by Javits 
in the Senate (S. 1632) and to silence the opposition to such 
measures. 6 

I hope this background information will be helpful to all 
subcommittee members and that it will provide a suitable 
backdrop for my remarks on H.R. 1 1 51 1 . 



TITLE III - THE FAMILY PLANNING AND POPULATION RESEARCH ACT OF 1973 

The official position of the United States Coalition for Life — in principle and in practice — is one of opposition to Title III — the 
Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1973 and all similar measures which feed the ever expanding population control 
bureaucracy of the Federal Government leading to a host of anti-life programs and practices. Such activities continue to flourish 
even amidst specific congressional legislation designed to curb such abuses. 



I welcome this opportunity to highlight some of the more 
gross violations of the Tydings Bill and to support my charges 
with the necessary documentation. So that I may be assured 
that my documentation will not meet with the same fate as 
the documentation provided for S. 1708, I have attempted to 



keep such material to the minimum needed to substantiate my 
charges. Additional documentation of footnoted materials is 
available to both the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
Committee as well as the Senate Labor and Public Welfare 
Committee. 



VIOLATION OF ABORTION PROHIBITION AMENDMENT 



The 1970 Family Planning and Population Service Act 

(P.L. 91-572) contained the following provision: 

(Title X. "Sec. 1008 None of the funds appropriated 
under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is 
a method of family planning.") 
The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1972 HEW 

Appropriations Act (P.L. 92-80, 92nd Cong.), 1st Sess. (1971) 

expressed the following intent: 

"The Committee of Conference is agreed that in population 
research, the prohibition in Title X of abortion as a method 
of family planning should not be construed so as to prevent 
scientific research into the causes of abortion and its effects 
H.R. Rep. No. 92-461, 92nd Congress, 1st Sess. 8(197!)." 
The question of violation — of the spirit and letter of the 

Abortion Prohibition Amendment therefore, involves three 

basic criteria. 

First, the definition of abortion as used in the amendment. 



Second, the overall intent and language of the abortion 
prohibition amendment 

Third, the overall intent and language of the Conference 
Committee Report section on "scientific research . . ." 
First — At the time of the passage of the Abortion Prohibition 
Amendment the following definition of abortion by the 
Department of HEW was known to be in effect. 

Abortion "all the measures which impair the via- 
bility of the zygote at any time between the 
instant of fertilization and the completion of labor 
constitute in the strict sense, procedures for 
inducing abortion." (U.S. Dept. of Health, Educa- 
tion and Welfare, Public Health Service, publica- 
tion 1066 (Washington, 1963), p. 27) 
No distinction is made between surgical techniques and 
abortion accomplished by drugs or devices. Thus, it would 
appear that any drugs or device whose primary mode of action 



57-782 O - 76 



76 



was abortifacient in nature would be preceded from family 
planning programs in which abortion was prohibited. 

Thus the Abortion Prohibition Amendment posed a dilemma 
for those who wished to incorporate abortion measures (parti- 



cularly non-surgical ^TCthods) into family planning programs 
funded under Title X, and at the same time desired to avoid 
charges of violating the prohibition. 



REDEFINING ABORTION 



The impass was resolved by a re-defining of abortion and 
related terms by the Department of HEW. 

In November 1973, Family Planning Digest, a publication 
of the Bureau of Community Health Services Administration, 
U.S. Dept. of HEW, edited by Planned Parenthood - World 
Population, published "A Glossary of Family Planning Ter- 
minology." 

The glossary was approved by the National Family Planning 
Forum in May, 1973 and was developed by the Forum's 
Committee on Terminology chaired by Dr. Louise B. Tyrer of 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 
Other Committee members included Dr. Lu Davis (N.J.), Dr. 
Theodore Scurletis (N.C.), Dr J. King Seegar (MD.) and 
Frederick S. Jaffee of P.P. - W.P. (N.Y.) 

The glossary includes the following terminology: 

Conception - Implantation of the blastocyst. Not synonymous 

with fertilization (from Obstetric Gynecologic Terminology, 

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). 

Fertilization - Union of the male sperm cell and the female 

ovum. 
Pregnancy - State of a female after conception until termina- 
tion of gestation. 
Abortion — Expulsion or extraction of all (complete) or any 
part (incomplete) of the placenta or membranes without an 
identifiable fetus or with a live born infant or a stillborn 
infant weighing less than 500 gm. In the absence of known 



weight, an estimated length of gestation of less than 20 

completed weeks (130 days or less), calculated from the 

first day of the last normal menstrual period may be used. 

Abortion is a term referring to the culmination of the birth 

process before the twentieth completed week of gestation. 

Fertility Regulation — Medical and nonmedical techniques that 

enable individuals to engage in voluntary planning and action 

to have the number of children they want, when and if 

they want them. These techniques include contraception, 

infertility diagnosisand treatment, abortion and sterilization. 

Similarly, on November 16, 1973, the National Institute of 

Health of the Department of HEW published "Protection of 

Human Subjects" in the Federal Register (Vol. 38, No. 221). 

The NIH glossary included the following definitions: 

Pregnancy - encompasses the period of time from implanta- 
tion until delivery . . . 
Fetus — means the product of conception from the time of 
implantation to the time of delivery from the uterus. 
Having then re defined conception and pregnancy as begin- 
ning with implantation rather than fertilization, early abortion 
techniques which go under the euphanism of "menstrual extrac 
tion" or "hormonal interception" 7 or "post-conceptive fertility 
control 8 or abortion achieved by drugs such as Diethylstil- 
bestrol (DES) (Morning-after-pill) or by devices such as the 
IUD 9 - '0. II are permitted to be funded under Title X, 
Sec. 1008. 



PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND TITLE X FUNDING 



Secondly, let us examine the language and intent of the 
Abortion Prohibition Amendment. 

On February 14, 1974, a memo was sent from the Education 
and Public Welfare Division of the Congressional Research 
Service of the Library of Congress to the Honorable John H. 
Dent (acting under a request from the U.S. Coalition for Life). 

The substance of the memo centered upon the funding of 
Planned Parenthood - Los Angeles under the Tydings Act 
(1970 Family Planning and Population Services Act). 12 

The memo reads in part, ". . . please note that the question 
pertaining to P.P. - L.A.'s performing abortions or providing 
abortion counseling is not mentioned. Since P.P. - L.A. is 
funded through the Tydings Act. SUCH ABORTION RELAT- 
ED ACTIVITIES AS MENTIONED ABOVE ARE PROHIB- 
ITED BY LAW . Therefore, that particular question is not 
germaine." (emphasis added) 

I believe that the CRS memo accurately reflects both the 
letter and the spirit of the Abortion Prohibition Amendment. 

The question of abortion-related activities of PP LA IS 
germaine since Planned Parenthood - Los Angeles engages in 
such activities, while receiving funding under the Tydings Act. 

I ask that the contents of the attached article "The Abortion 
Kick-backs" be examined with great care by this subcom 
mittee. Reporter, Roger Rappaport of New Times makes two 



serious charges against PP-LA. I quote in part 

"Planned Parenthood- Los Angeles was violating the 
terms of its federal grant in two ways. First, it was receiving 
a second payment for "psychological testing and evaluation" 
of abortion patients, not permissible under the terms of its 
grant. Second, it was failing to report this income to the 
federal government. Both these violations could result in 
termination of the government funding. More important, if 
there was appropriation of unreported revenue by an execu- 
tive of a federally funded organization, this could lead to 
felony prosecution." 

The Coalition believes that it is the responsibility of this 
subcommittee, prior to reporting HR11511, to thoroughly 
investigate this charge of abuse and misuse of Title X funds and 
if necessary subpoena the records of PP-LA officials and the 
evidence of Mr. Rappaport as outlined in his article. 

However if such an investigation is to have any meaning at 
all, then PP-LA's activities must be viewed in the larger context 
of the Policies and programs of the parent agency — Planned 
Parenthood - World Population, New York City. 

The role of Planned Parenthood-World Population in 
abortion is candidly discussed by the agency's medical director 
George Langmyhr, M.D., in an article by the same name written 
in 1971. < 4 I enter this article in full as part of my testimony. 



77 



Langmyhr namely (1) that "most professionals and volunteers 

J associated with Planned Parenthood have accepted, for a long 

time, the necessity of abortfon as an integral part of any 

complete or total family planning program,'' since P.P. clinic 

..personnel cannot avoid dilemmas posed by legitimate method 

'failure, or any type of unwanted pregnancy", (2) "that while 

P.P. as a non-profit, tax-exempt agency is specifically unable 

to lobby or overtly attempt to achieve legislation reform"; 

. P.P. 's volunteers andprofessionals such as Or. Alan Guttmacher 

, can actively participate in advocating abortion law change and 

• (3) that P.P. helped prepare various legal briefs which have 

; been presented to the courts as a means of effecting change. 

i-Dr. Langmyhr cites one major effort in California regarding 

. the ability of a minor to consent to an abortion. 

Dr. Langmyhr substantiates Planned Parenthood's long- 

standing involvement in programs of "abortion information, 

[-counseling and referral "which were "necessarily unpublicized." 

>te also details quite explicitly Planned Parenthood's role in 

tabortion "reform" in California and the establishment of a 

I subsidiary Aboritorium unit known as the San Francisco 

^Center for Legal Abortion. Likewise, P.P.'s abortion-related 

activities are highlighted in Colorado and New York City. 

". Details are also provided on the Syracuse Planned Parenthood 

Abortion Clinic.' 5 

- Dr. Langmyhr concludes with the hope that abortion will 
tfcecome even more available and that Planned Parenthood 
•"supports repeal of "outdated abortion laws." 

Recently Planned Parenthood set up an Abortion Service 
Loan Fund and Technical Assistance Program of $1 million for 
the purpose of initiating abortion services or expanding existing 
facilities. 

According to Alfred S. Moran, executive vice president of 
Planned Parenthood, NYC, out of 172 P.P. affiliates providing 
medical services, eight are performing abortions and 12 others 
are setting up services and most do abortion referrals. He 
expresses sadness at the fact many P.P. affiliates have not been 
more aggressive in providing low cost, non-profit clinics in 
their communities. (from "Abortion — One Year After 
Supreme Court Decision", Contemporary Ob/Gyn Jan. 1974, 
pp. 26-40.I 

Planned Parenthood's basic tenet that abortion is an impor- 
tant aspect of total "family planning" is spelled out in its 
Guidelines for Pregnancy and Abortion Counseling issued by 
the National Medical Committee, PP-WP. 16 



In the Pljnn^^arenthnod Nm York City brochure 
outlining its Family Planning Centers we note that in 1971 
PP/NYC opened "the first large scale comprehensive family 
planning center in the U.S. As such, it will be a prototype . . . 
and will stimulate the conversion of so-called abortion clinics 
into facilities that will provide comprehensive birth control 
services, not only abortion ... the facility is designed to 
perform 8,000 to 10,000 early abortions a year . . ."17 

The latest P.P.-W.P. letter form carries a statement of 
purpose which reads in part, to provide leadership 

"in making effective means of voluntary fertility control, 

including contraception, abortion and sterilization, available 

and fully accessible to all. " 1 8 

Mr. Chairman, members of this subcommittee — Does 
Planned Parenthood believe and incorporate into its programs 
and policy, abortion, as a means of family planning? The 
answer clearly is yes. Does Planned Parenthood and its 
affiliates receive extensive funding under Title X. The answer 
is clearly yes. I would ask at this point that Rep. Rogers enter 
into the record a complete financial audit of PP-WP and its 
affiliates, receiving funding under this title, i.e. Title X of the 
Tydings Act, by the General Services Administration to 
substantiate my statement. 

And lastly - does such funding constitute a violation of the 
contract of such agencies receiving funding under the Tydings 
Act either directly or indirectly through HEW Family Planning 
Regional Councils? We believe the answer must again be yes. 
Do you, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee 
concur? If so, how would you amend Title III of HR 1 1511 to 
prohibit such violations? If not, why not? 

I would like to interject at this point the related articles 
18 and 19 which discuss the relationship between abortion and 
contraceptive practice since I understand previous witnesses 
have argued that increased federal funding of contraception 
and sterilization programs will decrease the need for abortion. 
Such statements are made in historical vacuum since experience 
shows that while abortion and contraceptive programs are 
mutually competitive, they are also mutually stimulating. 
The end of this is usually sterilization. Thus if the federal 
government goes with the business of birth prevention on the 
massive scale in which it is currently engaged, it will be drawn 
deeper and deeper into programs of massive abortion and 
sterilization and ultimately euthanasia. The latter to deal with 
a rapidly aging population. 



ABORTION RESEARCH LOOPHOLE 



Let us proceed to point three, regarding the language and 
intention of the House Conference Report relating to "scientific 
research into the causes of abortion and its effects." 

The critical issue here is whether or nof this clause permits 
the funding under the Tydings Bill of the research, develop 
ment and clinical testing of new abortion techniques since a 
technique is neither "a cause" nor "an effect". 

In a letter dated Jan. 20. 1972 to Senator Richard Schweiker, 
Dr. Louis Hellman states there is "no Federal policy concerning 
abortion research" and ". . . research to increase the safety of 



the procedure is a proper activity." He admits however that 
abortion research is funded through the Center for Population 
Research, NIH, Dept. of HEW. 

In a letter dated February 10, 1972 from Philip Corfman, 
M.D., Director of the Center for Population Research to 
Congressman John G. Schmitz, Dr. Corfman gives a slightly 
different reply on the question of whether or not the Abortion 
Prohibition Amendment of Title X covers clinical abortions 
and the research and development of new abortion techniques. 

I submit the three letters for the record. i0 - 21 ' 22 



78 



The funding of research, development and clinical testing of new abortion techniques is extensive and well-documented. Regret- 
ably, most Congressmen and Senators are totally ignorant to the extent of the committment of the Federal Government to aggres- 
sive chemical warfare on unborn children and to the relationship between federal agencies and drug firms which reap vast financial 
gain from the marketing of abortifacient drugs and devices. 



I wish to enter into the record a letter dated March 1, 
1972 from the Senator from Nebraska, Roman L. Hruska to a 
Coalition member regarding the role of the Federal government 
in the development of chemical "prostaglandins" for induced 
abortions. 23 

According to Sen. Hruska he had been in touch with HEW 
on this matter and, "Federal funds are not supporting the 
research into prostaglandins, and the use of this drug has not in 
any way been approved by the Federal Government." He 
concludes with the thought that his constituent does not have 
to be concerned about a problem that "doesn't exist". 

For the benefit of Sen. Hruska and others who labor under 
similar misinformation, I take this opportunity to set the 
record straight. 

First, federal funds, that is tax dollars including funds from 
the Tydings Bill, have in fact been used to research, to develop 



and to carry out clinical testing of prostaglandins for the pur- 
pose of induced abortions. Secondly, the Food and Drug 
Administration, at the time of Sen. Hruska's letter, had approv- 
ed the clinical testing by the UpJohn Company of Kalamazoo, 
Michigan. 

Evidence to support these charges are found in the 1971 
and 1972 Inventory of Federal Population Research prepared 
in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop- 
ment by the Center for Population Research headed by Philip 
Corfman, M.D. I include for the record the pages of these 
reports 24 giving full details on prostaglandin research and 
clinical testing by both the NIH and the Agency for Interna- 
tional Development, as well as published articles on such 
federally funded research and clinical testing of prostaglandin 
abortions which usually result in the delivery of live babies, 
whose skin may then be used as a medium for tissue cultures 25 
and future experimentation. 



TAXPAYER UNDERWRITES UPJOHN ABORTION RESEARCH 



I draw your attention in particular to those prostaglandin 
contracts made directly to UpJohn Researchers specifically - 

(Da four year contract from the NIH in 1969 to John 
Johnston of the UpJohn Company. Total project cost: 
$200,587. HD 92208 

(2)a 1971 contract to Kenneth Kirton of the UpJohn Com- 
pany for $41,91 3. HD 12224 

Ola 1972 contract to Kenneth Kirton of the UpJohn 
Company for $50,247 HD-12224 

(4|a 1972 contract to J.W. Wilks of the UpJohn Company 
for $88,140. HD-92208 

On November 26. 1973 The Food and Drug Administration 
approved Prostin F2 for "Therapeutic Abortion". The 
application had been filed by the UpJohn Company, Kalama- 
zoo, Michigan. 26 According to Medical World News/Dec. 
28, 1973 the abortifacient drug will be used primarily in 
university based hospitals. 

To date the best known of these clinical testing areas are the 
University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill 
(Dr. C.H. Hendricks and Dr. William E. Brenner) and the 
Washington University Medical School. St. Louis (Dr. Arpad I. 
Csapo.) These institutions and these key researchers have all 
been recipients of federal research grants in the area of prosta- 
glandins for induced abortion. 

The research office of the U.S. Coalition for Life can pro- 
vide in addition to the enclosed two articles, 27 - 28 at least 



a dozen grant-contract descriptions of federally funded (AID 
and NIH) abortifacient research to this subcommittee. 

The American taxpayer has funded these anti-life institu 
tions, these researchers and the UpJohrf Company (who provid- 
ed the abortifacient for testing) thus contributing to the speed 
with which the abortifacient product was approved by the 
FDA for marketing on an international scale. 

Yet these tax funds were used without any legislative 
authority and in spite of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. 

We recommend, therefore, that in the future Congress 
specifically prohibit such funding through concrete legislative 
action and exert similar curbs on the financing of abortifacient 
and sterilization clinical testing and drug-company related 
activities, particularly research. 

Clearly, family planning legislation, whether under this Title 
or others, requires that anti-abortion prohibition sections be 
both comprehensive in their scope (i.e. they exclude aborti 
facient research and clinical testing and the funding of 
organizations such as Planned Parenthood-World Population 
and its affiliates which include abortion and related activities 
as part of comprehensive family planning services) and explicit 
in intent as well as language. 

As a means of dramatizing the need for more stringent 
legislation, in the light of the large number of anti-life HEW 
(and AID) officials which dominate this Administration, I will 
briefly highlight our agencies experience in researching a single 
NIH abortion research contract. 



NIH - DEVELOPMENT OF ABORTION TECHNIQUES 



The contract is listed on page 46 of the 1972 Inventory of 
Federal Population Research, under the heading of Zygote 



Transport, Pre-implantation Development, and Implantation. 
Numbered 178 - the contract is titled STUDY IN EXPERI- 



79 



MENTAL METHODS INTERRUPTINfJ^^EGNANCY (Rats. 
Rabbits) HEW-NIH Contract HD-02306. The three year con- 
tract (6/70-6/72) totaled $81,700 and was awarded to Dr. 
Robert L. Brent of Thomas Jefferson U. in Philadelphia. 

A Playboy Forum 1972 news brief carrying the title "Zap, 
You're Aborted" and . datelined Philadelphia, notes that 
"microwave radiation has been usjd to terminate pregnancies 
in rats" and that the technique might be applied as safe, quick 
and "noninvasive" abortifacient for humans. The article men- 
tions Dr. Brent's experiments using a modified standard 
microwave oven to raise the temperature of a pregnant female 
rat's uterus resulting in the resorption of the embryo with no 
apparent harm to the mother. 

Earlier, the March 26, 1971 issue of Science in an article by 
Robert Gillette on the alleged inadequacies of federal popula- 
tion funding noted that the NIH Contraceptive Research 
Branch was currently funding a project "to explore the use of 
microwaves and ultra-sound in performing abortions." 

Hellman's Answers - In a letter dated April 12, 1972 to the 
Honorable Bob Mathias, Dr. Louis Hellman stated that the 
(Brentl study is being conducted on rats and rabbits "in order 
to discover if slight increases in temperature of the pregnant 
uterus, induced by microwaves, affect fetal survival," and to 
learn if microwaves have a "deleterious effect on the fetus". 29 
Corfman Answers - In a letter dated March 28, 1972, Dr. 
Philip Corfman replies to Mr. Christopher Kolb, President of 
the University of Maryland Right to Life Committee. According 
to Dr Corfman. the (Brent) study is designed to gain know- 
ledge "unrelated to abortion" such as the dangers, if any, of 
microwave ovens . . . conceivably, then, this research would 
contribute to assuring healthier pregnancies and avoidance of 
hazards during pregnancy." 30 

The CRB Director concludes that "improvements in abor- 
tion techniques are within the purview of this Institute's man- 
date to support research on questions of public health. 
The November 1973 issue of Contraception carried an 
article entitled "Ultrasound : It's Potential Use for the Termina- 
tion of Pregnancy" by Melvin Sikov of Battelle, Pacific 
Northwest Laboratories. 31 

Under the subtitle. Effects of Ultrasound on the Conceptus, 
Sikov notes that "other forms of radiant energy, such as micro- 
waves, recently have been shown to produce embryonic 
death" (12). 

Footnote 12 is Brent, R.L. Franklin, J.B. and Wallace, 
J.D., The interruption of pregnancy using microwaves. Tera- 
tology 4:484, 1971. 

Clearly, the primary purpose of the Brent contract was to 
explore new techniques ultimately designed to kill the fetus or 
embryo of a pregnant woman desiring an abortion. 

Carl Djerassi, President of the Syntex Corporation, Palo 
Alto, California in the Jan. 1972 issue of Bulletin of the Atomic 
Scientists noted that he was happy that two important federal 
funding agencies (AID and CRB-NIH) seem to have found 
ways to circumventing Sec. 1008 of the 1970 Family Planning 
Act . . ." Louis Hellman denies such action. Our research 
supports Prof . Djerassi's premise. If such federal funding under 
the Tydings Bill is to be ended we will need prohibition legisla- 
tion which is virtually air-tight in both intent and language. 



KASION OF PRIVACY 



The second major area of concern of the U.S. Coalition for 
Life related to current federal family planning abuses centers 
upon the dangers to civil and constitutional rights posed by 
data banks and similar information gathering and monitoring 
techniques used by HEW. 

The omniscient, omnivorous memory of computers which 
store vast information of all kinds on the everyday activities of 
citizens, has in recent years become an increasing concern of 
Congress and the public. 

Daily, new provisions are being adapted at all levels of 
government to curb undue encroachment on the privacy of 
individuals. 

Yet, despite this new awareness to the potential dangers o 
data bank systems, there has been no challenge to the presence 
of Big Brothers in the boudoir. Indeed there is little evidence 
which might lead one to suspect that anyone even knows he is 
there. 

From a practical point of view, HEW population control- 
family planning data banks fulfill the need to monitor, 
coordinate, administer and evaluate current federal and state 
programs. All agencies receiving federal funds are required by 
HEW to submit data which includes a sexual history of each 
client. 

From a philosophical point of view, such data banks reflect 
the desire of population technocrats to control and regulate 
even the most intimate activities of the populace. Rough Beast 
editor, Gary Potter explains: ". . . order in a Technocracy 
requires a control so complete that even the most intimate 
acts, and their consequences must be regulated. Already few 
acts are performed entirely in privacy. The one that still is 
generally the most intimate of all, the act of love, an act which 
the planners of perfection must control, not only because 
unlicensed offspring would disrupt the Fiscal Year's projected 
availability of goods and services, but also, and perhaps more 
importantly, because the passion which an unauthorized act of 
any sort would imply is the very antithesis of the thing which 
is the most essential of all to perfection, careful planning." 

Enclosed is a sample of computer data forms. In addition to 
familial and medical information, data on the sexual practices 
of the client is required. 

The Provisional Report Form for Family Planning Services 
of the National Center for Health Statistics, PHS, Dept. of 
HEW 32 , for example includes: 

Coital Frequency Age at First Coitus 

Date of Last Coitus Sexual Compatibility 

I (Satisfactory I lUnsatisfactory 

Partner's Attitude Towards Contraception 
( ) Cooperative ( ) Uncooperative 

( ) Doesn't Care ( ) Unaware of Usage 

Other information on attached forms 33 - S 4 includes contra- 
ceptive method of choice, nature of referral and counseling, 
number of pregnancies, etc. 

In general practice, family planning personnel and physicians 
Do Not inform their patients or clients that such information 
will be fed into a centralized data bank. 

Such questionable practices are justified on the basis that 



80 



the client is given an identification nunwf assuring anony- 
mity. Yet are not similar "precautions" used in other data 
systems which have been attacked as unconstitutional' 

In some cases identification numbers do not offer anony- 
mity since the ID number is the client's social security number. 

Tennessee employs such a system of identification in its 
statewide data system for family planning. 

"Patient identification. Both the patient's name and a 
unique identification number are recorded on the data form. 
In order to evaluate continuity of care, the patient retains 
the same number in whatever counties or clinics she receives 
service.. In Tennessee, the patient's number is her social 
security number. When a new patient does not have a 
social security number, the clinic staff is instructed to 
apply for one and to give the patient a temporary number. " 35 

Under the Tennessee system, "delinquent" clients who do 
not respond to a computerized follow up visit are placed on a 



home visitation list Wra scheduled visit by a community social 
worker or public health nurse. 

I draw the attention of this subcommittee also to the 
enclosed national birth survey of the PHS, Health Services and 
Mental Health Administration. 

Note the patient's name is clearly identified. Note that the 
survey requires a doctor to divulge his patient's contraceptive 
practices. 

Do these practices involve civil and constitutional violations? 
Do these practices involve a breech of the patient-doctor 
relationship? Are these practices a violation of privacy of 
individual citizens? These are basic questions this subcommittee 
must ask. 

I ask therefore that this subcommittee include in this 
hearing record a detailed explanation of the Federal Family 
Planning Data System of HEW and legal opinions as to the 
constitutionality of such practices by federally funding family 
planning units. 



ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 



There are a number of federal family planning practices which u 
programs of population control particularly among welfare clientele. 



alve the use of federal agency's mailing lists for questionable 



The following history of an OEO CAP grant No. CG-4813 
illustrates the need for legislation to prevent further abuses 
using federal agency listings. 

Beginning in May, 1971 the Office of Economic Oppor- 
tunity as an "anti-poverty" project awarded over $100,000 in 
family planning funds to Population Services, Inc., a Chapel 
Hill. North Carolina agency, for the purpose of increasing use 
of condoms among sexually active, young, unmarried low 
income males in urban and rural settings. 

The creature of Dr. Timothy Black of England and 
Philip Harvey, formerly of CARE, Population Services, Inc. 
was begun as a non-profit corporation in Jan. 1970. 

In order to get tax-exempt status to qualify for funds for 
research in birth control, the agency split in two - 

Population Services Inc. - the non-profit research branch 
and Population Planning Assoc. - a commercial retail 
firm buying and selling birth control devices. 
During the first year of OEO - Community Action 
Program contract, 25.000 individuals between the ages of 
13 and 20 were contacted. 

The local OEO Community Action Agencies and commercial 
sources supplied mailing lists. 

The mailings were unsolicited. 

A typical mailing included such questions as "Has one of 
your friends made a girl pregnant recently?" or a similar question 
on venereal disease. The letter, the context of which encourages 
premarital sexual activity, reassures the reader tha( such 
consequences are avoidable. Population Services promises that 
the name of a local cooperating druggist or a condom stamp 
coupon worth $1.00 from Condom Associates (Population 



Planning Associates?) will be sent to those responding favorably 
to the letter. 

Of the 25,500 young men contacted, 2,260 responded 
favorably. These were sent materials (condoms and drug store 
locations) in unmarked envelopes. Eighty-six letters were 
returned requesting no material be sent. In no case did 
Population Services solicit parental consent. 

The July 26. 1972 application, date beginning Aug. 1, 1972 
and ending Jan. 31, 1974 of Population Services for an 
additional $152,274 includes in its description plans to reach 
"coaches and other supervisory personnel" in condom out 
reach programs for young men. 

I understand that the Population Services, Inc. program 
has been terminated due to disappointing results of the pilot 
project. 

I am sure however that similar 'family planning' schemes 
will be approved in the future. 

This particular grant involving low-income young persons - 
primarily blacks, and all below the age of 21 brings to the 
forefront some very disturbing questions. 

Could the unsolicited action funded by the OEO be held as 
action contributing to the delinquency of minors? 

Why do young, unmarried males need "family planning" 
assistance? 

Did the unsolicited action of minors as young as 13, violate 
parental rights? 

I ask that this subcommittee enter into the record, answers 
to the above questions and legal opinion as to the possible 
violations of parental authority incurred in the carrying out of 
this grant. 



81 



ABUSE OF 



HRALLY FUNDED FAMILY PLANNING MN CENTERS" 



The following report on Planned Parenthood Teen Scene of 
Chicago. Illinois combines a number of abuses of federal family 
planning funds, some of which have already been pointed out 
in earlier portions of my testimony. 

Teen Scene is operated by Planned Parenthood of Chicago. 

The program began in 1971 with an HEW funded grant 
totalling $259,000 (FY 1961, $69,000. FY 1972 $190,000). 

The mechanism of funding was the Illinois Family Planning 
Coordinating Council, a tunneling agent for most of the Tydings 
Act funds. 

In a letter of Nov. 1, 1972 to the Honorable Richard S. 
Schweiker, Carl S. Shultz, M.D.. then Director of the Office of 
Population Affairs, outlines the basic programs of Teen 
Scene. 37, 38 

Dr. Shultz notes that the law in Illinois specifically allows 
contraceptive information and services to be made available 
to individuals aged 16 and over without parental consent. 

According to the HEW official "Teen Scene" activities 
include "pregnancy testing and contraceptive information". 
Pregnant girls requesting further "counseling" after examina- 
tion are referred to a "Teen Scene" social worker. Dr. Shultz 
states however that Teen Scene does not give counseling on 
abortion. Instead, the girl is referred to "CARES", the 
Council on Abortion Referral and Evaluation Services, an 
agency not funded by HEW Dr. Shultz states that there's no 
followup by "Teen Scene" of patients referred to CARES. 

According to Dr. Shultz the emphasis of "Teen Scene" 
counseling is to encourage responsible teenage sexual behavior. 
Dr. Shultz denies that any Tydings Act funds tunneled via the 
Council are used for abortion related purposes. 

The U.S. Coalition for Life does not agree with Dr. Shultz's 
evaluation of Teen Scene activities. We believe that the 
Abortion Prohibition Amendment of the Tydings Act has in 
fact been violated in the case of "Teen Scene". 

Let us look more carefully at CARES. Dr. Shultz's letter 
attempts by implication, that there is no direct link between 
"Teen Scene" and CARES. 

Fact Number One — CARES, a five-state abortion referral 
service, established in July 1971 is located at 185 N. Wabash 
Ave. 

"Teen Scene" is located at 185 N. Wabash Ave. 

Planned Parenthood, Chicago is located at 185 N. Wabash 
Ave. 

CARES was established by Planned Parenthood, Chicago 
(which administers "Teen Scene") in conjunction with the 
Clergy Consultation Service on Problem Pregnancy. According 
to P.P. Executive Secretary, Benjamin Lew the goal of CARES 
is to keep the quality of abortions high and the costs low. 
CARES arranges for a "package" deal sending most women 
to N.Y.C. 

In addition to CARES, Planned Parenthood, Chicago, 
recipient of both HEW and AID funds, established itself in 
1972 as an abortion co-ordination agent for the purpose of 



arranging for N.Y. abortions for Chicago coeds. 

Fact Number Two — In the Spring of 1972, an 18 year old 
resident of Chicago made a pre-arranged call to Teen Scene to 
"arrange for an abortion for his 15 year old girl-friend." 
He was told that he must make his own plane reservations on a 
flight which would be pin-pointei by Teen Scene and he must 
bring in a signed notarized statement of responsibility by 
anyone 21 years or older. He was then told that Teen Scene 
would arrange for a limousine to meet the girl at the airport 
in New York, take her directly to the clinic where an abortion 
would be performed and she would then be transported to the 
airport to return to Chicago the same day. 

It should not be too difficult a task for this subcommittee 
to substantiate Teen Scene's abortion package for minors by 
questioning Teen Scene administrators and Staff personnel. 

(Note: In 1971-1972 abortion was legal in Illinois to pre- 
serve the life of the mother — hence the need for out-of-state 
abortion referrals of the nature mentioned above). 

Fact Number Three — "Teen Scene" seminars are open to 
children as young as 13 years of age. Girls are charged $5 for 
instruction, contraceptive devices and an examination. A 
primary "educational method" is the "rap session". (We will 
upon request, supply this subcommittee with a transcript of 
the nature of P.P. "rap sessions" for young people). 

Fact Number Four — According to a Teen Scene brochure, 
objective No. 2 of the project is "To eliminate unwanted 
pregnancies by making effective means of family planning, in- 
cluding contraception and voluntary abortion, available to all." 

"Teen Scene", Chicago is one of many Planned Parenthood 
programs catering to minors. 

Sadja Goldsmith, M.D. is Director of Teenage Services of 
Planned Parenthood/World Population — San Francisco. Dr. 
Goldsmith is well known for her abortion techniques and has 
co-authored a number of articles on early abortion methods. 

According to Dr. Goldsmith abortion counseling and volun- 
tary abortion services for teenagers, with or without parental 
consent, is a new area of need, and the provision of pregnancy 
counseling, sensitive counseling, and referral for legal abortion 
are essential parts of a comprehensive program. (From "A 
Study of Teenage Contraceptors" by Goldsmith, Gabrielson, 
Gabrielson, Potts and Sholtz.) 

I repeat an earlier question posed to this subcommittee. 
How does HEW continue to justify the continued funding under 
the Tydings Act of Planned Parenthood World Population 
affiliates which deal, both indirectly and directly with abortion 
(including abortion of minors without parental consent) and 
which in a broad sense of the term contribute to the delin- 
quency of minors? I trust this subcommittee will not permit 
such funding to continue without investigating these charges 
and where necessary, subpoening necessary statements and 
documents from these Planned Parenthood units funded under 
the Tydings Act. 



FERTILITY CONTROL EXPERIMENTS ON THE POOR 



Under the 1970 Family Planning and Population Services 
Act, extensive research on new techniques of fertility control 
has been carried on. 



Prostaglandins (Upjohn Co., major supplier to researchers), 
Depo-Provera (an UpJohn trademark for the long-acting 
sterilization drug) and 



82 



DES (Diethylstilbestrol) - manufactured l^knumber of drug 
firms. As of Nov. 30, all have receiv^TFood and Drug 
Administration approval. 
Human experimentation of these new agents - all well 

suited chemical warfare agents for population control, is being 

carried out primarily on 

(II the poor (in the U.S. and abroad) 

(2) the young (at university-based medical centers) 



and 



(3) the retarded (family planning clinics and institutions 

for the retarded) 
The benefactors of the experiments are primarily 



(1) pharmaceul^Acompanies 

(2) public and pWate population control agencies such as 
Planned Parenthood, HEW and AID 

(3) university-based medical researchers and 



Depo-Provera (Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) is a long-term 
acting (3 month) injectable contraceptive which has been tested 
on thousands of poor, primarily clinic patients in the U.S. and 
abroad (Thailand, India, South Pacific). 

The known side effects of this drug are permanent sterility, 
irregular bleeding patterns, hemorrhaging requiring curettage, 
and others. 



The FDA approved the drug on Oct. 10, 1973. They cautioned that Depo-Provera be used only in certain women, and that pa- 
tients give informed consent. 

And who are these "certain women" referred to in Dr. Alexander M. Schmidt's (FDA) statement of release? They are women 
who are willing to accept the possibility of permanent sterility and who 

(1 ) refuses or is unable to accept the responsibility demanded by other contraceptive methods; or 

(2) is incapable or unwilling to tolerate the side effects of conventional oral contraceptives; or 

(3) is one in whom other methods of contraception have repeatedly failed, (emphasis added) 



Using this definition - who then are these "certain women" 
who "refuse" or are "unable" or "incapable" or "unwilling"' 

Would these women be the wives of the medical researchers? 
the daughters of HEW officials' the relatives of U.S. Congress- 
men? Probably not. 

These "certain women" are the poor, the young and the 
retarded - the original "guinea pig" group who are notoriously 
"lax" in limiting their numbers or regulating their sexual 
activities in such a manner so as not to produce a child. 

Are these "certain women" who are being immunized and 
temporarily sterilized capable of giving "informed consent" in 
the true sense of the word? 

The research history of the other drugs mentioned earlier is 
similar to that of Depo-Provera. Prostaglandin abortion 
experiments have been widely carried out on clinic patients 
including minors and at university based medical centers. DES, 
mis-named "the morning after pill" was and is used widely at 



teen birth control centers and university clinics. 

I bring this matter to your attention because the Coalition 
does not believe that the poor, the young, and the retarded 
should be the object of exploitation by profit-seeking drug 
firms and the population control establishment. 

You as members of the Subcommittee on Public Health and 
Environment have a special obligation in this matter to see 
that legislation such as HR 11511 provides explicitly for the 
protection of the most vulnerable and powerless groups 
against those who consider the health of the state (over- 
population) more important than those receiving a "public 
health" service. 

Drug companies such as Upjohn, who receive tax funds 
should be prohibited from turning our ghettos and college 
campuses and homes for the retarded into happy hunting 
grounds for pharmaceutical profits and fertility control zealots. 



FEDERALLY FUNDED POPULATION CONTROL RESEARCH 



In 1971, the National Institute of Health, awarded a 
five-year grant of $337,652 (total) to Dr Kingsley Davis of the 
University of California, Berkeley. 

The title of the grant (HD-04602) is "Goals and Conditions 
of Population Control". 

Dr. Davis, an outspoken advocate of abortion and popula 
tion control, is best known for his suggestion that unwed 
mothers be compulsorarily aborted. 

I ask this subcommittee to enter into this record a detailed 
explanation of the nature of Dr. Davis' grant, and the names of 



those persons involved in awarding the grant and the reason for 
approval. 

This is but one of the hundreds of questionable grants and 
contracts listed in the 1972 Inventory of Federal Population 
Research. Of particular concern to the U.S. Coalition for Life 
is the large number of grants listed under the Social and 
behavioral Sciences directed at the poor in general and 
minority groups in particular including blacks and indians. 
HEW appears to be overly anxious to unlock the key to 
family limitation "motivation" to save the poor "from the 
consequences of their own reproductive behavior." 



83 



Concluding Remarks 



FEDERAL FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS - A WEAPON OF POPULATION CONTROL 



In September, 1973, Des Frost, Chairman of Prime Minister 
Ian Smith's ruling Rhodesian Front Party, called for the crea- 
tion of a ministry of birth control to curb the growing black 
i population in Rhodesia. 

"Trying to handle this problem with kid gloves is having a 
| negative effect." he told the party's annual congress. "We need 
a ministry dealing purely with the population explosion — a 
! ministry with teeth than can dish out benefits to those who 
conform and penalties to those who refuse to see the problems 
i they create for future generations." Chairman Frost did not 
elaborate on the penalties or benefits, (from the Florida Times 
Urion 9/21/731. 

That is Salisbury, of course. Dr. Louis Hellman and the 
; Bureau of Love at HEW would not be so crude, at least, not 
publicly. 

It is not that Dr. Hellman and the population control 
establishment would be against such programs in principle. 
It's simply a matter of timing. 

According to Dr. Hellman (the key figure in federal, 
domestic, family planning programs) there is a question as to 
whether or not volunteerism alone will be effective in limiting 
population to acceptable limits since "almost all population 
programs throughout the world are based on the concept that 
there is a fundamental family right to choose the number of 
their children . . ." 

"The alternatives to voluntary contraception such as posi- 
tive and negative incentives or outright governmental control 
do not appear feasible or desirable at the present time." 
(from "Family Planning Comes of Age" by Louis Hellman, 
M.D.. Washington. D.C. 19711 

To argue one way or the other today, is for all practical 
purposes, a waste of time. 

The use of the mass media combined with massive indoc- 
trination of the young in our nation's secondary and elemen- 
tary schools has rendered "positive and negative incentives or 



outright governmental control" superfluous and such cliches as 
"volunteerism" meaningless. 

Talk of adding sterilants to the water supply or compulsory 
abortion raises the ire of most citizens. Such tactics smack of 
totalitarianism. They are crude — and unnecessary with 
today's psychological weapon of persuasion. 

'The tendency toward psychological collectivization is the 
sine qua non of technical action . . . the problem is to get the 
individuals consent artificially through depth psychology, since 
he will not give it of his own free will. But the will to give 
consent must appear to be spontaneous." (Ellul, The Techno- 
logical Society 409, 1964). 

The so-called "Population- education" funded under the 
Tydings Act will insure a generation of young people who will 
welcome governmental control of their reproductive lives. The 
rabid anti-life doctrines in our schools today will make abor- 
tion and euthanasia acceptable tomorrow. And the young will 
find consolation in that if such acts be murder, as Scholastic 
magazine suggests "it will be murder in context!" 

Clearly, termination of federal funding the Tydings Act of 
anti-life secular indoctrination, by this subcommittee, would 
be a step in the right direction. We urge you to take such steps 
immediately. The U.S. Coalition for Life is prepared to sub 
stantiate all charges leveled against HEW in this testimony. 

Your concern translated into legislation will not cure these 
bureaucratic ills overnight, nor immediately halt the anti-life 
programs so deeply entrenched in HEW. 

What such action, however, will do, is provide the fiist 
stepping stone toward an end of rule by the bureaucracy and 
return government to its original mandate of service not 
control — of protecting human life not destroying it - of 
nurturing family life — not corrupting it. 

The first step is the most difficult. The U.S. Coalition foi 
Life is ready with documentation and support for any 
Congressman and Senator willing to take that first step. 



Documentation to foot-noted information is available to 
Congressmen and Senators from the House Subcommittee on 
Public Health and Environment. 



Cost to Pro-Life groups is $25.00. Documentation may 
be ordered directly from the USCL office. Allow 14 days 
for delivery. 



84 



WCUC TestinUny on H.R. 11511 - if arch 15, 1974 



Mr Chairman 

Member* of the Subcommittee 

WOMEN CONCERNED FOR THE UNBORN CHILD is an 
uil, nonpartisan, non-sectarian organization of over 
7.000 mothers, students and professional women from Pennsyl- 
vania whose purpose is to speak for, and act in behalf of the 
youngest and most defenseless member of the human family - 
the unborn child. 

We welcome this opportunity to enter testimony on HR 
11511, the Health Revenue Sharing Bill now before this 
subcommittee, with our specific remarks directed at Title 1 1 1 of 
the Bill. The Family Planning and Population Research Act of 
1973. HR 11511 is the companion bill to S1 708, the Family 
Planning and Population Act of 1973. Both Bills are critical 
of the Pro-Life Movement as jointly they: 

1. Represent the basic funding legislative mechanism for 
numerous anti-life agencies, specifically Planned Parent 
hood World-Population and its affiliates, the number 
one enemy of the unborn child, and 

2. Represent an attempt to legitimize through legislative 
action, anti-life policies and programs which have 
ALREADY been put into effect by bureaucratic fiat of 



the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 
specifically federally funded abortion and abortifacient 
research and fertility control experiments, and CLINI- 
CAL TESTING, using as human guinea pigs, the poor, 
the retarded and other vulnerable elements of the 
population, and 
3. Represent a th-eat to the civil and constitutional rights 
of all citizens, specifically, the poor and the powerless, 
RIGHTS which include the right to marital privacy, the 
right of informed consent, the right of the young to be 
free of anti-life public indoctrination, which incorporates 
values alien to Judaic-Christian heritage and the ultimate 
right, the RIGHT TO LIFE itself. 
If "Truth in Advertising" were the issue here, the Family 
Planning and Population Research Act of 1973 would fail to 
pass this Congress. By this we mean that legislators, (first this 
committee, then a conference committee and finally the 
House and Senate members) are being asked to pass judgment 
on legislation which cloaks itself in such terms as "voluntary", 
"population education", "family planning" and similar euphem- 
isms which serve to disguise a reality which is so repugnant as 
to be solidly rejected at its face value by a major segment of 
Congress and the American public. 



The primary purpose of this testimony is not so much to give answers, as it is to raise questions, questions concerning the role of 
the Federal Government in POPULATION CONTROL. It may appear odd, at least initially, that the government should be so deep- 
ly committed, both in philosophy and practice, to a policy which has NEVER been openly debated in the Halls of Congress. 



Certainly specific aspects of Population Control TECHNI 
QUES have arisen from time to time, issues such as abortion, 
involuntary sterilization of the poor and retarded and fetal 
experimentation. Congress has also discussed and debated 
specific programs, such as the abortifacient research program 
of the Agency for International Development and the Contra- 
ceptive Research Branch of the National Institute of Health. 
Yet, amidst this dialogue of various techniques and projects of 
Population Control, Congress has yet to come to grips with the 
critical issue — that is - Population Control itself and its 
civil and constitutional implications as a matter of national 
policy. 

WOMEN CONCERNED FOR THE UNBORN CHILD, as 
the name suggests, is committed to speaking out in defense of 
unborn children and their inalienable right to life. This 
committment, however, does not mean that we remain oblivious 
to related issues, such as euthanasia and fertility control 
experimentation. On the contrary, this committment allows 
us to see the TOTAL anti-life movement so as to view abortion 
and euthanasia and involuntary sterilization for what they are 
- tools of Population Control. Likewise, because each mem- 
ber of Congress is committed to defending the civil and consti- 
tutional rights of our citizens, it is obligatory that we see the 
Federal Government's so-called "Family Planning" policies and 
programs for what they are - tools of Population control and 



enemies of life and the liberty of the citizens of the United 

States. 

Let us look briefly at these seven questions related to the 

issue of Federal Population Control programs — 

First: Are federally funded "Family Planning" programs 

envisioned as a method of bestowing upon citizens 
a personal health benefit or as a weapon in Popula- 
tion Control? 

Second: Is the "voluntary participation" clause attached to 
federally funded "Family Planning" programs 
(including S1 708 and HR 11511) workable without 
practical and meaningful guidelines built into such 
legislation? 

Third: Does the Federal Government violate its professed 

NEUTRALITY by aggressively promoting birth 
control, including contraception, sterilization and 
abortion among the general citizenry as a desirable 
practice or goal? 

Fourth: Do "Family Planning" programs funded and pro- 
moted by public authorities violate the right to 
privacy of a relationship which Justice Douglas 
called "intimate to the degree of being sacred"? 
(Griswold vs: Connecticut, 381 U/S. 479.486, 1 965) 

Fifth: Upon what meaningful criteria may federally 

funded "Family Planning" programs be evaluated? 



85 



What types of "accessory^^ilicies and programs 
are attached to federally funded "Family Planning" 
programs and upon what criteria are they based? 
Have the fundamental questions respecting the 
nature of the human being, of human liberty, of 
the role of the state, of the poor and of the provi- 
dence of God been considered, prior to the 



ador^Hi of population control as a matter of 

national policy' 

We are not referring here to the morality of birth control 
as a private practice, but rather as a matter of public policy, 
that is. a policy-which is actually promoted and funded by 



FAMILY PLANNING OR POPULATION CONTROL 



If asked whether "Family Planning" programs are for the 
benefit of the individual participants as a personal health 
measure or for the benefit of the state (i.e. a measure to deal 
with the "Population Explosion"), most Congressmen would 
probably opt for the former. In their eyes, these federally 
funded programs are merely "making available", primarily to 
the poor and the young, birth control services which they 
voluntarily" seek out, and might otherwise not have access to 
because of specific restrictions, financial or otherwise. 

To examine whether such a view would find support in 
legislative history, let us briefly examine the rationale and 
conclusions formulated at the Gruening hearings. These public 



hearings held in the mid 1960's are critical to the questions at 
hand, since they formed the basis on which Congress was to 
establish the Tydings Bill, the Family Planning and Population 
Research Act of 1970. Clearly, from even a cursory review of 
the Gruening hearings' volumes of testimony, the massive 
intrusion of the Federal Government into the "Family Plan- 
ning" arena was justified on the grounds of saving mankind 
from itself, or the so called "Population Explosion". Thus, 
while alluding to the proposition that a woman's health might 
improve with fewer births and longer spacing birth patterns, 
the principle thrust of the DESIGNERS or architects of the 
federal programs was directed at improving the health of the 
state by reducing population growth. 



A truly voluntary health program which the individual could either accept or reject, a personalized program tailored to the unique 
needs of the client, a program free from pressure and propaganda is NOT what the population controllers see as the principle ob- 
jective of the Government Population Control Programs and Policies. 



The truth of this assertion may be observed in a number of 
ways. For example, current fertility control research is directed 
at the perfect birth control agent (be it contra-conceptive or a 
sterilant or an abortifacient) which can be administered to the 
"masses" in the form of an inoculation or vaccination. The 
"crisis" wrought by a plethora of people demands a massive, 
not an individualized, program. 

In practical application this means the "success" of fertility 
control programs are measured by the number of IUD inser- 
tions or number of pills popped or the number of sterilizations 
performed. If a conflict arises between the two areas of con- 
cern, for example, if a woman suffers severe anemia from 
bleeding, due to an IUD, the prescription is for an iron tablet 
rather than removal of the device, since the latter action might 
result in a birth, which must be avoided at all costs, even to the 
jeopardy of the health of the patient. 

Again, in the case of abortion, there is sufficient documen- 
tation that abortion, particularly repeated abortion, is harmful 
to women, yet abortion is the KEY weapon in any Population 
Control Program. Hence the continuing campaign for abortion 
reform. (See attachments 1, 2 and 3). 

This pattern is repeated again and again. We see it in the 
use of clinic patients as experimental guinea pigs for pharma- 



ceutical houses and Federal Abortion Research Programs. 
(See attachment 4). We see it in the Food and Drug Administra- 
tion approval of DES, not fit for cattle, but okayed for campus 
co-eds. We see it in the use of Depo-Provera on the mentally 
retarded, or those, as the FDA guidelines suggest, who are 
either "unwilling or unable" to use the pill or other fertility 
control agents. 

If the purpose of this sub-committee on Public Health is to 
propose and devise health legislation, then we recommend a 
thorough study of the health hazards of the pill, the IUD 
(an abortifacient agent) and such drugs as Depo-Provera and 
DES, as well as Prostaglandins. The latter agent for second 
trimester abortions has been linked directly to Sickle-Cell 
Aneamia, yet, here in the Pittsburgh area at West Penn 
Hospital, black clinic patients continue to be aborted, using 
this still experimental technique. (See attachment No. 5). 

Under S1708 and HR 11511 women, primarily clinic 
patients, would continue to be the victims of fertility control 
experiments, which will benefit the Population Control es- 
tablishment and in which pharmaceutical firms have a multi- 
million dollar international investment. Adequate protection 
is an absolute necessity to prohibit such victimizing of the most 
vulnerable segments of our population. 



THE MYTH OF VOLUNTEERISM 



The second to be posed to this committee is akin to the 
first, and centers upon the issue of "voluntaryism", and whether 



such legislative guarantees are meaningful without strong 
built in guidelines. Here we are addressing ourselves also to the 



86 



question as to whether or not Federal Bi^pontrol Programs 
should be clearly and without qualification separated from 
welfare assistance. 

"Coercion" is a term of a broad spectrum of meaning in 
the law. In the law of contracts a finding of coercion, or 
duress, does not depend upon objective tests of what act or 
threat produces a state of fear, leading compulsively to given 
acts . . age. sex, capacity, relation of the parties, attendant 
circumstances must all be considered. Persons of a weak or 
cowardly nature are the very ones who need protection. 
Closely related is "undue influence". 

•Influence, therefore, is considered "undue" giving rise to 
rescission of contracts, where a relationship of confidence may 
be deemed to exist between the parties, and one of the parties 
is in a position of weakness in relation to the other, and where 
there is, in fact, unfair persuasion . . ." (from Population 
Control; Court and Constitutional Concerns. William Ball. 
Cornell University Press 1967 pps 19-20.) 

We believe that because of the nature of welfare to the poor, 
who are at the mercy of the state for their basic existence. 



welfare birth contro^pbgrams can be said to be coercive in 
the broad sense of the term, i.e. represent undue influence on 
such individuals. This holds true when a social worker 
presumes to influence the poor by promoting birth control 
practices or suggests that a welfare client relieve herself of an 
"unwanted" pregnancy, including setting up an abortion for 
the client. 

That the State is ready to pass this stage and is preparing to 
introduce coercive measures to limit the number of welfare 
clients is not merely speculative. Bills have already been 
introduced at the federal and state levels to sterilize welfare 
mothers or to make Depo-Provera shots a condition for receiv- 
ing further welfare assistance. (See attachment 6). 

Given the seal of the Population Control establishment to 
"manage" the reproductive habits of the poor, for this sub- 
committee to further perpetuate the myth of voluntarism is 
to be blind indeed to the reality of built-in coercion which 
exists whenever welfare s directly linked to aggressive birth 
limitation schemes. 



POPULATION LIMITATION PROPAGANDA 



While the poor make up the hard core of the "target group" 
of federally funded "Family Planning" programs, they are by 
no means the only class of citizens who are exposed to the 
ongoing aggressive campaign of birth limitation. 

The Federal Government has poured millions into behavioral 
and motivational research, designed to discover various psycho- 
logical techniques to "motivate" citizens to limit the number of 
children in their families. "We must teach people to Want 
fewer children" appears to be a specific goal. This becomes a 
rather complicated public relations problem as this "want" 
must appear to be a voluntary decision rather than a forced 
reaction to a state prescribed edict, at which people might balk. 

That federal "Family Planning" programs promote, not only 



a service, but attempt to mold values and attitudes by use of 
mass media brings us to the important question of the possible 
breach of state "neutrality" in matters of morals. For this 
sub-committee to view birth control as merely a health measure 
is to deny the true nature of human sexuality which encom- 
passes a person's total being. 

It would be no exaggeration to state that the Planned Parent- 
hood Credo is the official religion of the Department of HEW 
and that Planned Parenthood World-Population has become an 
official appendage of government. Civic Awareness of America 
a Wisconsin based organization has taken this matter of state 
support of a religion of secular humanism as espoused by 
Planned Parenthood via HEW, to the courts. The case is 
expected to reach the United States Supreme Court. 



VIOLATION OF MARITAL PRIVACY 



Do tax supported "Family Planning" programs constitute a 
violation of the right to privacy? This question does not appear 
to be one to which this sub-committee or any other legislative 
body has addressed itself. The reason is obvious. 

Government probing of one's sexual habits and attitudes, 
traditionally related to marital privacy, has largely been con- 
fined to the poor, the welfare clients, who are particularly 
vulnerable to pressures of public authorities. 

We would venture to say that if any of the members of 
this subcommittee or their families were subjected to an 



indepth interview by a government agency as to their sexual 
practices and contraceptive methods, and that such information 
(coded or uncoded) were to be entered in a federal data bank, 
a Congressional investigation of such gross intrusion into 
family life would have already been demanded. 

It is naive to assume that "Family Planning" programs can 
be efficiently managed without such intimate probing of 
client's sexual history and practices and without such informa- 
tion being accumulated for statistical purposes deemed neces- 
sary by HEW. 



THE ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY 



One of the areas of Congressional responsibility is the 
evaluation of an ongoing tax supported program. Yet, has 
there ever been a single instance of a public hearing by this 



sub committee on Public Health and Environment to objective- 
ly evaluate and scrutinize policies and programs funded under 
the Tydings Bill or its successors? 



87 



Furthermore, should such an undertaking be made what would be the criteria by which such programs would be measured and 
evaluated? The fact is, that no criteria exists, and that federally funded "Family Planning" programs are virtually standardless as: 

a) no concrete definition of "Family Planning" exists 

b) no concrete legal authorization necessary for government sponsored Population control programs exists 

c) no definite or precise territorial jurisdiction of government units to promote Population Control exists 

d) no pre-established qualifications or rules of conduct exist to govern the activities of those agents who are selected to carry out 
programs of Population Control 

Until Congress deems it necessary to establish such standards, federally funded "Family Planning" will continue to be an anti-life 
boondoggle which consumes, not only dollars, but human life itself in the form of abortion and euthanasia, a topic this sub commit- 
tee will soon be dealing with in another series of public hearings. 



FEDERAL PROGRAMS - ARM OF THE SECULAR HUMANIST 



We have stated that Government Birth Control Programs 
promote more than a mere practice. They promote an ideology, 
3 way of life, based on a secular humanist ethic. 

Therefore, in attempting to promote the Sangente philoso- 
phy, the state has been drawn deeper into other related areas 
which are equally standardless. Such programs include: 

1) contraceptive education of mino'rs and minors rights pro- 
gram (abortion for example), with or without parental 
knowledge or consent. 

2) massive population control indoctrination at the elementary 



and secondary school levels. 
3) massive media campaigns designed to "motivate" as well 

as mold public attitudes and values. 
4} genetic and eugenic programs designed to improve the 

quality of human stock, as well as limit numbers. 

5) massive sterilization and abortion programs, staples of any 
effective population control program. 

6) massive medical experimentation on human guinea pigs 
deemed necessary for improvement of effective "fertility 
control" programs . . . etc . . . etc . . . 



NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION 



Lastly, and this may be viewed as a summary of all 
preceeding remarks - at that point in time will Congress 
accept its responsibility as a representative body to come to 
grips with the essential questions posed by the adoption of 
Population Control as both a domestic and foreign policy' 

Certainly our testimony supports the proposition that 
'opulation Control Programs involve basic fundamental ques- 
tions relating to the human being and his relationship to God, 
his family and the State. 



CONCLUSION: We understand that the United States Coali- 
tion for Life has called for a Congressional investigation of 
HEW violations of the Tydings Bill. Women Concerned for the 
Unborn Child would hope that such an inquiry into specific 
questions would first come to grips with the FUNDAMENTAL 
questions we have passed to this sub-committee today. 

Until such action is taken, we ask that no additional 
funding under S1708 or H1 1511 be approved pending a 
Congressional inquiry convened for the above stated purpose. 



Thank you, 

Mary Winter, President 

Women Concerned for the Unborn Child 



Documentation available from: 

WCUC 

1 703 Coast Avenue 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15216 

Telephone: (4121 531-9272 



88 



fr£6l • JM A uoijeindoj p|io/v\ 



vsn 

^gggi eiueAiAsuuaj 'uodxg 

3dn aod Nounvoosn 



U.S. Coalition for Life Educational Fund" was created to serve 
as a national and international clearing house for Pro- Life 
organizations and individuals seeking information, documenta- 
tion, research materials in the areas of population control 
euthanasia, "genetic engineering, abortion and related areas. 
Its primary function is that of documentation and research. 
The U.S.C.L. Reprint Service is designed to provide documen 
tation and resource materials for the Pro-Life Movement. 
Costs include both copying and postage expenses. All reprints 
are to be used as study copies only. In the case of copyrighted 
materials, permission must be obtained from the publisher or 



author directly, except for brief quotes which may be used 
with proper credit. Portions of Newsletter may be reproduced 
with proper credit. 

SUBSCRIPTION RATES 
$ 5.00/year 



Individual 
Organization 



jbscription: 
jbscription: 



S25.00/year 
S .75 single copy 
S .50 each (25 or 
S .50 each 



Back issues: 
"Donations are not deductible under USCL 501(cl(4) status. 



89 

[From the Medical Tribune, May 9, 1973] 
Family-Planning Units Urged To Make Genetic Referrals 

Houston, Tex. — A medical geneticist proposed here that, in view of the devel- 
opment of effective techniques to diagnose and prevent genetic disease, family- 
planning agencies should include in their programs information and referral 
services for families found to have genetic problems. 

Dr. R. Rodney Howell, Professor of Pediatrics and Genetics at the University 
of Texas Medical School, told the annual meeting of the American Association 
of Planned Parenthood Physicians that, with the increasing emphasis on pop- 
ulation control and reduction of family size, there is growing interest in the 
prevention of serious hereditary defects whenever possible. 

INFORMATION SHOULD BE OFFERED 

"Genetic counseling permits an increasing number of families to have healthy 
children," he said. "Implicit in this is the idea that not only should the most 
modern genetic techniques be developed, but information about the techniques 
should be offered to persons who, while seeking advise and guidance in family- 
planning matters, learn that there is a genetic problem in their family." 

He noted that "not infrequently patients will seek voluntary sterilization, 
unaware that new genetic techniques are available that might permit them to 
have normal children of their own." 

Dr. Howell is director of one of the 46 genetic counseling and treatment cen- 
ters participating in a nationwide network of such units operated by the Na- 
tional Genetics Foundation. 

The Role of Planned Parenthood — World Population in Abortion 
(By George Langmyhr, M.D.) 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America is a voluntary health agency 
dedicated to making birth control services available to all American women 
and men. The pioneering efforts of Margaret Sanger led to the opening of the 
first birth control clinic in the United States. Planned Parenthood Affiliates now 
number 191 in some 40 states and the District of Columbia. 

I propose to discuss the history of Planned Parenthood's involvement with 
abortion, to discuss our present activities, both at a national and affiliate level 
and, finally, to take a look into the future. First, however, I would like to ad- 
dress myself to two points : the concept that many people have of Planned 
Parenthood as a birth control agency which, as such, should not be involved in 
abortion ; and secondly, Planned Parenthood's involvement in helping to achieve 
reform or repeal of abortion law. Public opinion on the first point is a problem 
that Planned Parenthood has faced at national and local levels for many years. 
I think it is fair to say that most professionals and volunteers associated with 
Planned Parenthood have accepted, for a long time, the necessity of abortion 
as an integral part of any complete or total family planning program. The 
dilemma of a woman who has a legitimate method failure, or any type of un- 
wanted pregnancy, cannot be avoided by Planned Parenthood clinic personnel. 
In 1969, Planned Parenthood-World Population passed a policy on abortion. 
Further, the National Medical Committee has issued Standards for Pregnancy 
Counseling Programs and Abortion Services. 

Regarding the second point, as a nonprofit, tax-exempt agency, Planned Par- 
enthood is specifically unable to lobby or overtly attempt to achieve legislative 
reform. However, there are many dedicated volunteers and professionals from 
Planned Parenthood Affiliates who have been effective in working with other 
concerned citizens and reform groups. One example is the outspoken advocacy 
of abortion law change by Dr. Alan Guttmacher. Another is the informal co- 
operation of Planned Parenthood Affiliates in ad hoc abortion law repeal com- 
mittees. Finally, Planned Parenthood helped prepare various legal briefs which 
have been presented to the courts as a means of effecting change. One major 
effort is currently underway to change the recent legal opinion in California 
that a minor is not able to consent to an abortion. 1 

1 See p. 1161. 



90 

PLANNED PAKENTHOOD'S EARLY ROLE IN COUNSELING AND REFERRAL 

It goes without saying that Planned Parenthood Affiliates have long been in- 
volved in programs of abortion information, counseling and referral. Before 
the recent change in abortion laws, these activities were, necessarily unpubli- 
cized. Thus, we generally do not know the results of these early counseling and 
referral programs. 

The advent of abortion reform movements in the 1960's corresponded with a 
dramatic change in Planned Parenthood service programs. Instead of providing 
only birth control services (and occasionally infertility diagnosis, premarital 
and marital counseling), many other conception counseling services began to 
be offered. In a programatic way, Planned Parenthood began to get more deeply 
involved in abortion programs through its involvement in pregnancy detection 
services. In many communities, Planned Parenthood patients complained that 
it was virtually impossible to get a pregnancy test done easily and cheaply ; 
this was verified by Affiliate personnel, upon checking these complaints. When 
attempting to prod health departments or hospitals, they found many institu- 
tions resistant to developing or implementing a pregnancy detection service. 
Therefore, many affiliates assumed this responsibility, at least on a temporary 
basis. When Planned Parenthood's efforts became known, affiliates were con- 
fronted with an increasing number of women seeking pregnancy detection serv- 
ices who also began to request other assistance if they were found to be preg- 
nant. Thus, certain affiliates began to get more deeply involved in abortion in- 
formation, counseling and referral. 

By the mid 1960's, there were other groups working hard in these areas and 
Planned Parenthood affiliates attempted to cooperate with many of them in- 
cluding clergy counseling groups and various community service agencies. Our 
affiliate in Massachusetts has developed an extremely capable abortion counsel- 
ing program which assists many women. 

Clearly, Planned Parenthood's involvement was shaped by the social forces 
which began to effect meaningful change in abortion law. 

Let me now turn to our current involvement, utilizing activities in three 
states to demonstrate the different types of programs offered by affiliates. 

CALIFORNIA 

Since the reform of the abortion law, our affiliates in California have be- 
come deeply involved in programs of counseling and referral. Without intruding 
too much on Dr. Minkler's paper, I would like to refer specifically to the ac- 
tivities of our affiliate in the San Francisco/ Alameda County area. I hope I 
do not abrade anyone by saying that the Bay Area has generally been more 
progressive in implementing abortion programs, although there has been a great 
deal of activity in Los Angeles as well. 

As part of the San Francisco effort, our affiliate there cooperated with hos- 
pitals and private physicians to make abortion available for many or most 
women who requested it. Since Planned Parenthood's services are largely geared 
to the indigent or near indigent, assisting them to become properly informed of 
their medical benefits and to secure referral and confirmed appointments became 
one of our prime areas of responsibility. But, as many of your realize, there 
are large numbers of women who, because of marginal income, face major diffi- 
culties in paying the normal private practice and hospital fees, specifically, 
many younger women who are recently employed, secretaries, clerks, various 
paraprofessionals and, as a separate group, college students. Planned Parent- 
hood affiliates across the country have received an increasing number of re- 
quests for assistance from this category of younger women. Affiliates have no 
right to deny them access to service on the theoretical grounds that they have 
a somewhat adequate income. 

For this reason. Planned Parenthood/Alameda/San Francisco secured a foun- 
dation grant to develop the San Francisco Center for Legal Abortion which was 
designed to serve applicants who are ineligible for, or who elect not to invoke. 
BlediCal and at the same time simply cannot afford private care at the current 
costs. The Abortion Tenter embodies the concept of a pregnancy diagnosis cen- 
ter, counseling, preabortion physical examination, processing for therapeutic 
abortion committee approval and. postabortion followup including contraceptive 
advice. The Center will collect a total abortion fee from each patient and pro- 
vide payment to cooperating physicians and hospitals. It plans to offer a full 



91 

range of services related to abortion which, hopefully, will enable patients to 
be quickly referred to an obstetrician-gynecologist in one of the cooperating 
hospitals. Followup care, in case of complications, will be arranged through 
the central office. A telephone answering service at the Abortion Center will be 
in effect. Every attempt will be made to maintain patient contact with the 
operating physician. 

COLORADO 

I doubt if many are happy with the Colorado law. Planned Parenthood in 
Denver has carefully analyzed its position in relation to present abortion ac- 
tivities in that state. Approximately 40-60 requests and some 30-50 referrals 
for abortion are handled by the affiliate every week. Ninety per cent of these 
patients are referred out of state, some to New York, others to California and 
elsewhere. There are cooperating physicians in the Denver area who have agreed 
to take a small number of referrals. It is interesting to note that the patients 
requesting abortions from Planned Parenthood are usually young, between 18 
to 23 years of age. They are college students or newly employed in various jobs 
such as secretarial clerkship work. 

Unfortunately, under the Colorado law, most of these women have no valid 
reason for an abortion. This has led to the referral I have mentioned. Planned 
Parenthood of Colorado does not do abortion counseling per se. Instead, it has 
cooperated closely with the clergy counseling group in putting into effect an 
effective screening mechanism to assist women who need to be properly in- 
formed. Women are assisted in obtaining pregnancy diagnosis quickly. If they 
wish an abortion, referral is obtained with the assistance of Clergy Counseling. 
If there are grounds for abortion under the Colorado law, they are referred 
to a psychiatrist. 

There is another important aspect about the decision made by Planned Par- 
enthood in Colorado. Under the present situation, they felt it urgent to pro- 
vide much more information about the availability of birth control and to make 
services even more widely available to young women. Therefore, major pro- 
grams on college campuses and elsewhere have attempted to prevent unwanted 
pregnancy from occurring. 

NEW YORK STATE 

July 1, 1970 saw the beginning of semichaos in New York State as far as 
abortion programs were concerned. Fortunately, near order has now been re- 
stored. I will attempt to detail the specific types of activity by Planned Par- 
enthood that, in part, may have helped to restore this order. 

EFFORTS MADE HY THE NEW YORK CITY NATIONAL ORGANIZATION 

Planned Parenthood Federation worked with its affiliates in New York State 
to monitor the situation, assist with a portion of the referral requests, consider 
the necessity for training programs for pregnancy counselors, and so forth. As 
in California and Colorado, many women really did not understand the New 
York law or know how to go about securing a safe abortion. Therefore, we set 
up a telephone service which enabled many women calling from in or out of 
state to obtain proper information and referral. We published an abortion 
pamphlet. Incidentally, we intend to get much more involved in education. At 
the same time, Planned Parenthood strove to monitor the developing situations 
in other states so that women from California, for example, did not come to 
New York (as some did) when the situation in her community might have 
changed to allow her to have an abortion there. We began examining the needs 
for properly training personnel of all kinds in abortion counseling and. referral. 
While some excellent counseling is going on throughout the country, there are 
relatively few training programs to develop competent counsellors. 

Our affiliate in New York City should be congratulated for its major role 
in making available a competent telephone information and referral service 
through the Family Planning Information Service of New York City. This 
service is a result of cooperation by a number of agencies, both public, private 
and voluntary within New York City, who had agreed upon the need to provide 
a telephone service for women who needed to know about birth control services. 
July 1, 1970 saw the Family Planning Information Service also take on the 
responsibility of providing abortion information and referral. A tremendous 
increase in the number of telephone calls to the service resulted. 

Planned Parenthood, furthermore, was instrumental in working with munici- 
pal, proprietary and private hospitals in attempting to match up prospective 



92 

patients with physicians and institutions. Our role as patient advocate was well 

demonstrated in our criticism of the slowness of certain municipal hospitals in 

iblishing meaningful programs of abortion. Planned Parenthood of New York 

urrently considering the development of an outpatient abortion facility 

in order to provide prompt, safe, low-cost ($0-$150) outpatient abortions. 

Our affiliate in Syracuse made the decision to perform abortions on its prem- 
ises. You may know that Syracuse is a conservative, Catholic community. The 
atiiliate began to plan its abortion facility when it became apparent that no 
hospitals in the area were making provision for abortion services. Through 
various surveys, it learned that a number of doctors were willing to accept 
referrals for abortions that would either be performed in the physician's office 
or in the hospital with which the physician was associated. 

Planned Parenthood initially wanted to operate a telephone information and 
counseling service. However, after considerable discussion and deliberation, it 
was decided that an outpatient abortion facility should be developed within the 
Planned Parenthood Center. This decision was based on the following factors : 

The reluctance of certain hospitals to make known their plans for abortion 
services ; 

The real prospect that where services were available, the fees would be high ; 

The further realization that services would tend to be offered in a way that 
the patient would have to face a formidable screening procedure, and thus a 
long waiting period. 

Since July 1, 1970, approximately 12 pregnancies per week have been ter- 
minated in the Syracuse Planned Parenthood facility. Twenty per cent of the 
patients are on welfare; the fees have ranged from $0-250, with the average 
payment being $150. 

The administrative problems in actually putting together the service were, 
to say the least, horrendous. However, the executive director, an innovative 
woman, was able to overcome all obstacles in developing this service with the 
help of an enlightened board and professional staff. It is the feeling of the affil- 
iate that such a service will be offered for the foreseeable future — ie. one to two 
years until it is clear that abortion is easily available to women in the Syracuse 
area. 

FUTURE PLANS 

By discussing programs within three states. I have attempted to outline the 
different approaches being taken by Planned Parenthood. Now, for a look into 
the future. 

Clearly, we must provide support for those groups who are attempting to 
maintain present satisfactory laws such as in New York State, or those who 
are attempting to repeal the law in other states. In states where abortion law 
reform or repeal has not yet occurred, we will continue to cooperate with in- 
stitutions and agencies in offering programs of abortion information, counsel- 
ing and referral. In those states where abortion law has changed, we have var- 
ious alternatives, ranging from maintaining a telephone information service to 
offering direct services, such as in Syracuse. 

Of highest priority, however, will be our continued focus on birth control 
services. It would be unfortunate if the availability of abortion deemphasized 
the necessity of making birth control available conveniently and cheaply to all 
women and men. Certainly, the United States is a "contraceptive society." 
Planned Parenthood hopes that this well-established trend will be reinforced 
so that we will be an even more efficient contraceptive society in the next 
decades. 

We support the view that when an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, abor- 
tion services should be available, with the decision essentially being made by 
the patient and her doctor. We will continue to be part of the advocacy constitu- 
ency so that fees can be scaled down to reasonable levels. 

In summary. Planned Parenthood hopes that abortion will become even more 

available and supports the efforts of others in seeking reform and repeal of 

outdated abort ion laws. At the same time, we will work to provide more effec- 

programs of public education, information and birth control services to 

n the need for pregnancy termination. 

Ms, Excel. Secondly, at the end of this hearing. I would request 
that those Senators who have not been able to appear, if their aides 
would come down to the table, I have a speciallv prepared packet for 
of those individuals. 



93 

Beginning my testimony, I would like to open with a comment 
with regard to a speech that was made by Dr. Louise Tyrer of the 
Family Planning Division of the American College of OBGYN be- 
fore the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians at their 12th 
annual meeting at Memphis, Tenn., on April 16, 1974. The very 
impromptu talk was on the status of the various Human Life Amend- 
ments to the Constitution of the United States. 

According to Dr. Tyrer's assessment of the congressional scene, 
she saw that there were two basic approaches. One was the basic 
States rights approach which would return the power of lawmaking 
in the area of abortion to the individual States. The second, which 
would guarantee the full protection of the law to the unborn child 
from the moment of fertilization. 

The States rights approach, she states, and I believe quite correctly 
so, is unacceptable to the majority of prolife people yet very at- 
tractive to the legislators, that is, Federal legislators, because "it sort 
of takes the onus off their backs from making any decisions." 

The remainder of her talk stresses the necessity of stalling these 
hearings by this subcommittee by having Planned Parenthood phy- 
sicians flood the subcommittee with requests to testify. This, Dr. 
Tyrer suggested, was politically expedient and politically necessary 
for you, Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the amendments bottled up 
in subcommittee until you have gone through the election process in 
the fall. 

Frankly, I have no desire to embarrass anyone on this issue at this 
time. This is not because I do not feel that Dr. Tyrer was incorrect 
in her judgment of the political realities of the Senate and House 
committees dealing with the abortion issue, and it is not because I 
disagree with her, or her assessment that stalling these committee 
hearings by dragging them out month by month would be politically 
expedient for you and for others who 'might prefer not to have a 
rollcall vote on a Human Life Amendment before election time. 

But, rather, because with very few exceptions, almost every Senator 
and Representative in Congress would like nothing better than to 
get rid of the abortion issue tomorrow, if not before, or at least 
dump the matter back into the lap of the State legislatures. 

Senator Bayh. Excuse me for interrupting. 

Ms. Engel. That is perfectly fine. 

Senator Bath. You said, "Although, Mr. Chairman, I have no de- 
sire to embarrass you," I do not think your desire not to embarrass 
me is relevant to what we are trying to do here. I appreciate your 
sentiment, although it is not necessary. 

Nor am I virgin as far as being embarrassed, nor do I anticipate 
that I will never be embarrassed again. It is like Harry Truman 
said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," and I like 
it in the kitchen. You say further, "not because I feel Dr. Tyrer was 
incorrect in her judgment or her assessment that stalling the sub- 
committee hearings by dragging them out month by month would be 
politically expedient for you and others who might prefer not to have 
a rollcall." 

Do you feel what we are doing here is dragging things out and 
following political expediency? 



94 

Ms. Engel. I would not care to judge your motives. However, I 
would suggest that these hearings have been dragged out, holding 1 
per month on a different topic; yes, I would concur in that opinion. 

Senator Bath. All right. How many votes do you suppose we 
could have for these amendment if we had had the vote in June? 

Ms. Engel. Well, the problem of getting through the subcommittee 
is yours and getting people motivated to support is our problem, in 
which you, of course, would play a role. 

Senator Bath. You see, I have not tried to answer that question, 
because I am trying to solve the problem in my own mind. 

It must be very comfortable, I imagine, to be so satisfied that you 
have all the answers and know exactly what is right and wrong. 

I find it more difficult in my own mind and heart to reach that con- 
clusion. However, if you are in favor of an amendment and make, 
what I would call, a rather critical assessment, if not of my motives, 
than of the results of my actions, I think maybe you ought to, in the 
quiet of the evening, add up the votes you would have had in June. 

Now. please proceed. 

Ms. Excel. Yes. I would like to comment on that statement. 

I have been in the movement now for more than 10 years. I do not 
believe I have all of the answers, but I believe by the time you get 
through these hearings you will not have all of the answers either. 
As you said, there comes a time when you will vote yes or no, and 
that time in your estimation may be 2 years, but at that point of 2 
years you might be able to say, if I only had another 2 years to think 
about it, I might know more about it. And the chances are that is 
true, but the point here is that each day that goes by, thousands of 
unborn children are being killed and so we are extremely anxious to 
have this issue — the hearings conducted in the manner which they 
usually are, and I would suggest future hearings be held in groups 
of 2 or 3 days rather than being strung out in such a manner. That 
would be my only comment before I go on. 

With regard to the matter of congressional responsibility, the ex- 
cuses that I have heard, and I am sure most prolife people have 
heard on the abortion issue, is they will say, this is not our affair. 

Some Congressmen and Senators will say the massive slaughter of 
hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn children is not a Federal 
matter. 

They will say, we are not responsible for the Supreme Court de- 
cision of January 22, which is now the law of the land. 

Well, my primary purpose in being here today, Mr. Chairman, 
is to tell Senators like yourself in both counts, in terms of being 
both in the House and the Senate, that abortion is a Federal matter, 
that the massive slaughter of unborn children in this country is a 
very proper matter of Federal concern. 

And the reason that it is such a proper matter of Federal concern 
a that this Congress is directly responsible for the almost inevitable 
Supreme Court decision which stripped unborn children of their in- 
alienable right to life. 

Why does Congress have this responsibility? 

Congress has this responsibility because over the last 10 

has permitted an antilife philosophv and antilife programs 

and policies in the area of population control and so-called family 



95 

planning to be matters of national policy, promoted and supported 
by tax dollars. . . 

It is the Federal Government— at all levels— executive, legislative, 
and judicial branches— which has posed the greatest threat to unborn 
children in recent years. 

The executive branch because it has failed to correct the antilite 
abuses primarily within the bureaucracies of HEW and AID and 
has permitted key antilife leaders such as Dr. Louis Hellman of the 
Office of Population Affairs and Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, Director of 
Population Bureau for AID, to remain in office. 

President Ford's selection of Nelson Rockefeller will undoubtedly 
compound these abuses. 

The legislative branch, they are responsible because Congress has 
authorized legislation and appropriate funds year after year to 
initiate, promote, and to sustain antilife programs in virtually every 
conceivable Federal bureaucracy, including the following: 

You have a whole list, as vou can see, in front of you, which I am 
not going to go through the^ bother of labeling succinctly other than 
to say that in the attachments which accompany the testimony we 
do contain specific details on the extent to which each of the agen- 
cies such as the Office of Education, Department of Defense, Public 
Health Services, U.S. Information Agency, and so forth, have con- 
tributed to the antilife mechanism at the Federal level, and if at the 
end of my testimony, if you have any specific question on any of 
these agencies, I would be happy to answer them there. 

Then we get lastly to the judicial branch. The judicial branch, 
whose highest Court by a 7-to-2 decision, legalized the killing of un- 
born children up to and including the time of birth, a decision based 
in part upon the very impeccable historical credentials of the Play- 
boy Foundation as well as numerous antilife lower court decisions, 
brought about through the tireless efforts of federally funded Legal 
Service lawyers. 

Senator Bath. Excuse me, madam, what is the Playboy Foun- 
dation? 

Ms. Excel. The Playboy Foundation is the foundation of Hugh 
Hefner and is related directly to Playboy Magazine and the Playboy 
empire. 

Senator Bath. And how does it have impeccable historical creden- 
tials? I have never heard of it. Which is not to mean it does not have 
impeccable historical credentials. Would you edify us a little bit? 
Maybe it is something I do not know. I am familiar with the maga- 
zine, having onlv a passing familiarity with it. [General laughter.] 

Ms. Engel. When the Supreme Court decision came out, Hugh 
Hefner, in an article which appeared in Playboy, praised the fact 
that the Supreme Court decision had based a portion of its section 
with regard to the history of abortion law on a presentation which 
was funded through the Playboy Foundation, and if you would like 
a copy of that I do have the article on which the Supreme Court de- 
cision, using the information provided by this historical background, 
funded through the foundation. 

Senator Bath. Well, now you are referring to an article that Mr. 
Hefner wrote? 

Ms. Engel. No, no. 



96 

Senator Bath. Did the Court in its judgment talk about the im- 

able historic credentials of the Playboy Foundation? 
Ma Engel. Hugh Hefner, through the Playboy Foundation, his 
foundation, has done a number of research articles and so forth on 

tin- abortion area. . . , , - 

When the Supreme Court decision came out, one of the references 
made in the Supreme Court decision was to a specific article made 
by a specific author. That particular article is related to the Play- 
boy Foundation in terms of funding. 

\nd if I use the term "impeccable historical credentials it was 
to get just the reaction I have gotten, meaning, what is the impec- 
cable historical credentials? 

I would love to ask that of the Supreme Court. 
Senator Bath. What concerns me, is that we have a very serious 
issue here. 

Ms. Engel. That is correct. 

Senator Bath. I am sure you think it is serious, but when you ap- 
proach it from that particular point, I do not think it is making a 
good case. 

Ms. Engel. Mr. Senator. I do not think you are quite correct. 
Senator Bath. I think Hugh Hefner has a right to say what he 
wants to say. 
Ms. Engel. He may have. 

Senator Bath. But I do not think we should be told that the Su- 
preme Court of the United States based their decision on the impec- 
cable historical credentials of the Playboy Foundation. Everybody 
utitled to their opinion, but as the chairman of this committee 
1 am trying to sort out facts from fiction and it is very difficult. And 
forgive me if I am a little harsh on you. 
Ms. Engel. Not at all. 

Senator Bath. You have a right to present your opinion, and that 
is why you are here. Do not be deterred. I have a sinking suspicion 
you are not going to be. [General laughter.] 

Ms. Engel. Yes. As you said before, you know, if you don't like 
the heat in the kitchen— well, I have been through a lot of heat in 
the kitchen as a mother of five so I will stay and go over this. 

Now, what T was trying to say here. Senator, is that when I saw 
that the Supreme Court decision was based at least in part on his- 
torical documentation supplied by the Playboy Foundation, I 
thought that to be rather unorthodox and more so when I read the 
information. T believe it was not historically correct. 

So perhaps T should have put little quotes around my comment as 
being a facetious one but the fact that the Supreme Court decision 
did base some of its historical data and so forth on information 
provided by the Playboy Foundation simply means that I think that 
they could have had a better source, if they were looking for more 
urate historical information. 

Senator Bath. But in the footnotes, I should remember this, but 
did the Court refer in the footnotes to the Playboy Foundation, or 
doctor or a scientist who was studving the issue and some 
of the funds for the study had been provided by the Playboy Foun- 
dation ? 



97 

Ms. Engel. Well, on this, I think it would probably be best if I get 
you a copy of the article, but basically 

Senator Bath. I am more concerned about the Supreme Court de- 
cision, and not what Hugh Hefner has to say, with all respect to 
Mr. Hefner. . 

Ms. Engel. All right. I am too. The article in the Supreme Court 
decision was footnoted and it used the author's name and the article 
from which it was drawn. It did not mention the Playboy Foun- 
dation. In other words, in reading the decision, if you read it you 
would not know of this author's association with the Playboy Foun- 
dation. 

Senator Bath. What was the author's name? 

Ms. Engel. I have the information in this packet, if you would 
like to — would you consider holding it a second and getting a drink 
and I will pull it out for you ? 

Senator Bayh. Why don't you go ahead and I will look for it while 
you go ahead. I just want to find out who it is, and pay more care- 
ful attention to what the credentials are. 

Thank you. 

Ms. Engel. All right. Very good. 

Earlier in my testimony, I made reference not only to the Federal 
antilife programs and policies but also to an antilife philosophy 
which has in fact, in terms of family planning and population con- 
trol, become the state religion and by this I mean it is a philosophy 
which is supported by Federal taxes. It is a philosophy which is sup- 
ported by Federal personnel. It is a philosophy which uses the offices 
of the Federal Government and it is a philosophy which Federal 
publications push. 

I have below a selection of quotations. They were taken from two 
books. One is called Women and the New Race and the other is called 
The Pivot of Civilization. I have brought them along with me be- 
cause they are seemingly difficult to get, unless one orders the entire 
volumes. The quotes that I have, I think are quite alarming, par- 
ticularly when you mentioned you were quite interested in the Nazi 
philosophy in the background there. 

If you read the article which Mildred Jefferson referred to, which 
was the "Life Devoid of Value" which was a philosophical basis for 
much of what happened in Nazi Germany, you will see a very great 
similarity between the particular approach, the utilitarian approach 
and the quotes which I have before me. 

Chapter 5 of Women and the New Race is titled "The Wickedness 
of Creating a Large Family." The quotes read : 

The most serious evil of our time is that of encouraging the bringing into 
the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding 
too many children * * * 

Another quote: 

Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feeble 
minded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers. 

Another quote: 

* * * The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant 
members is to kill it. 



98 

* * * What shall be said of us (society) who permit outworn laws and cus- 
toms to persist in piling up the appalling sum of public expense, misery and 
spiritual degration. 

In other chapter, entitled "When Should a Woman Avoid Having 
Children*' from again, Women and the New Kace, the following 
quote : 

No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy them- 
selves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective. No matter 
how much they desire children, no man and woman have a right to bring into 
the world those who are to suffer from mental or physical affliction. It con- 
demns the child to a life of misery and places upon community the burden of 
raring for it * * * 

The last quote is taken from the Pivot of Civilization. It is chapter 
4 entitled, "The Fertility of the Feeble-Minded." 

* * * we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of end- 
less progeny of defective, we prefer a policy of immediate sterilization, of 
making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited in the feeble-minded. 

And in the last section, having to do with eugenics, the following 
quote : 

* * * Eugenics is chiefly valuable in its negative aspects * * * it shows us that 
we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, un- 
ceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at 
all * * * 

I think you would agree that these are basically vicious, racist 
opinions which could never formulate the basis for a matter of 
national policy. The reason I brought the books along is so if the 
Senator would like to see that these are quotes which were taken 
within the context, and they were not quotes which I believe as a 
professional writer, distort the author's intent. Could these quotes 
be offered as the basis for national policy? Yes, they can; in fact, 
they have. Within the next 5 years the Federal Government will 
spend more than $1 billion in taxes to promote these ideas. Monday 
before last, August 12, the House voted — the bill was H.R. 14214, 
title 2, $472.5 million, almost $0.5 billion, to promote such opinions 
through private, quasi-governmental and governmental agencies. 

You see, Mr. Chairman, these quotes were taken from the works 
of Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League, 
which today we know as Planned Parenthood and World Population. 

Today, some 50 years later, the Sangerite revolution is complete. 
The Sangerite philosophy or way of life has formed the basis of 
Federal policy in the area of population control and so-called family 
planning a pleasant-sounding euphemism for birth control, including 
contraception, sterilization, and abortion. The Sangerite programs 
and policies have indeed become Federal programs and policies. 

There lias been a very concerted effort to overhaul the public image 
of the Sangerite movement between the years of 1920 to the mid- 
I960's, and T think it is easy to see, if one gages by the Sangerite 
attitude from these previous quotes, why there was a need to over- 
haul the public image so as to tone down the original eugenic roots 
hedonistic basis of sexual activity of this organization. 

It appears, however, that the movement has come full circle fol- 
lowing the January 22 Supreme Court decision on abortion. 

In the attachments which your aide has just picked up you will 
find documentation to support the following charges. 



99 

It is a matter of public record that Planned Parenthood and its 
affiliates see abortion as a key to eliminating physically or mentally 
defective unborn children. They see abortion as a tool to reduce wel- 
fare rolls and most importantly they see abortion as a necessary and 
efficient method of population control, population control defined as 
a regulation of family size by Government. 

Large families are an anathema, and I think that this whole atti- 
tude here with regard to families is very well reflected in a brochure 
which you have before you called So You Finally Had a Boy, which 
characterizes parents of large families as being immoral and selfish 
since their example may kill us all in a few generations. 

That particular pamphlet, the green and white one, was circulated 
by Planned Parenthood of Pittsburgh, and its emblem is on the 
back. It stems from Planned Parenthood, Colorado. 

Many of these Planned Parenthood agencies received between 80 
to 90 percent of their funds from the Federal Government. 

Catholic-baiting, an art form in which Margaret Sanger excelled, 
continues today unabated, for the Catholic Church remains the sole 
singular obstacle to the goals of the Sangerites and the Malthusians. 

I have attached as the last attachment, Mr. Senator, a selection of 
cartoons on population control. Two of those cartoons, for those of 
you in the audience who do not have them before you, one is a picture 
of the Pope with blindfolds on, covered with cobwebs, walking on 
two tortoises. 

The other is an article-cartoon which shows the Pope appearing 
before a selection of wall-to-wall people, the quote being "I have 
called you here today to warn you of the dangers of underpopu- 
lation." 

These two articles, there are more on the flip side, appeared in 
publications of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, 
which receives more than 50 percent of its annual budget directly 
from the American Federal tax dollar. 

How have we come to this rather sorry state of affairs? How is it 
that in less than 10 years Congress and Federal bureaucrats who 
once hesitated to even use the word birth control, much less imple- 
ment and promote birth control, are financing today a multi-billion 
dollar foreign and domestic antilife program which includes the de- 
velopment of new abortion techniques. 

It includes the massive promotion of abortization devices which 
are today staples of Federal family planning programs. It includes 
the promotion of red, white, and blue condoms to celebrate this coun- 
try's upcoming Bicentennial Year in 1976. 

Senator Bayh. Pardon me. How do they do that? 

Ms. Exgel. Well, if you want details, the gentleman that you 
would see would be Dr. Ravenholt from AID. It was his suggestion, 
because the traditional condoms, not that I am very well acquainted 
with them, but through my work I have seen them, are traditionally 
gray and drab, and Dr. Ravenholt's feeling is that if we perhaps 
come out with something like the South Sea colors or colors which 
are more attractive, that they would be more easily 

Senator Bayh. Yes. I get the message. 

[General laughter.] 



100 

Senator Bath. Where does he say that? I mean do we have any- 
thing public? I would like to talk to him about that. 

Ms. Excel. Yes. I can easily give you that material. 

lator Bath. I would sure like to see it. The material, that is. 

A\\> can talk to Dr. Ravenholt about that. 

Ms. Excel. Dr. Ravenholt, by the way, was the gentleman who 
strung his IUD's on a Christmas tree one day outside of his hall and 
1 have other comments about Ravenholt, but we will save that for 
another hearing. 

To go on. The storv of the rise of the Sangente antilife philosophy 
to that of national 'policy is basically a complex and lengthy one. 
However, it would have been said to have come from an idea to an 
institution via eight plateaus, each somewhat overlapping a time 
span of more than 50 years. 

Sheet Xo. G. Mr. Chairman, of my testimony^ covers the eight 
plauteaus. In reviewing this for you, I think it might be helpful if 
you would perhaps mark down if you have not already, where this 
chart comes from because it is not one of my own making. 

The chart comes from the Population Reference Bureau, Wash- 
ington. D.C., which is one of the very earliest of the population 
control groups in the 1920's and 1930's, and so it is a plateau system 
which has been worked out and which has been publicized through 
an agency which is well known for its particular biases in the popu- 
lation control field. 

The first plateau is in 1920 to the 1940's. This is basically a few 
individuals "crying in the wilderness." These early people, these were 
the Sangerites, the Margaret Sangers, they were the Drysdales and 
they wore the Gambles. 

I do not know — Mr. Chairman, are you acquainted with the ad 
which shows on television, it is a deodorant soap and you are en- 
couraged to use it because of the crowded conditions in the schools? 
Have you ever seen that? It is P-300. Are you acquainted with that 
particular ad? 

Senator Bath. Very frankly, there are a lot of things that you 
are saying, which I am not acquainted with. But I will try to get 
acquainted with them. 

Ms. Exgel. OK. The reason I asked, is if you had trouble remem- 
bering the Gamble name, they are very well known in the population 
control field. 

Senator Bath. What does that have to do with deodorant soap, if 
T may say? 

Ms. Engel. Well, thev say that because of more crowded con- 
ditions children and adults should be better disinfected. 

Senator Bath. Is that what it says in the ad? 

Ms. Excel. Yes. And the ironic thing is. it shows a picture of a 

schoolhouse and children are piling into it and it is bulging at the 

us. when in truth, if you are anywhere acquainted with the recent 

tistics you would know that the children are coming out of the 

because of the lower birth rate. 

tor Bath. T thought maybe there were other things that hap- 
pened when you were in crowded elevators or schoolrooms that might 
make one want to use nondeodorant soap. Now, maybe there is a 
subtle hidden meaning here. 



101 

Ms. Engel. Yes. Gamble, I believe, well, I will get down to the 
use of the mass media. Then the link might be a little more clear. 

I felt it was a scare pitch. Gamble is the head of an organization 
called the Pathfinder Fund, which is one of the leading population 
control agencies receiving Federal funding. 

So that is perhaps another name that you might want to add to 
vour list. 

The second plateau would go from 1940 to 1960. In this area we 
have the stage in which small groups, working together informally, 
and then small organizations, seek this initial capital, generally com- 
ing from the foundations. And in this population control and family 
planning field that I am talking about now, the groups included the 
International Planned Parenthood Federation; the Population Refer- 
ence Bureau, John Rockefeller III Population Council and the Ford 
Foundation. 

These were the early population control and family planning 
interests 

The third plateau, 1960 to 1968— this was the time in which the 
mass media was urged to get into the population debate because there 
is a certain degree of respectability one gets by having the topic dis- 
cussed even if it is in a derogatory manner. This was a period in 
which there was increased foundation interest and also this is the 
development of the university-based centers during the 1960's. These 
are presently federally funded. 

I would be happy to provide you with the names of each univer- 
sity-based center. 

The fourth plateau, between 1965 and 1969, this is something which 
will be of particular interest, I think, to you, Mr. Senator, this is the 
period in which bills were introduced in Congress and this activity 
was carried on by such individuals as the late Senator Gruening and 
outside of Congress by individuals like William Draper. General 
Draper was recently appointed and is, I believe, at the time in Bu- 
charest, along with the Pro Life delegation representing the Pro Life 
views, but he was one of the official U.S. delegates to the World 
Population Conference now going on. 

The fifth plateau is the mid-1960's. Now we are starting to get up 
to date. There has always been opposition to population control from 
the Catholic Church, but it was about this time that the opposition 
began to, I would say for want of a better term, began to take shape, 
organized against the population control agencies. 

The sixth plateau is 1970. This is the stage at which, in order to 
get across, in order to promote your cause — in this case, population 
control and family planning — it was necessary for the appointment 
of one or more high level advisory commissions of distinguished 
citizens to make policy recommendations and win public support 
for legislation. I think the Rockefeller Commission on Population 
Growth and American Future was one of these commissions and I 
think that was its particular purpose. 

The seventh plateau, again in 1970, additional Congressional hear- 
ings culminating in legislation, usually of moderate scope and fund- 
ing. The key bills here were the Tydiiigs bill, the 1970 Family Plan- 
ning bill and the Environmental Education Act, which was a very 
key bill for those groups, for example ZPG. 



102 

The last plateau unfortunately has been reached by the Sangerites. 
This was reached very recently, I would say the early 1970s. This 
included several things. It included the increased acceptance of pop- 
ulation control and birth control legislation. It was reflected in the 
increase of the movement's structural and financial stability through 
increased tax subsidies— that is, my tax dollar and your tax dollar- 
through its incorporation into the institutions and mores of society. 

This action is continuing at many levels, including the indoctri- 
nation of young children in the elementary and secondary schools, 
the mass media, the university teaching centers, technological serv- 
ices provided by researchers, pharmaceutical industries, government 
agencies at all levels, and professional groups, such as medical so- 
cieties and foundations. 

As I said, the Supreme Court decision was an inevitable one. All 
of the cliches of that decision, terms like "unwanted children," terms 
like "a woman's right to control her own body," terms referring to 
the "population explosion," all stem basically from this same San- 
gerite ethic. The decision represented an accumulation of more than 
a half century of dedication and tireless effort by the Sangerites and 
by the Malthusians to convince the American public of the right- 
eousness of their cause, but the most important thing here, and what 
I would stress most importantly, is we are not talking about private 
morality, we are talking here about public policy. 

This final achievement is portrayed quite candidly in a book which 
I brought. The cover is quite interesting. It is a book by Lawrence 
Lader, whom, again, was another gentleman on whom the Supreme 
Court decision based many of its footnotes. It is called We Are 
Breeding Ourselves to Death, and the front cover is a bunch of rab- 
bits looking at a large family and saying, Their breeding rate is 
incredible. 

The section has to do with the role of Federal agencies and it has 
to do with the person of former New York Senator Kenneth Keat- 
ing, who was at the time the newly-appointed National Director of 
the Population Crisis Committee, and it tells about how he has eaten 
in the Senate dining room and I will read the statement which I 
think is kind of interesting: 

He ate in the private Senate dining room where he would spread the gospel 
of family planning among all of their friends, particularly among the Repub- 
lican leadership. As one of them recalled, "We may have kidded Ken at first, 
telling him that ho should go and talk to so and so whose wife had just had 
another baby, but his persuasiveness paid off and he was able to give respecta- 
bility to these discussions on population." 

What has all of this got to do with this subcommittee hearing on 
the Human Life amendment? Simply this: For more than a year 
now the Hogan-Helms amendment and other similar amendments 
have been buried in the House where Representative Don Edwards 
has refused to hold hearings, and in the Senate they have not been 
buried. However, hearings, in my judgment, have been dragged out 
month after month, possibly to get Senators and Representatives 
through the November watershed without a vote on the Human Life 
amendment. 

T truly feel that, obviously, there is no sense of urgency about the 
matter. With the exception of a handful of dedicated men this Con- 



103 

gress does not appear to be the least concerned that its inaction will 
result in the death of hundreds of thousands of unborn children. The 
fact that millions of Federal tax dollars are used to promote a 
myriad of anti-life schemes, from direct abortion payments through 
medicaid and aid to dependent children, to research development and 
the promoting of new abortion techniques, to the indoctrination of 
children up to an anti-life ethic, all this appears to raise no par- 
ticular concern at family-planning authorization and appropriation 
hearings. 

Equally obvious is the fact that under these conditions we are 
going to have a very difficult time getting a Human Life amendment 
passed by both Houses of Congress and on its way to the States for 
ratification. 

My purpose here today is to point out the current commitment 
of the Federal Government, including this Congress, to the anti-life 
establishment and to show, quite briefly, how such a commitment was 
obtained and the price that we are currently paying. 

Mr. Chairman, it is my feeling and that of the United States 
Coalition for Life that this Congress owes, it owes its vigorous sup- 
port for a Human Life amendment which would protect human life 
from conception, that is to say from fertilization until natural death, 
to the American people. The coalition would agree that the Hogan- 
Helms amendment or the newer Roncallo amendment would provide 
such protection. 

Apart from the merit of these amendments themselves, we feel 
that Congress should recognize the fact that through its indifference, 
through its ignorance, and through its inability to withstand the 
pressures of the anti-life movement, It must bear its share of guilt 
for the 1972 abortion decision and share its responsibility in seeing 
that a human life amendment is passed this year to protect the un- 
born child. 

Your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, in this matter I believe is very 
plain. As for our part, I believe that the coalition and the pro-life 
movement in the United States will continue to fight at all levels, 
will fight in the halls of Congress and will even fight in the Senate 
dining rooms to educate and to promote an ideal which we believe, 
Mr. Chairman, is as revolutionary in our day as the Sangerite ethic 
was 50 years ago. That ideal is based on the sancity and innate good- 
ness of all human life. 

Thank you. 

Senator Bayh. Thank you, Ms. Engel. 

I appreciate your taking the time to be here. We have tried to 

Ms. Engel. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Bath. Pardon me? 

Ms. Excel. I was going to say before I go, I did want to offer the 
Coalition's research services in the same way that Mr. VanDerhoef 
offered his services. We are also available, there must be many ques- 
tions that you have now or you will have in the future on the extent 
to which the Federal Government is committeed in the antilife area, 
and our research services are at your service. 

Senator Bayh. Well, we have tried to conduct these hearings in 
such a manner that those significant groups that represented large 
numbers of concerned citizens on both sides would be heard. 



104 

How many people share all of the views that you expressed here? 
How large is the U.S. Coalition for Life? Do you have State chap- 
1 am just wondering how many people there are. 

Ms. Excel. I am very glad you asked the question. It gives me an 
opportunity to say a little bit more about Coalition. The U.S. Coali- 
tion for Life is as I said before, is an international and nationally 
based research agency. We have a distinguished international board 
which includes as I mentioned before men like Sir William Liley, 
Dr. Billings of Australia. The Board is selected for its expertise in 
a wide variety of areas, from fetology to economic development, to 
population to natural family planning and so forth. Our agency 
operates through this advisory system. 

Senator Bath. Could you submit us a list of who the Board is? 

How many members do you have? 

Ms. Engel, Yes. We have 33 international and national advisors, 
and one of our national advisors is Senator Jesse Helms. We have 
also — excuse me, Professor E. Rice. Professor Rice is the author of 
the Roncallo amendment. He is also on our legal advisory board. 

Now, the way we work is this. Our agency's function is primarily 
research. We have a research staff. We service prolife groups in this 
United States and abroad. We service approximately 1,200 groups. 
Some of the groups are small. Some of the groups are very large, 
consisting of 60,000 members and so forth. We are not a membership 
group, but I think the feelings that are reflected here today are a 
reflection of the prolife attitudes because being prolife is more than 
being antiabortion. Being prolife is rejoicing in new life, in wel- 
coming new life, in creating a home where new life is always wel- 
comed when it sometimes is not quite planned. 

[The material referred to follows :] 

U.S. Coalition fob Life, 
Export, Pa., September 26, 1974. 

(By Randy Engel) 

For the Record — Complete list of national and international board members. 

Number of subscribers : 1,200 groups in the United States and abroad in 
approx. 17 countries. Groups range in size from 12 members to 60,000 members 
to national groups such at the New Zealand Society for Unborn Children. 

Government subscribers include government agencies incl. the Agency for 
International Development and the Ohio Department of Health and similar 
agencies. 

The Coalition recently sent a 12 member team to the Bucharest World Con- 
ference composed of 6 Americans and 6 members from New Zealand, England, 
Canada, South America, Haiti and Japan. 

International Advisory Board Forms Nucleus of World Wide Pro-Life 

Movement 

The formation of an International and National Advisory Board to the U.S. 
Coalition for Life, of world reknown specialists in a broad range of pro-life 
Interests was announced today by Randy Engel, the Executive Director of the 
Pennsylvania-based agency, as the first step toward developing an International 
Coalition for Life. 

Heading the International Board are pro-life leaders from Europe, Asia, 
Africa. Central and South America, Canada and Australia, including Sir Wil- 
liam Liley, the Father of Fetology, from New Zealand; economics and agricul- 
tural expert. Dr. Colin Clark of Australia; Dr. Antonio de Soroa y Pineda, of 
Madrid, pro-life author and physician for more than 25 years; Dr. E. Tremblay, 
retary General of the French Pro-Life Movement Laissez Les Vivre, Paris; 



105 

Dr. Siegfried Ernst of West Germany, one of Europe's foremost authorities on 
human sexuality, married love and pro-life issues, and Phyllis Bowman, Secre- 
tary of the English Pro-Life Movement, Society for the Protection of Unborn 
Children, based in London. 

Also, Dr. John Billings of Australia, pioneer in natural family planning; 
Demographer, Anthony Zimmerman of Japan ; International journalist Victor 
J. F. Kulanday of New Delhi ; Rev. Pedro Richards of Uruguay, founder of the 
Christian Family Movement in Latin America, and British scholar and critic, 
Christopher Derrick. Other Advisory Members include Rev. Michel Welters of 
Haiti ; John Harrington of Canada ; Jose Lucio de Araupo Correa of Brazil ; 
Nora Leach of Ireland ; Right Reverend John Njenga of Kenya ; John Bergin, 
M.D. of New Zealand; Rev. Joseph Fidelis of Karhataka India; Rev. Rufus 
Benedict of Ceylon and Hamish Fraser of Scotland. 

Specialists from the United States serving on the USCL Advisory Board in- 
clude Constitutional lawyer Charles E. Rice of Notre Dame; Dr. Paul Marx 
author of The Death Peddlers — War on the Unborn of St. John's University, 
Collegeville, Minnesota; United States Senator from North Carolina, Jesse 
Helms; Herbert Ratner, M.D., editor of Child and Family of Oak Park, Illi- 
nois ; Reporter and critic George Gent of New York ; Frances Freeh author and 
lecturer on population; and Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. of the Department of 
Preventitive Medicine, University of Chicago College of Medicine and Dr. 
Nathan Wright, Jr. writer, sociologist and advocate of strong Black support 
for the Pro-Life Movement. USCL-NGO Representatives to the United Nations 
are Lillian Koegler of White Plains and Bill Devlin of Life Lobby, Inc., L.I., 
N.Y. 

Also George Barmann of MAP, Inc., Dayton, Ohio ; K.D. Whitehead, author 
and lecturer of New York; Public Relations Consultant John V. Hinkel of 
Washington, D.C. ; economist-demographer Albert Kapusinski of Caldwell Col- 
lege, N.J. ; William and Connaught Marshner of D.C. ; attorney Paul Haring 
of Washington, D.C. ; Obstetrician-Gynecologist William Lynch of Brookline, 
Mass. ; Daniel and Constance Torisky, national leaders in the field of mental 
retardation from Monroeville, Pennsylvania ; Onalee McGraw of the National 
Coalition for Children, Chevy Chase, Maryland ; James Ford, M.D. of Lynwood, 
California ; pro-life attorney and writer, Robert L. Mauro of Long Branch, N.J. 
and James J. McGuire, public relations consultant of Harrisburg. 

The immediate objective of the International and National Advisory Boards 
according to USCL Director, Randy Engel, is to improve communications in 
the U.S. and abroad with specialists in areas of pro-life interest and share com- 
mon problems and solutions of the Pro-Life Movement. Many of the advisory 
members are expected to attend the World Population Conference in Bucharest, 
Rumania this coming August, she said. 

The long term objective, however, Mrs. Engel concluded, is to lay the founda- 
tion for an International Pro-Life Coalition. The U.S. Coalition for Life is 
expected to serve as a temporary headquarters for information and research 
materials for Pro-Life groups around the world until permanent headquarters 
are established, probably in England, she said. 

"In the meantime we can help share our common burdens and our successes 
against the Anti-Life Establishment manifested by such agencies as the Inter- 
national Planned Parenthood Federation and the Humanist Society," she said. 

Senator Bayh. I appreciate your being here. I appreciate your 
frank criticism of the Chairman and his conduct of the hearings, 
although I do not come to the same conclusions you do. It is im- 
portant that we protect the rights of others to differ. 

You might go back and look at the way some other hearings are 
conducted. I do not know whether you have been here or not 

Ms. Exgel. Yes, I have. 

Senator Bath. You know that a lot of these hearings we start at 
10 o'clock and we are still going at 6 o'clock. I do not think there 
are very many Senators that have what amount to 4 days of hearings 
in 1 day to pursue the solutions, but I do not offer that as an apology. 
I do not think that is necessary. 



106 
T would like to ask one or two questions to define your thinking 

1 L6 IV. 

Y"ou mentioned the multicolored packets of condoms that have 
sed. Do you believe there is a place for using any of these 
in any color? Is that the same as abortion? 

.Ms! Engel. Well, you noticed earlier in my statement I tried to 
state what my statement was about. My statement is regarding public 
policy on these basic issues. 

Senator Bath. Well, we are having a hearing to try to determine 
whether for the 28th time, 27th time we are going to amend the 
( '(institution. 

Ms. Excel. That is correct. 

Senator Bath. And I must say very frankly, if you will permit 
me to be equally critical of you as you have been to me, you have 
brought in a lot of thoughts and philosophies, which you have every 
right to share, but in my judgment have absolutely nothing to do 
with abortion. Since you have been very critical of some groups and 
some individuals. I wonder whether you feel that any effort to try 
to prevent conception is the same as abortion. The use of a condom 
is one example that you brought out. 

Xow, is that the same as abortion? Is that something that we 
should frown upon, that we should not use, that we should have a 
national policy against? 

Ms. Exgel. You notice that the context in which I used the con- 
dom, it was not that the condoms existed — I have no qualms about 
an enterprising condom field who feels that by making a product 
more attractive they are going to sell more. 

Senator Bath. Take the color out of it. I am talking about — we 
are talking about policy. Is it a bad policy? Does a family that uses 
this kind of thing, is that the same as abortion? 

Ms. Exgel. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about Federal policies 
with regard to abortion. Xow, the point of my testimony 

Senator Bath. That is precisely what I am saying. We are talking 
about that, and I wanted to know whether the use of a condom or a 
policy of using a condom, is the same? 

Ms. Excel. The point is, I feel and our agency feels that we are 
;it this present level. In other words, we are at the level where the 
Federal Government is intimately involved in abortion, both funding 
abortion, the development of abortion research. 

Xow, how did one get from a situation whereby as I said before, 
l'i years ago abortion was not heard in the halls of Congress, rarely 
was sterilization, sometimes family planning was. How does one get 
in ID years from this position of almost a nonentity to the position 
where the Federal Government has permitted Planned Parenthood, 
an agent of abortion, to become a Federal Agency. 

tor Bath. Excuse me, Ms. Engel. There are other people that 
are waiting to testify. 

Ms. Engel. T understand that. 

Senator Bath. I know all of these things that you have said. I am 
trying to get a little personal insight to what you really believe. I 
wonder if yon believe personally that the use of this type of contra- 
ception device is the same as abortion? 



107 

Ms. Engel. My personal views on family planning is that in terms 
of preconceptive situations, an individual has a right to use contra- 
ceptives or to avail themselves of natural methods. That is not what 
I am discussing. 

Senator Bayh. Well, that is what I asked. I know what you have 
been discussing. You have had quite a bit of time to discuss it and 
you have done it very well. I just wanted to get the answer to that 
question. 

" Ms. Engel. All right, but you see, the point that this has brought 
up is someone will say, well — all right, let me rephrase that question 
and it might help, I think it might help you, it might help the mem- 
bers of the audience, in saying that our agency has no qualms with 
contraceptives being available, and we would want no restrictions on 
this except those required to protect minors, but what we are talking 
about is the role of the Federal Government, whether it is promoting 
abortion or whether it is promoting other means of fertility control 
because the basis of our research and so forth has shown that the 
reason why the Supreme Court decision came to its particular de- 
cision was based to a great part on the fact that the Federal Govern- 
ment had made abortion respectable, and it seems to me that until 
Congressmen could accept in their own minds their part in per- 
mitting the state of affairs to come about, that they would reallv feel 
no responsibility in coming to grips with the human life amendment. 

Senator Bath. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to Pat Goltz for letting me take her place. 

Senator Bayh. Mr. Warren Shaller, the president and executive 
director of American Citizens Concerned for Life. 

Ms. Engel. Excuse me. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Pat Goltz per- 
mitted me to go ahead, and I believe she was next. 

Senator Bayh. I thought she changed places. 

Ms. Engel. I believe she has an earlier flight, but I do not believe 
Eeverend Shaller does. 

Senator Bayh. How about Mr. Shaller. Does he have an earlier 
flight? 

Mr. Shaller. I have one about 4 o'clock this afternoon. 

Senator Bayh. All right. Let us hope we will be pretty close to 
finishing by then, because this is only being included as one meeting 
by Ms. Engel's definition. 

All right, let us have Pat Goltz. Is that all right? 

Mr. Shaller. That is fine with me. 

STATEMENT OF MS. PAT GOLTZ, FEMINISTS FOR LIFE 

Ms. Goltz. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Pat 
Goltz, the international president of Feminists for Life, Inc. We 
have members in 40 States, Canada, Britain, and Mexico. We have 
an international information network, and I come before you today 
to share with you some of the information we have gathered on the 
questions of abortion. 

At this time I would like to request my full testimony and attach- 
ments be entered into the record. 

Senator Bayh. We will be glad to do that. 



108 

Ms. Goltz. I want to be a little bit detailed about this. In the issue 
of Child and Family, I would like to have you enter the article on 
Nazi medicine and the one immediately following on the Ohio su- 
preme court decision on abortion. The "Uncertified Human," if I 
could. I would like to have the article on Michael Lichfield entered, 
and on the ovulation method, I would like to have just the side with 
the ovulation method on it, not the description of how to select the 
sex of your child to be entered. 

Senator Bayh. All right. 

May 1 ask you, does the statement which you put in the record or 
what you are going to tell us here describe what Feminists for Life 
is? How does one describe herself as a Feminist for Life? 

Ms. Goltz. Yes, I am going to do that. 

Senator Bath. Good. 

Ms. Goltz. I am going to actually excerpt my testimony because 
of its length. 

Senator Bath. That is fine. Thank you. 

Ms. Goltz. We are for the legal and social equality of women and 
men. We are here in support of the human life amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, which would protect human life 
from conception until natural death. 

Our primary reason is a feminist one. The only consistent philos- 
ophy a feminist can have about other instances of human life is one 
of granting dignity to all of them. We are demanding an end to class 
stereotyping for women; we cannot and dare not introduce a new 
class stereotype based on age, mental and physical condition, or de- 
gree of unwantodness. We who were once defined as less than human 
cannot, in claiming our rights, deny rights to others based on a sub- 
jective judgment that they are less than human. 

Our Government and our society exists to protect the rights of 
each individual, and the most basic right is that of life itself. 

Abortion has been presented as the solution to the problems faced 
by women with untimely pregnancies. The vast majority of these 
problems can be put into one category: discrimination. We are uni- 
laterally opposed to discrimination based on either sex or maternal 
-tat us. We reserve the right to be treated as equals and to be mothers 
at the same time. 

Abortion is a nonsolution. Each time a woman resorts to abortion, 
she entrenches discrimination. She allows some part of the male 
power structure to force her into a destructive act, in order to be 
t rented with the dignity which is inherent in her. 

.Many women who promote abortion do not do so out of zeal. They 
are .1 riven to it. They have allowed their bodies to be raped by the 
abortionists knife and like the victim of sexual assault it is a trau- 
matic experieu«(>. Tt interrupts physical, hormonal, and physical life 
streams. It is no wonder that in every poll, more men favor abortion 
than women. Tt is no wonder that women who have been subjected 
the longest to the male education establishment are most likely to 
support abortion. 

Women are in tune with the earth, the ecology. We do not destroy; 
we create. Women recognize that human personhood begins bio- 
logically at conception. We insist on the right to exist in our full 
3exuahty which includes the reproductive function as an intimate 



109 

part of our psyche. We do not have to sacrifice our sexuality in order 
to be equal. We will possess our full sexuality and we will be equal. 
We insist that society provide for us and our children, all of them, 
not just the ones the men want, 

One technique which antilife people use, of which you should be 
aware in order to watch for it, is the hard-case technique. 

In this technique, the most difficult case is chosen for presentation 
to the public, no matter how infrequently it occurs, and that case is 
used as justification for full permissiveness in the abortion laws or 
euthanasia practices. The hard case for the abortion question is a 
case of rape. The hard case for the euthanasia question is the person 
suffering from painful terminal cancer who is being kept alive by 
heroic methods employed by an allegedly sadistic doctor. 

We will comment on the rape-incest case. 

Senator Bayh. How about the euthanasia case ? The sadistic doctor 
which is keeping that patient alive. 

Ms. Goltz. This is the way the case is presented by the people. 

Senator Bayh. Is that euthanasia or is euthanasia a positive effort 
to stop it? 

Ms. Goltz. This is a hard case which is cited as a justification 
for positive euthanasia. In other words, this is a situation that 
euthanasia is supposed to correct. Just the same as, you know, we are 
not here to recommend rape, and rape is the hard case for the abor- 
tion question. 

Incest is against the law primarily because children of incestuous 
unions are more subject to genetic deformity than average. As such, 
incest belongs with fetal deformity, not rape, and should be treated 
as such. 

Rape is the only case in which a women does not willingly consent 
to intercourse. The solution to the rape problem is not abortion, but 
the creation of a society in which rape is unknown. 

The immediate solution is to teach women to report their rapes 
immediately so that pregnancy can be prevented. Failure to do so 
is implied consent to provide life support to the unborn child who 
may result, The immediate solution also consists of forcing changes 
in attitude toward raped women so that they are not treated as com- 
mon criminals if they report their rapes. 

In rape with pregnancy resulting there are actually two victims: 
the mother and her baby. It is not just, to kill one of the victims for 
the father's crime. 

A comment must also be made about the term "compulsory preg- 
nancy" which the other side uses. It is an emotion-laden term, and its 
purpose is emotional. Its result is to take the discussion out of the 
realm of the rational. In actual fact, even accidental pregnancies 
cannot be called compulsory since the woman consented to inter- 
course. Completing a pregnancy does not, however, require a woman 
to raise a child. The "compulsory pregnancy" crowd claims adoption 
is inhumane. They further deny that there is any implied agreement 
on the part of the woman to supply life support systems to a child 
who otherwise would not live. But many of them get violently angry 
if it is suggested that the father has not given implied agreement by 
his intercourse, to support the mother financially, even though any- 
body or any group could substitute. 



110 

In other words, the father, whose role is not unique and irre- 
placeable, is to be held responsible for his actions, but the mother, 
whose role is irreplaceable, is not to be held responsible for hers. 

A word about unwantedness is also necessary. The concept of un- 
wantedness creates classes of people. Among the people who fit in the 
second class thus created are adopted children, children of single 
mothers, biracial and other nonwhite children, and females. 

Concerning girls, Caroline Bird, in "Born Female," tells us that 
more couples hope that their unborn children will turn out to be 
male than female. If completely successful sex selection were prac- 
ticed, there would be 125 boys born for every 100 girls. This quote, 
by Orlando J. Miller, M.D., illustrates the resultant view when com- 
bined with an abortion mentality : 

"In a social climate in which unwanted pregnancy is sufficient 
indication for abortion, criteria for selective abortion might be broad- 
ened considerably, for example, eliminating carriers of a sickle cell 
or cystic fibrosis gene or even of two X chromosomes at the request 
of the parents." I might add that the possessor of two X chromo- 
somes is commonly known as a woman. 

Abortion is bad for society. Other persons testifying before me 
have claimed that abortion reduces welfare costs. What they are 
doing is citing the obvious and ignoring the possibility of new fac- 
tors. I am giving you a copy of the Wynn report from England, that 
is the blue booklet, which cites the damage caused to subsequent 
children by abortion. 

The abortion leaders here in the United States have admitted they 
simply do not know anything about the effects of abortion beyond 
a few weeks. One instance of damage to subsequent children alone 
will suffice to show the true cost to society of abortion. A common 
result of first trimester abortion is prematurity in subsequent chil- 
dren. Prematurity is a major cause of cerebral palsy. Where abortion 
equals live births, prematurity for the population as a whole nearly 
doubles. I called the United Cerebral Palsy and asked them the cost 
to society of cerebral palsy. I was told, billions of dollars in lost 
productivity alone, not to mention the cost of special equipment and 
training. 

In Communist countries the abortion laws have been tightened 
because of the cost to society and to women. Will we learn from their 
experiences or must we subject millions of women to abortion to 
make our own statistics? As Santayana said, "those who do not 
remember the past are condemned to relive it." Abortion is bad for 
women. It is bad whether legal or illegal. Legal abortionists have 
compromised the basis of their medical ethics. They have compro- 
mised away their healing art and have become the technocrats of 
death. Why should they support the right to life and the health of 
the women '. The statistics prove they do not. 

Legal abortion results in an overall complication rate to women 
which is horrendous: 35 percent of all women aborted in Germany 
-utlei long-term ill effects. In Japan the figure is 29 percent. In 
Canada, 39 percent among teenagers. In Czechoslovakia, 20 to 30 
percent. In Australia, two studies show figures of 20 percent and 
70 percent, the latter in a public hospital. 



Ill 

Logic alone should verify this point. Which is more dangerous 
for women, a natural process, or the abrupt interruption of it? 

Are doctors interested in the health of women? Not when 7 out of 
9 male urine samples tested in abortion clinics in London were re- 
ported as positive for pregnancy. Not when results are similarly 
falsified in major cities in the United States. Not when the most 
notorious abortionist in Canada, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, is known 
to be aborting women 20 percent of whom are not pregnant. 

The abortionists are candid : They are not for women's rights; they 
are for their own financial gain; their own self-interest. 

A number of quotations will bear this out: 

From a former abortionist : 

It was easy to see these women as animals. 

From those still active. 

The great thing about the Abortion Act is that is has given us the opportunity 
to perpetuate Hitler's progressive thinking. 

Another quote : 

Financially, after years of struggle, I can't help feeling a little like the 
Texan who drilled for water and struck oil. 

Another quote : 

A syndicate invited me to be its medical director for up to $250,000 a year. 

Another quote : 

But if the courts declare abortion laws unconstitutional, the doctors will say, 
"Now it is against the law not to do abortions" — and then they will do them, 
for in some cases they may be sued if they don't. 

Quote : 

Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion. At present, the 
means available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. 

This quote was from Dr. Alan Guttmacher: 

In 1967, women coming in to see us about terminating pregnancy had to jus- 
tify that. Now I feel about any pregnancy if a woman can justify keeping a 
pregnancy, that is okay. But if she can't, get rid of it. 

The abortionists are using women's bodies to promote the Govern- 
ment ideal of population control : They are gaining financially from 
using women's bodies to perpetuate the Government's population 
policy. 

They have indicated to each other that the tactic is to obscure 
the humanity of the unborn child, and the fact that abortion kills 
a baby. They instruct each other never to call the unborn children 
babies but always to call them fetuses. Thus they have used a scien- 
tific term of somewhat obscure meaning to the general public as a 
niggerizing term much like the term broad as applied to women. The 
purpose : to dehumanize. Do they honestly believe that this child 
is only a blob of tissue? Well, as one satirical author from Canada 
would have it, everyone knows that the baby's body is instantaneously 
formed at the moment of birth ! 

Feminists who hold that unborn babies are only blobs of tissue are 
known in prolife feminist circles as "blob feminists". 

But what do proabortionists really think about the humanity of 
the unborn and about the nature of abortion? I have some further 
quotes : 



112 

Abortion is the taking of a life. 

Another quote: 
An abortion . . . kills the life of a baby after it has begun. 

Another quote: 
Fertilization, then, has taken place : a baby has been conceived. 

Quote : 

The staff are now required to be involved in the induced abortion of a large 
fetus which neither resembles a "blob" ... or a "group of cells"— but very much 
resembles a baby. 

And finally, quote: 

Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to 
separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing which continues to be 
socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific 
fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception, and 
is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very consid- 
erable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as any- 
thing but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put 
forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophre- 
nic sort of subterfuge is necessary because, while a new ethic is being accepted, 
the old one has not yet been rejected. 

Every quote which I have read you so far comes from leaders, 
either groups or individuals, in the abortion movement who want 
abortion on demand and more. 

So it appears that women's bodies are not only being used to pro- 
mote population control, but they even lie to women about the un- 
born child, and about what abortion does. If there was ever a philos- 
ophy which was degrading to women, it is the philosophy that we 
must lie to women, cheat them, ant fool them in order to get their 
money and reduce population. Do women want to be instruments to 
perpetuate Hitler's progressive thinking? No, we do not. 

Do wo need abortion? The answer to that question is no. That is, 
if we are willing to care enough. There are many ways in which 
women can be helped without creating destruction. I will name a 
few. Enforcement of existing laws against discrimination, such as 
the fifth and 14th amendments, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1963, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Employ- 
ment Opportunities Act of 1972, the Educational Amendments of 
1972, and the Public Health Service Act as amended in 1971. The 
ratification and implementation of the equal rights amendment. The 
establishment of maternity communes where single women with chil- 
dren, bom and unborn, can go and live and share resources. Hospices 
for the elderly. An effective natural birth control method, such as 
the ovulation method, which allows women to control their fertility 
before conception without drugs, devices or surgery, and is 98.5 per- 
cent effective. The recognition that consent to sex' on the part of a 
man is an unspoken contract guaranteeing that he will support a 
woman and her unborn child until birth takes place. The creation 
of ;i society in which rape is unknown. Corporations who are willing 
to take the blame for the pollution they cause rather than blaming 
the future generation. An ecological movement that teaches indi- 
viduals t<» respect the environment, starting with the elimination of 
Jitterbugs. A society dedicated to the proposition that we should 



113 

remove political barriers to food and fertilizer distribution instead of 
people. 

A society which is not dedicated to planned obsolescence, which is 
dedicated to the proposition that the way to stabilize the population 
is to help the third world nations become fully developed technologi- 
cally and educationally, that recognizes that each human crisis leads 
to progress, that recognizes technology as a servant and not the mas- 
ter of men and women, that does not direct itself against the bodies 
and minds of women. In other words, a society which respect each 
and everyone of us as a unique and irreplaceable individual entitled 
to life, liberty, and property. 

A final comment about choice of language in the human life amend- 
ment. The purpose of the amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court 
decisions of January 22, 1973. Any reasonable amendment should do 
this. 

However, it is our feeling that a good amendment would have the 
following characteristics: (1) It will specifically define human life 
as beginning at conception or fertilization, which is synonymous; 
(2) It would provide protection for all innocent life from conception 
till natural death, and include the aged, ill, incapacitated, and the 
physically and mentally handicapped; (3) It will prohibit both State 
and private action or inaction which will lead to the deliberate de- 
struction of innocent life without due process of law; (4) It will not 
permit abortion for physical health or mental or social considerations, 
but will permit abortion when there is an immediate physical threat 
to the life of the mother, from the pregnancy; (5) It will not permit 
the States to allow abortion or positive euthanasia to be legal. We 
do not cry "States rights" in reference to sexual discrimination; we 
will not permit the cry "States' rights" for killing based on ageism. 

At this time I would like to add a few comments not in my printed 
testimony. 

I am submitting to you, personally, Senator Bayh, a letter request- 
ing that our attorney, Donald L. Billman, be permitted to testify 
orally before this body. He will testify as our representative. We do 
not feel that our testimony as an organization is complete without 
you having had the opportunity to ask him questions. He is one of 
the foremost authorities in the field. 

In a recent letter to you he made a couple of points worth repeat- 
ing and I quote his letter: 

The basis for all individual rights is the Bill of Rights— The first ten Amend- 
ments — however, it is the Fourteenth Amendment which championed the cause 
of civil liberties for all persons and assured the supremacy of the Constitution 
and the rule of law, justice and reason over the fickle nature of the human race. 
After ten years of studying, it is my opinion that this Amendment, the Four- 
teenth, applies to the unborn child as well as the black, the Indian and the 
woman. It is my belief that the Amendment is clear that "no life shall be taken 
without due process of law" and that "no person shall be denied equal protec- 
tion of the laws" ! The survival of all civil rights and liberties is now in peril ! 
It was no mere accident that the attack was initiated by an assault upon the 
Little Unborn Baby, for he is the most helpless member of our society. The 
Unborn Child was chosen with care, for he is the epitome of the "unpopular 
client," and it was felt — possibly not incorrectly — that he would find few de- 
fenders. He is a client who can neither pay us, vote for us, thank us or or- 
ganize a riot. The implications of "abortion on demand" are apparent. If this 
inroad upon the vitality of the Constitution goes unchecked and reversed a 



114 

most powerful precedent will have been established for the proposition that an 
Individual's life can be snuffed out at the whim of "Big Brother." If we who 
beUeve in the Bill of Rights and true civil liberties do not rush to the defense 
of the Unborn Child, we will one day soon find ourselves with a handful of 
"rights" as diflBeult to retain as a handful of sand. 

Ami 1 end that quote. 

I might add that in the book Treblinka which describes why Jews 
did not revolt against Xazi extermination a very successful technique 
was used. The population was divided into two groups and only the 
lives of those in the unfortunate group were taken. 

The rest felt safe and so did not rebel. The safe group was divided 
again and again until all were exterminated. 

Gentle people, we have been divided. The unsafe group is the un- 
born. How long will it be before we are in the unsafe group? The 
handwriting is on the wall for those who can see it. 

I am open to questions. 

[The full statement of Ms. Goltz follows :] 

Testimony by Pat Goltz, International President, Feminists for Life, Inc. 

Senator Bayh, members of the committee, and members of the audience : 
I am Pat Goltz, international president of Feminists for Life, Inc. We are 
based at Box 5631, Columbus, OH 43221. We have members in 40 states, Canada, 
Britain, and Mexico. We have an international information network, and I 
come before you today to share with you some of the information we have 
gathered on the questions of abortion and euthanasia. We are for the legal 
and social equality of women and men. We are her in support of a Human Life 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which would protect 
human life from conception until natural death. Our primary reason is a fem- 
inist one: the only consistent philosophy a feminist can have about other in- 
stances of human life is one of granting dignity to all of them. We are demand- 
ing an end to class stereotyping for women ; we cannot and dare not introduce 
a new class stereotype based on age, mental and physical condition, or degree 
of unwantedness. We who were once defined as less than human cannot, in 
claiming our rights, deny rights to others based on a subjective judgment that 
they are less than human. We are all interdependent, the independent woman 
no less than the unborn child ; the child no more than the most independent of 
us. Without each other's help, we would all perish. Our government and our 
society exists to protect the rights of each individual, and the most basic right 
N that of life itself; no other right can be exercised where that right is not 
guaranteed. 

Throughout this talk I shall refer to the unborn child primarily in the mas- 
culine. My reasons are several : 1. We do not expect to wait on our rights until 
the language changes to accommodate us. 2. This is a convention of the English 
language, and the masculine refers to both genders where the gender is not 
known, and 3. It will be less confusing. We do not depend for our dignity on 
using the feminine gender in certain contexts ; our dignity is inherent. 

Abortion has been presented as a solution to the problems faced by women 
with untimely pregnancies. The vast majority of these problems can be put 
into one category : discrimination. We are unilaterally opposed to discrimination 
based on either sex or maternal status. We reserve the right to be treated as 
equals, awl to lie mothers at the same time. We will not accept the current 
either/or choice. Abortion is a non-solution. Each time a woman resorts to abor- 
tion, she entrenches discrimination. Each time she resorts to abortion, she re- 
moves her voice from the arena in which equality for women is being demanded 
and won. She allows some part of the male power structure to force her into a 
tractive act, in order to be treated with the dignity which is inherent in 
her. She may do serious damage to her own spirit. Many women who promote 
abortion do not do so out of zeal : they are driven to it. It is the only way they 
can live with their consciences. This is the reason why their movement has the 
characteristics it does. They are not vocal until they find another person or 
institution to attack. They have allowed their bodies to be raped by the abor- 
tionist's knife, and like the victim of sexual assault, it is a traumatic experience. 



115 

It interrupts physical, hormonal, and psychical life streams. It is no wonder 
that in every poll, more men favored abortion than women. It is no wonder that 
women who have been subjected the longest to the male education establishment 
(the college educated) are most likely to support abortion. Women are in tune 
with the earth, the ecology. We do not destroy; we create. Women recognize 
that human personhood begins biologically — at conception. We insist on our 
right to exist in our full sexuality, which includes the reproductive function 
as an intimate part of our psyche. We do not have to sacrifice our sexuality in 
order to be equal. We will possess our full sexuality ; and we will be equal. We 
insist that society provide for us and our children — all of them, no just the 
ones the men want. 

Some who call themselves feminists claim that men are making the decisions 
for their lives. And so it is. They talk about all the men who testified herej and 
the few women who did. They talk about this committee being made up solely 
of men. And they conveniently forget that the abortion decision in the Supreme 
court was made by seven old men ! It is convenient to claim that pregnancies 
being forced on women, by men, but that abortion isn't. They simply ignore the 
facts. They ignore that the Playboy Foundation, whose motto is sexual exploi- 
tation of women, promotes abortion with its money. They ignore the fact that 
Rockefeller money teams up with government money (voted by men) to promote 
abortion. They ignore the fact that Rockefeller is a male chauvinist, who re- 
marked to a young woman carrying a pro-life picket sign, "Don't knock it, girl. 
You might need one someday." They ignore the fact that abortion makes women 
more subject to sexual exploitation. If one does not have the truth, one ignores 
the facts. One selects the rhetoric that pleases one. Let us see who are the prom- 
inent people in the abortion movement. With a few exceptions out of the fem- 
inist movement itself, they are all male: Hefner, Rockefeller, Guttmacher, 
Packwood, Lamm, Edwards, Tietze, Ehrlich, Israel, Hall. If your choice is 
based on who is promoting it, abortion loses. 

Pro-abortion feminists also conveniently forget that at major conferences on 
abortion, the attending feminists have been treated shoddily. A movement which 
is really aimed at the liberation of women would welcome the feminists. 

One technique which anti-life people use, of which you should be aware, in or- 
der to watch for it, is the "hard case" technique. In this technique, the most 
difficult case is chosen for presentation to the public, no matter how infre- 
quently it occurs, and that case is used as justification for full permissiveness 
in the abortion laws, or euthanasia practices. The hard case for the abortion 
question is the case of rape. The hard case for the euthanasia question is the 
person suffering from painful terminal cancer who is being kept alive by 
heroic methods employed by an allegedly sadistic doctor. 

We will comment on the rape-incest case. Most legislators who are basically 
pro-life find this the hardest to deny. However, Feminists for Life denies it. 
Let us take incest first. Incest is against the law primarily because children 
of incestuous unions are much more subject to genetic deformity than average. 
As such, incest belongs with "fetal deformity", not rape, and should be treated 
as such. Incest is used only as an excuse for abortion, because no person will- 
ingly reports incest under other circumstances ; it. is too hard on the reputa- 
tion of the people involved. Rape is the only case in which a woman does not 
willingly consent to intercourse. It is felt that sinoe she did not consent, she 
should not be penalized by having to continue to carry the child. However, abor- 
tion is also traumatic. The solution to the rape problem is not abortion, but trie 
creation of a society in which rape is unknown. The immediate solution is to 
teach women to report their rapes immediately so that pregnancy can be pre- 
vented. Failure to do so is implied consent to provide life support to the unborn 
child who may result. The immediate solution also consists of forcing changes 
in attitude toward raped women so that they are not treated as common crim- 
inals if they report their rapes. In rape, with pregnancy resulting, there are 
actually two victims : the mother, and her baby. It is not just to kill one of the 
victims for the father's crime. 

A comment must also be made about the term "compulsory pregnancy" which 
the other side uses. It is an emotion-laden term, and its purpose is emotional. 
Its result is to take the discussion out of the realm of the rational. In actual 
fact, even accidental pregnancies cannot be called compulsory since the woman 
consented to intercourse. Completing a pregnancy does not, however, require 
a woman to raise the child. The "compulsory pregnancy" rhetorictitians deny 
adoption because it weakens their case. They claim adoption is inhuman ! ! They 



116 

further deny that there is any implied agreement on the part of the woman 
to supply life-support systems to a child who otherwise would not live, but 
many of them get violently angry if it is suggested that the father has not 
given an implied agreement by his intercourse, to support the mother financially, 
even though anybody or any group could substitute. In other words, the father, 
whose role is not unique and irreplaceable, is to be held responsible for his 
actions, but the mother, whose role is irreplaceable, is not to be held responsible 
for hers. This very position contradicts the claim by the same group that we 
should not have equal rights without equal responsibilities and therefore should 
submit to the draft if the Equal Rights Amendment is ratified. 

A word about unwantedness is also necessary. The concept of unwantedness 
creates classes of people. Among the people included in the second class thus 
created are adopted children, children of single mothers, biracial and other 
nonwhite children, and females. A short example of each: regarding adopted 
children, this comment by Abigail Van Buren : "I think all children should be 
wanted by their natural mothers, don't you?" Regarding children of single 
mothers: some abortion authorities consider illegitimacy as practically synony- 
mous to unwantedness every time they cite how abortion will cut down on ille- 
gitimacy. If necessary they are prepared to use coercion to make the statistics 
even better. Concerning the nonwhite, a Columbus woman who is active in the 
black community once remarked to me that abortion should be allowed for 
biracial children because neither the black nor the white community accepts 
them readily and they meet more discrimination than most nonwhites. As the 
mother of an adopted biracial child, I felt like telling her, "as long as being 
biracial is considered a sufficient excuse for abortion, biracial people will not 
be fully accepted by either community." Concerning girls, Caroline Bird, in 
Born Female, tells us that more couples hope that their unborn children will 
turn out to be male than female. If completely successful sex selection were 
practiced, there would be 125 boys born for every 100 girls. The quote by Or- 
lando J. Miller, MD, illustrates the resultant view when combined with the 
abortion mentality : 

"In a social climate in which unwanted pregnancy is sufficient indication for 
abortion, criteria for selective abortion might be broadened considerably, eg 
eliminating carriers of a sickle cell or cystic fibrosis gene or even of two X 
chromosomes at the request of the parents, who have their own ideas of what 
constitutes the optimal brood of offspring for them, qualitatively as well as 
quantitatively." 

It may come as a surprise to some that a very widespread and viable fem- 
inist movement dedicated to the preservation of unborn life, and the life of the 
elderly and defective, exists. The reason for this is quite simple : suppression. In 
a movement supposedly geared to the destruction of stereotypes, a movement 
which is supposed to guarantee our right to be free to be ourselves, namely the 
pro-abortion feminist movement, we find the strangest of fascist tendencies. 
Women are socially ostracized in feminism for speaking in favor of life. Thus, 
pro-life feminists surfaced like the steam from an overheated boiler ; it built 
up until the boiler could no longer hold it and then it exploded. We receive 
numerous stories of suppression. The National Organization for Women sup- 
presses any woman who is pro-life. It does not matter how sincere her fem- 
inism on the basic issues. I will give a few examples : California, 25 women ex- 
cluded from the local Now chapter — the rescheduled their meeting place and 
informed only the pro-abortion women. Oregon : the Now newsletter denounces 
us as pretending to be feminists. Chicago, Pittsburgh, New York City: Now 
members actively kick out pro-life members. Houston : Now women who are pro- 
life successfully suppressed and isolated, from all over the country, not daring 
to speak out on abortion at all. Ohio : a pro-life Now member denounced in 
public in the rotunda of the State House; the president of the chapter orders 
her not to discuss abortion with any Now member at any time or place. The 
Now chapter refuses to sell advertising space to Feminists for Life, although 
the revenue is needed badly. Other feminists groups act likewise: Massachusetts 
women's liberation group, all 300 of them, kick out on pro-life member. Birth- 
right chapters hassled all over the country by feminists. The League of Women 
Voters in some New England states orders their members to drop out of Right 
to Life Altoona, Pennsylvania: the local Now chapter tries to threaten any 
radio station which plays Seals and Crofts' Fnborn Child; and succeeds. Other 
places where the song is suppressed include Boston. New York City. 

Another reason why strong feminist support for unborn and other unwanted 
life has been obscured is the nature of the treatment in the media. As one 



117 

woman, a feminist reporter from Canada, put it to me recently, "the press tried 
to find a plank in the feminist platform they could support without jeopardizing 
their own entrenched power structure to invasion by qualified women. They 
found it : abortion." Another example of what the press has done is their re- 
sponse to our recent picketing of the national convention of Now : in most cases 
the name of the picketing group was not even mentioned, and the two major 
wire services left the strong implication (by conveniently quoting Ms. Wilma 
Scott Heidi, outgoing Now president, immediately following their description 
of the picketing) that we were "right to lifers". While we do not mind that 
designation, it is misleading, because not all right to lifers are feminists, the 
movement being as broad based as it is, and because we feel that the mislabeling 
implication, if intentional, was done because the media do not wish to admit 
that there is feminist opposition to abortion. If the media are not afraid of 
us, let them call us by our right name. We are PRO-LIFE FEMINISTS. We 
support full equality for women. Our reason for picketing was twofold : the 
denial of rights to unborn women by the preexisting feminist groups, and the 
social ostracism and fascist techniques used against feminists who are pro-life 
and not afraid to say so. 

People who know they have the truth do not fear open debate. We are sup- 
pressed because they know we are right ! 

We keep hearing the claim that we are a tiny, vocal minority. A few figures 
prove otherwise. In Ohio, before the Supreme Court decision, the Ohio Abor- 
tion Alliance had 800 members, as reported to me by its president. At the same 
time, the Ohio Right to Life Society had 40,000 members. Currently, the Ohio 
Abortion Alliance has been dissolved, and it is estimated that the Ohio Right 
to Life Society has between 100,000 and 150,000 members. The National Organi- 
zation for Women has 36,000 members currently, while the League of Women 
Voters has 160,000. The LWV is believed to have recently decided to support 
abortion. If so, it would be the largest organization that does. However, the 
pro-life movement at present is estimated to number at least 3.5 million. 

The pro-abortion people sought at first to repeal or modify firm abortion laws 
by means of a state referendum. They succeeded by a narrow margin in Wash- 
ington state, before the sleeping giant of the grass-roots pro-life population 
woke up. They missed badly in Michigan and North Dakota, where referenda 
were voted down overwhelmingly 2 to 1 in Michigan (after only about 3 weeks 
of pro-life publicity) and 4 to 1 in North Dakota. It is interesting to note that 
the pro-abortion forces often cite Michigan because they believed the victory 
there was due to a very Catholic influence, so that they could exercise their 
religious bigotry, but they never mention North Dakota, because as everybody 
knows, North Dakota is only about 14% Catholic, and if everyone of them had 
voted pro-abortion, the referendum would still have been defeated by an over- 
whelming majority. Having discovered who the real minority was, the pro- 
abortion forces tried in only a few places to achieve permissive abortion in the 
legislatures, but fought their battle after that predominantly in the courts, 
which could be responsive to clever propaganda primarily because they are 
not answerable to the electorate. And so, even though pro-abortion people make 
loud noises now and then about a national referendum, they have never actively 
sought one because they know they are the vocal minority. If I am wrong, let 
them prove it. 

Consider the polls : when Gallup or Harris polled a small group of people on 
abortion, their questions did not even contain the word "abortion". Asking how 
anyone can take a poll about anything without using the term referring to the 
subject in question, another poll was conducted, using the word "abortion", 
which gave the viewpoint to pro-life by a sizeable margin. 

Abortion is bad for society. Other persons testifying before me have claimed 
that abortion reduces welfare costs. What they are doing is citing the obvious 
and ignoring the possibility of new factors. First of all and most importantly, 
you are not doing the poor a favor by having as your reason the reduction of 
costs. Moreover, some abortion leaders have stated that abortion is not intended 
as racial genocide, it just happens to work out that way. I am giving you a 
copy of the Wynn Report, from England, which cites the damage caused to 
subsequent children by abortion. The abortion leaders here have admitted 
they simply don't know anything about the effects of abortion beyond a few 
weeks. One instance of damage to subsequent children alone will suffice to show 
the true cost to society of abortion. A common result of first trimester abortion 
is prematurity in subsequent children. Prematurity is a major cause of cerebral 



118 

palsy. Where abortion equals live births, prematurity for the population as a 
win tie nearly doubles. I called United Cerebray Palsy and asked them the cost 
to Boclety of cerebral palsy. I was told, billions of dollars in lost productivity 
alone, not to mention the cost of special equipment and training. If we do not 
stop abortion soon, we can expect the cost, both financially and in terms of 
human lives, to double very soon. And that cost in financial terms alone will be 
in Millions of dollars. In Communist countries the abortion laws have been 
tightened because of the cost to society and to women. Will we learn from their 
experiences or must be subject millions of women to abortion to make our own 
statistics? As Santayana said, "those who do not remember the past are con- 
demned to relive it." 

Abortion is bad for women. It is bad whether legal or illegal. Legal abor- 
tionists have compromised the basis of their medical ethics : they have com- 
promised away their healing art and become the technocrats of death. Why 
should they respect the right to life and health of the women? The statistics 
prove they do not. Legal abortion results in an overall complication rate to 
women which is horrendous : 35% of all women aborted in Germany suffer long- 
term ill effects. In Japan, the figure is 29%. In Canada, 39% among teenagers. 
In Czechoslovakia, 20-30%. In Australia, two studies show figures of 20% and 
70%, the latter in a public hospital. The death rate from statistics taken in 
numerous countries is twice as high for first trimester abortion as it is for 
pregnancy and childbirth. Logic alone should verify this point : which is more 
dangerous for women: the natural process, or the abrupt interruption of it? 
If you are interested in preserving the health of women, pass a Human Life 
Amendment and enforce it. Dr. Christopher Tietze, who is pro-abortion, and a 
renowned demographer, says that legalizing abortion does not reduce illegal 
abortion rates. Other authorities claim that 90% of illegal abortions are done 
by competent doctors. What legalizing abortion does is to increase the total 
done. Because you have the legal abortions on top of the illegal ones. 

Are the doctors interested in the health of women? Not when 7 out of 9 male 
urine samples tested in abortion clinics in London were reported as positive 
for pregnancy. Not when results are similarly falsified in major cities in the 
United States. Not when the most notorious abortionist in Canada, Dr. Henry 
Morgentaler, is known to be aborting women, 20% of whom are not pregnant. 
The abortionists are candid : they are not for women's rights ; they are for their 
own financial gain ; their own self-interests : 

From a former abortionist : "It was easy to see these women as animals." 
From those still active : "The great thing about the Abortion Act is that it has 
given us the opportunity to perpetuate Hitler's progressive thinking." 

"Financialy, after years of struggle, I can't help feeling a little like the 
Texan who drilled for water and struck oil." "A syndicate invited me to be its 
medical director for up to $250,000 a year." 

"But if the courts declare abortion laws unconstitutional, the doctors will 
say, 'Now it is against the law not to do abortions" — and then they will do them, 
for in some cases they may be sued if they don't." 

"Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion. At present, the 
means available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion." ". . . 
failure of the voluntary restraints has made government controls (on popula- 
tion ) absolutely necessary." 

"Population control, whatever form it takes, must be mandatory to be suc- 
cessful. We must consider enforced contraception, whether through taxation on 
surplus children, or through more severe means, such as conception-license re- 
placing or supplementing marriage license." "Just as we have laws compelling 
death control, so we must have laws requiring birth control — the purpose being 
to ensure a zero rate of population growth." 

Tbe abortionists are using women's bodies to promote a government ideal of 
of population control : they are gaining financially from using women's bodies 
to perpetuate the government's population policy. 

They have indicated to each other that the tactic is to obscure the humanity 
of the unborn child, and the fact that abortion kills a baby. They instruct 
each other never to call the unborn chilren "babies" but always to call them 
"fetuses". Thus they have used a scientific term to somewhat obscure meaning 
as a nlggerlzing term much like the term "broad" as applied to women. The 
purpose: to dehumanize. Do they honestly believe that this child is only a 
blob "f tisane? Well, as one satirical author from Canada would have it. every- 
one knows that the baby's body is instantaneously formed at the moment of 



119 

birth! Feminists who hold that unborn babies as only blobs of tissue are 
known in pro-life feminists circles as "blob feminists". Futhermore to those 
who claim the baby is part of the mother's body, we state: either we women 
are sometimes part male, or we are all female and proud of it. Or to put it 
in the words of a 9 year old: Did you ever see a woman with testicles? But 
what do pro-abortionists say about the humanity of the unborn? About the 
nature of abortion? 

"Abortion is the taking of a life." — Mary Calderone, MD 

"An abortion . . . kills the life of a baby after it has begun."— Planned 
Parenthood 

Fertilization, then, has taken place; a baby has been conceived." — Alan 
Guttmacher, MD 

"A woman's right of privacy may well include the right to remove an un- 
wanted child at least in the early stage of pregnancy." —Judge Gerhard 
Gesell, in US vs Milan Vuitch 

"The staff are now required to be involved in the induced abortion of a large 
fetus which neither resembles a 'blob' ... or a 'group of cells'— but very much 
resembles a baby." — Christa Keller, Pamela Copeland, abortion counsellors 

"The fetal deformity clause is not included for the sake of the fetus (no one 
can speak for him no matter how hard some try) or for the sake of society, 
but for the sake of the pregnant woman." — Jimmye Kimmey, Association for 
the Study of Abortion 

"Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary 
to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing which continues to 
be socially abhorrent. The results has had a curious avoidance of the scientific 
fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception, and is 
continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable 
semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything 
but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth 
under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort 
of subterfuge is necesary because, while a new ethic is being accepted, the 
old one has not yet been rejected." — from an editorial favoring abortion-on- 
demand in the Journal, California State Medical Association. 

So it appears that women's bodies are not only being used to promote popu- 
lation control, but they even lie to women about the unborn child, and about 
about what abortion does. If there was ever a philosophy which was degrading 
to women, it is the philosophy that we must lie to women, cheat them, and 
fool them, in order to get their money, and reduce the population. Do women 
want to be the instruments to perpetuate Hitler's progressive thinking? No, 
we do not. 

I'd like to talk for just a moment about euthanasia. Feminists for Life has 
not had a stress euthanasia as much because so far, we have not received the 
kind of suppression on this issue that we receive on the abortion issue. But 
euthanasia is an area of no less concern. It appears to be self-evident that one 
possible reason for the promotion of euthanasia is because women are treated 
as second-class citizens. You will note that the Supreme Court declared that 
abortion is to be permitted because the unborn are not human "in the whole 
sense". Well, neither are the elderly, the retarded, the unwanted infant, or 
the physically deformed. Who comprise the majority of the elderly? Women. 
60% of the persons above age 65 are women. They are considered a burden 
on society because most of them are poor : they don't get enough social security. 
In past societies women were not persons "in the whole sense" and in our 
society, soon elderly women will not be persons "in the whole sense" either. We 
are opposed to euthanasia because it takes innocent life in over half of whom 
are unwanted women. 

Do we need abortion and euthanasia for women? The answer to that question 
is no. That is, if we are willing to care enough. There are many ways in 
which women can be helped without creating destruction. I will name a few. 
Enforcement of existing laws against discrimination, such as the fifth and 
fourteenth amendment, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1963, Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 
1972. the Education Amendments of 1972. and the Public Health Service Act 
as amended in 1971. The ratification and implementation of the Equal Rights 
Amendment. True equality of opportunity in wages, training, and advance- 
ment in the employment field. Nondescrimination in employment and other areas 
regarding the pregnant. The establishment of maternity communes, where 



120 

single women with children, born and unborn, can go and live and share 
resources. Hospices for the elderly. An effective natural birth control method, 
such as the Ovulation Method, which allows women to control their fertility 
before conception without drugs, devices or surgery, and is 98.5% effective. 
The creation of a masculine image which included the strength of character 
in a man to take the responsibility for his sexual acts : the recognition that 
consent to sex on the part of men is an unspoken contract guaranteeing that 
he will support a woman and her unborn child until birth takes place. The 
creation of a society in which rape is not considered possible. Where men 
do not regard rape as a mark of manhood, and where women are capable of 
defending themselves from attackers, and do not hesitate to do so. A society 
where raped women are not presumed guilty until proven innocent. Corpora- 
tions who are willing to take the blame for the pollution they cause, rather 
than blaming the future generation, and babies in general. An ecological 
movement that teaches individuals to respect the environments, starting with 
the elimination of litterbugs. A society dedicated to the proposition that we 
should remove political barriers to food and fertilizer distribution instead 
of people. A society which is not dedicated to planned obsolescence. A society 
which is dedicated to the proposition that the way to stabilize the population 
is to help the third world nations become fully developed technology and 
educationally. That recognizes that just as technology can be used to create 
problems, so can it be used to solve them. That recognizes that each human 
crisis leads to progress. That recognizes technology as the servant and not the 
master of men and women. That does not direct itself against the bodies and 
minds of women. In other words, a society which respects each and every one 
of us as a unique and irreplaceable individual, entitled to life, liberty, and 
property. Dare we demand so much? How can we demand any less? 

We urge you to favorably report the human life amendment out of committee 
speedily. Time is of the essence. For the children killed today, tomorrow will 
be too late. 

A final comment about choice of language in the human life amendment : the 
purpose of the amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court decisions of January 
22, 1973. Any reasonable amendment should do this. However, it is our feeling 
that a good amendment will have the following characteristics : 

1. It will specifically define human life as beginning at conception or fertiliza- 
tion, which is synonymous. 

2. It will provide protection for all innocent life from conception till natural 
death, and include the aged, ill, incapacitated, and the physically and mentally 
handicapped. 

3. It will prohibit both state and private action or inaction which will lead 
to deliberate destruction of innocent life without due process of law. 

4. It will no permit abortion for physical health or mental or social consider- 
ations, but will permit abortion when there is an immediate physical threat to 
the life of the mother, from the pregnancy. 

5. It will not permit the states to allow abortion or positive euthanasia to be 
legal. We do not cry "states' right" in reference to sexual discrimination ; we 
will not permit the cry "states' rights" for killing based on ageism. 

We must correct the negativism of the death cult speedily so we may con- 
centrate on true, positive solutions to human problems. Let us get the Human 
Life Amendment ratified and then let us begin to work on the solutions, starting 
with this committee. 



[From the Chicago Tribune] 

Abortion Exploits Women 

(By Gloria V. Heffernan. M.D.) 

After centuries of being treated as objects, women are being presented the 
final mechanical insult as a constitutional right. 

The strange compulsion for abortion is in reality the ultimate exploitation 
of women by immature men : technocrats, generally, imbued with a myopic 
sense of social awareness and unable to interpret or control their own sexuality. 

The playboys of the Western world and the authoritarian "adolescents" of the 
Socialist world sacrifice their women in order to preserve their dream of 
llbidinal freedom. It is the women who must go to surgery over and over again 



121 

to insure this dream. The whimpering male refused to take responsibility for 
his sexual behavior. 

It is no surprise that Playboy Foundation money is now competing with 
Rockefeller Foundation money to promote the concept of permissive abortion. 
The rich man's solution lias become the purile male's solution and the last 
vestige of responsibility and commitment has disappeared. 

It is the woman who has been deliberately misled by the male-dominated 
medical prefession into thinking that abortion is merely contraception slightly 
postponed. The serious physical and psychic consequences of this self-serving 
deception are muted despite a wealth of medical literature from the United 
States and foreign countries. 

It is a national disgrace that the American College of Obstetrics and Gyne- 
cology is not in the forefront of the fight against abortion. The depth of this 
deception is brought out in two recent articles. Dr. Richard L. Burt in editorial 
comment in Obstetrics & Gynecology, April, 1971, terms permissive abortion 
"the Fifth Horseman" riding with famine, death, pestilence, and plague. 

He catalogs the serious side effects reported from Scandinavian and Eastern 
European countries with a long experience in legal abortion. These include 
hemorrhage, infection, prematurity in subsequent pregnancies, sterility, perfora- 
tion and the psychic sequels of guilt and depression. 

This alarm is echoed in another article in the British journal Lancet, De- 
cember 4th, 1971, in which Dr. J. A. Staillworthy decries the conspiracy of 
silence about the side effects of abortion. 

A minimal adherence to the concept of informed consent is ignored by most 
referral services and pro-abortion professors of obstetrics and gynecology. This 
frightening failure of the medical profession is most apparent in the continued 
use of the "salting out" method of abortion by American physicians in the face 
of the condemnation of this procedure by the Japanese medical profession. 

The recent report by Christopher Tietze in Family Planning Perspective, 
October, 1971, of a 22.4 percent serious complication rate using this procedure 
documents the American tragedy— a needless mortality and morbidity that 
incriminates the American Medical Association and the American College of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology in corporate malpractice for not banning this pro- 
cedure. 

The greatest tragedy, however, lies in the fact that doctors have renounced 
their ethics to become social technicians rationalizing their position with dreary 
cliches and denying their own science to make it fit vague sociological impera- 
tives. The traditional responsibility in obstetrics for two patients has been 
denied by the abortionists when the whole thrust of scientific medical practice 
has been to bring the healing arts to the child in the uterus, just as it does 
to any patient. 

We find the medical technicians claiming the organs and bodies of the aborted 
children for human experimentation; some of them still alive. What horrible 
echoes are these from the recent past ! 

What can we expect from a society that can rationalize away the most fun- 
damental of human values — the value of life? What is to become of a medical 
profession that substitutes self-serving cliches for its ethics? What is to become 
of women who would ask the courts to institutionalize death as a legitimate 
tool for solving personal problems? Such a society is doomed to an unending 
spiral of violence if women do not change it. 

Women must deny violence a legitimate place in our society by rejecting the 
first violence — abortion. The women of this society must say to purile men that 
the game is over. You can no longer exploit our bodies either in your center 
fold or in your hospitals. 

Feminists foe Life 

Our organization takes two stands: (1) Full equality for women in all areas. 
(2) The right of every baby to be born. We demand an end to all legal, social, 
and economic discrimination against women, including mass media stereotypes. 
We recognize all people as individuals with equal rights, including the unborn. 
We believe it is inconsistent to demand rights for ourselves and deny them to 
unborn babies. Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. 
Furthermore, since roughly 50 percent of the unborn are girls, half the abor- 
tions kill our sisters. 



122 

We hope to see an end to proabortion stands in other feminist organizations. 
Bv diverting time and energy into abortion legislation, these groups have de- 
emphasized the struggle for legal and social equality. In addition, they have 
deterred many potential feminists from joining the movement. 

We are an independent organization. We accept men on an equal basis with 
women. Our goals now follow : 

(1) To encourage prolife feminists to join the feminist movement. 

(2) To acquaint prolife people with the goals of feminism. 

(3) To provide a forum for women who feel that joining a proabortion 
feminist organization would compromise their principles. 

(4) To encourage women to become educated in pregnancy, childbirth, and 
other aspects of female sexuality. 

(5) To help people to become knowledgeable on both sides of the abortion 

issue 

(6) To encourage efforts to alleviate the problems in society which cause 

women to seek abortions. 

(7) To promote equal opportunity and equal protection of the laws regardless 

of SGX. 

(8) To take an active part in eliminating sexual stereotyping in the mass 
media advertising, and childhood education. 

(9) To promote a strong, flexible family structure. 

(10) To encourage women to take pride in being women. 

(11) To help women recover their historical and cultural heritage. 

(12) To develop strategies for teaching women how to develop competitive 
techniques in the world without sacrificing warmth and nurturance in the home. 

(13) To develop strater'es for teaching men how to be nurturant toward their 
children without sacrificing their self-image or their ability to function competi- 
tively in the world. 

(14) To develop strategies for gaining equality through our own strengths 
as women and not at the expense of the rights or property of others. 

(15) To preserve the right of those women who wish to remain in the 
home as full time wives and mothers. 



[From the National Catholic Reporter] 

Talk of "Wanted Child" Makes fob Doll Objects 

(By Sidney Callahan) 

I'd like to start a campaign against the idea of "the wanted child." This 
phrase is dangerous to children, even in small doses. The people who use the 
phrase in efforts to control population or sell family planning programs are 
well meaning, but they are sowing the seeds of subtle destruction. 

The corruption involved is quite simple to grasp. If you start talking and 
thinking about a child as a "wanted child" you cannot help but put the idea 
into people's heads that children exist and have a right to exist only because 
someone wants them. And alas, the opposite conclusion is also there waiting 
for us : if it's an "unwanted child" is has no rights. 

It's destructive of family life for parents even to think in these categories 
of wanted and unwanted children. By using the words you set up parents with 
too much power, including psychological power, over their children. Somehow 
the child is being measured by the parent's attitudes and being defined by the 
parent's feelings. We usually want only objects, and wanting them or not 
implies that we are superior, or at least engaged in a one-way relationship, 
to them. 

In the same way, men have "wanted" women through the ages. Often a 
woman's position was precarious and rested on being wanted by some man. 
The unwanted woman could be cast off when she was no longer a desirable 
object. She did not have an intrinsic dignity beyond wanting. That's what they 
mean in protests against being a sex object. 

Well, talking about the "wanted child" is making a child a "doll object." 

When you want one, you make one or buy one, and it then has a right to exist 

i glorified form of property. And woe be to the child who is no longer 

ated, or who is imperfect in some way. Or who in the church does not satisfy. 

Has satisfaction been given, sir? If not, the merchandise is returnable, you 

know. 



123 



The point I'm trying to stress, of course, is that old idea in our common 
culture that each human being has inviolable rights and dignity no matter 
what. If you're a Jew and they don't want you in Nazi Germany, it's Germany's 
shame. If you're black and they don't want you in the club, that's the club's 
crime. If you're a woman and they don't want you in the job, it's their fault. 
The powerful (including parents) cannot be allowed to want and unwant people 
at will. 

In family life, this idea of unique inviolable dignity and intrinsic value is 
especially needed. Since emotions are so strong and despendency needs are so 
urgent, the temptation to cop out is ever present. We don't hang in there be- 
cause we always want to, or want something or somebody. The old parent, the 
sick spouse, the needy child are not always wanted. 

So who cares what you want, or whether other people want you? Human 
beings are human beings. Every individual has his rights. A child's very exist- 
ence is claim enough. 



[From the National Catholic Reporter] 

Feminist as Antiabobtionist 

(By Sidney Callahan) 

Let's get our feminism together. Right now. The feminist cause is being be- 
trayed by the men and women pushing for public acceptance of the principle 
of abortion on demand. Arguments used in urging routine abortion deny funda- 
mental values guiding the whole women's movement. 

On the issue of abortion radical feminists have completely identified with the 
male aggressor ; they spout a straight machismo ideology, with a touch of Adam 
Smith. The worst of traditional male power plays are being embraced and 
brandished by those who have suffered from them the most. Every slogan in 
the pro-abortion arsenal is male-oriented and a sell-out of feminist values. For 
instance : 

(1) "The fetus isn't human and has no right to life." But the feminist move- 
ment insists that men cease their age-old habit of withholding human status 
from women, blacks, Jews, Indians, Asians and any other helpless or different 
instances of human life. Women encourage rights to life, and value potential 
life. To deny the fact that human life is always a growing process through time 
is a failure of imagination and emphathy. Out of sight, out of mind, may do 
for a bombardier's conscience but not for a feminist movement dedicated to 
ending unilateral suppression of life. Embryonic life is also life, life with a 
built-in future. 

(2) "Any problem pregnancy should be terminated early by a qualified med- 
ical professional employing the best technological techniques." Yet the feminist 
movement has persistently protested impersonal professional technologies which 
efficiently ignore not only emotions but the real roots of complex human prob- 
lems. Males have always searched, destroyed, cut, burned and aggressively 
attacked anything in the way without regard to context, consequences and 
natural interrelationships. Women have been committed to creative nonviolent 
alternatives which seek more lasting solutions. Feminist values are highly 
attuned to conservation and the achievement of social and ecological health. 
What irony that a society confronted with plastic bags filled with fetal re- 
mains, or fetal "wastage," could worry more about the problem of recycling 
the plastic. So where have all the flowers gone? 

(3) "A woman has the right to control her own body." How valiently the 
feminist movement has struggled against the male obsession to control. As 
they find in every prison, to fully control, you kill. The Dostoevski hero comes 
to mind who extinguished an insignificant life in order to assert his existential 
freedom to control his destiny. Any view of mere bodies as separate and sub- 
ordinate to the self smells of an alienation reminiscent of male gnostic anxiety. 
Men have always tried to detach themselves from the body, viewing female 
bodies in particular as a form of property. Men are only too happy to separate 
female "reproductive systems" from the self. More middle-class men favor 
elective abortion than any other group, not only because it accords with male 
convenience, male strategies, but also because it suits the male norm of a 
human body. Full feminine sexuality is a threat, better to have women look 



124 

at their own bodies as objects which they can manipulate at will and keep 
under control. Privately, discreetly, efficiently, with no messy demands. 

(4) "Males have no right to speak or legislate on the abortion issue, since 
abortion is solely a matter between a woman and her physician.'" This argu- 
ment is used to browbeat men (how to mau-mau the male power structure), 
but it is contrary to other feminist demands. Women now insist on their right 
to speak out on war not only because their husbands and sons die, but because 
it is a human concern. Feminists justly demand equal male-female cooperation, 
decision-making and mutual responsibility in all areas of social life. In par- 
ticular, women will no longer bear the sole responsibility for childbearing. 
They insist (quite rightly) that men and the society at large accept their re- 
sponsibility for the next generation by providing public day-care, health pro- 
grams and other measures which will support and help women. Only with 
abortion does community concern become disallowed. Men are angrily dis- 
qualified, although over half the aborted fetuses are male and all fetuses are 
fathered. Each fetus not only has a direct link to a male, but genetically and 
physically it is linked to the human species as a whole. Who owns the human 
species? Or the gene pool? Who owns life? We don't let people in the name 
of private property pollute their own water, contaminate their own air or 
shoot their own eagles; so how can aborting potential human life not be a 
public socio-legal concern. 

I propose that a truly feminist approach to abortion would ; 

(1) Display an advocacy of life no matter how immature, helpless or different 
it is from white, middle-class, adult males who have heretofore preempted the 
right to be fully human. 

(2) Affirm that full feminine humanity includes distinctly feminine func- 
tions. Women need not identify with male sexuality, male aggression and 
wombless male lifestyles in order to win social equality. Getting into the club 
is not worth the price of alienation from body-life, emotion, emphathy and 
sensitivity. 

(3) Assert that abortion is a two-sex community decision in which the rights 
and welfare of women, fetuses, children, fathers, families and the rest of the 
community be considered and arbitrated. The whole society has a responsibility 
for human life and the next generation. Women and men should urge and sup- 
port nonviolent creative alternatives to abortion. Facing such a painful problem 
we cannot give in to simpleminded sexist slogans and a property rights ethic. 
Life is not that easy. 

[From the National Catholic Reporter] 

"Abortion Positions — So Who's the Radical?" 

(By Charles E. Fager) 

What service does abortion serve in our society? It eliminates an obstacle 
to the freer mobility of certain women within it. The letters were full of 
outraged detail about just how much of a social and economic disaster an un- 
planned pregnancy can be for a woman — particularly a woman alone, particu- 
larly a woman trying to break out of the old wife-mother role she has been 
raised to fit into. To me this is all evidence that our social order is organized 
inhumanely, that it excludes as well as the nonwhite, the poor, the aged and 
others, pregnant mothers and the unborn. 

It is enough of a struggle to raise wanted children adequatey if you are not 
affluent, to try to do it alone, and while pursuing a vocation, is extremely 
difficult. It is not hard to see why, as one writer put it, a woman could feel 
"She has the right to decide against physical pain, discomfort and disfigure- 
ment ; she has a right to decide against rearing a fatherless child ; she has 
the right to decide against assuming ultimate responsibility for another human 
being; she has the right to decide against the physical and emotional drains 
of child-rearing. She has the right to decide for autonomy; she has a right 
to decide for satisfaction in work and fulfillment in non-biological creation; she 
lias a right to decide in favor of that freedom traditionally granted man, 
namely, to pursue truth or folly, unfettered, unencumbered, nurtured instead 
of nurturing, encouraged rather than encouraging, comforted as opposed to 
giving comfort, mobile, not static, moving forward as a whole, free, growing 
organism." 



125 



If a decision to abort means a choice between these options, it is hardly sur- 
prising that many women would choose the abortion. 

But why couldn't women faced with such a repugnant choice perceive abor- 
tion as a radicalizing experience, an ordeal into which they are coerced by 
an inhuman social order, and through which they could better be able to see 
its inhumanity? Why couldn't that experience be seen the way submitting to 
the draft and serving in Vietnam has been by so many GIs — as a situation in 
which they are coerced into participating in the immoral destruction of life, 
and which left them full of rage at those who put them in it? 

The answer appears to be the acceptance of the fetus-as-nonhuman argu- 
ment. Militant feminists have felt it necessary, as part of their campaign to get 
restrictive abortion laws repealed, to insist that the act is of no moral weight 
whatever. As one writer insisted to me, "including the unborn in the question 
of abortion is absurd. . . . The carrying of this unwanted tissue can be com- 
pared to having an incurable cancer in your body. What morals are involved 
in removing a tumor, after all it is also an unwanted mass of tissue that the 
body has created?" 

There are, as many of us have read elsewhere, weighty theological figures 
ready to agree, among them none more forthright than professor Joseph Flet- 
cher, who wrote to me, "A fetus is a parasite, tolerable ethically only when 
welcome to its hostess. If a woman doesn't want a fetus to remain growing 
in her bodj she should be free to rid herself of the unwelcome intruder." 

To me this is a tragic mistake ; and the sanction given it by the use in the 
Supreme Court's decision of a concept of "viability" is the weakest part of 
Justice Blackmun's opinion. I have examined carefully every rationale for 
such a position, and have found none that is not shot through with internal 
inconsistencies and contradictions. Most boil down to the proposition that a 
fetus is not human if someone else, usually the mother, chooses not to regard 
it as human, a standard we would not permit to be applied to any other form 
of human life, potential or realized. 

But the point to keep before us is that the source of most "unwantedness" 
is institutional. It is the present social order, and the attitudes that sustain it, 
which will not accept and make provision for "unwanted" pregnancies (that is, 
pregnancies not supported by the options of affluence) and the women who 
carry them. This "unwantedness" is enforced on women through a frightening 
panoply of sanctions. 

Many of the letters insisted that as a male I could not posisbly have any 
understanding of what a woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy had to 
deal with. Yet I think that most of my generation faced a situation which, 
viewed from the angle I have just suggested, is in many ways analogous. 

I am speaking of the draft. It served the function of providing the manpower 
for our war machine, a function that in our time has been seen widely as 
morally repugnant. It came upon us individually, in isolation, with demands 
for a substantial chuck of our time (much more than a pregnancy incidentally), 
and possibly our lives. Great institutional forces came with it to enforce its 
demands upon us. In this situation each of us had to make hard choices, moral 
choices, choices which made a great deal of difference in our lives. 

The point of the analogy is that for many men, in many ways, the draft 
became the occasion of consciousness-raising and then resistance, a resistance 
from which a movement among them and many others grew. And now that the 
battle over legalities seems to have taken a decisive turn, why could not 
the women's movement come to regard unplanned pregnancies as occasions for 
resistance and mutual support because the preservation and potential of life 
was involved? 

Such a perspective would, I believe, take it in significantly different and 
more promising directions than the present disregard of fetal humanity and the 
moral weight of abortion decisions can. If it is unacceptable for a society to 
treat people of color or people without money as less than suman and not 
entitled to a fair share of the fruits of that society, how can we be ready to 
permit individuals to make such judgments independently of moral consider- 
ations? 

A radical understanding of the meaning and value of life, in my view, must 
be, in fundamental opposition to that of our established order, as broad and 
nearly absolute as possible, both horizontally — including all manner and con- 
dition of people — and vertically, from the moment life can be detected until 
the moment it ends. We should work to build a society that embodies this view 



126 

as closely as possible; and where the forces of the status quo deny it, even 
and particularly in its beginning, that is where the making of a revolution 
should start. 

Abortion is the taking of a life. —Mary Calderone, MD, former medical di- 
rector of Planned Parenthood. 

An abortion . . . kills the life of a baby after it has begun. —Plan Your 
Children for Health And Happiness, NY, August, 1963, Planned Parenthood. 

Fertilization, then, has taken place ; a baby has been conceived. — Alan Gutt- 
maeher, MD, late president of Planned Parenthood. 

Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion. At present: the 
means available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. — Alan 
Guttmacher, MD. 

. . failure of the voluntary restraints has made government controls (on 
population) absolutely necessary. — Congressman Richard Lamm. 

Population control, whatever form it takes, must be mandatory to be suc- 
cessful. We must consider enforced contraception, whether through taxation 
on surplus children, or through more severe means, such as conception-license 
replacing or supplementing marriage license. — Robert Ardrey, Life. 

Just as we have laws compelling death control, so we must have laws re- 
quiring birth control — the purpose being to ensure a zero rate of population 
growth. — Edgar Chasteen, in The Case for Compulsory Birth Control. 

In a social climate in which unwanted pregnancy is sufficient indication for 
abortion, criteria for selective abortion might be broadened considerably, eg 
eliminating carriers of a sickle cell or cystic fibrosis gene or even of two X 
chromosomes at the request of the parents, who have their own ideas of what 
constitutes the optimal brood of offspring for them, qualitatively as well as 
quantitatively. — Orlando J. Miller, M.D. in Symposium On Intrauterine Diag- 
nosis. 



[From the Columbus Citizen-Journal, Mar. 29, 1974] 

In Pregnancy Counseling — Delays Hurting Abortion Efforts 

(By Sylvia Brooks) 

Planned Parenthood of Columbus is at least two weeks behind in problem 
pregnancy counseling, and in some cases the delay is so long women wanting 
simple abortions can not get them in local clinics. 

The problem, according to executive director Mary Harris, is that the agency 
does not have enough staff to handle the volume, and now over 55 per cent of 
the patients are being referred by private physicians. 

Local clinics, using a simple surgical procedure, will only do it on women 12 
weeks pregnant, or under. Over that, the procedure becomes more complicated 
and should be done in a hospital. 

Mrs. Harris feels Planned Parenthood has been "caught in the middle," and 
the agency has had to stop all other kinds of sexual and reproductive counsel- 
ing to meet the need. 

The Citizen-Journal talked with many agencies doing similar counseling, 
Planned Parenthood staff, patients and others. 

All said some women are being forced to go to New York because they can 
not get an appointment at Planned Parenthood before the 12th week of their 
pregnancy. 

Planned Parenthood does not give out telephone numbers of local abortion 
clinics over the telephone, and requires people to come into the agency in per- 
son for information. 

Mrs. Harris says the personal contact is important : 

"We feel it is our obligation to counsel with a patient and not just be a 
conduit. We counsel in all our other programs." 

However, she said because of the increased demand, the board of the agency 
would probably reconsider the prohibition against giving telephone information. 

Many professional counselors, however, do not agree. Ann Kaplan, with the 
Abortion Education Soeiety of Ohio, says Planned Parenthood should give out 
clinir numbers over the telephone and not insist on counseling. 

"They (Planned Parenthood) see abortion as a major, traumatic experience 
nnd that each woman needs professional counseling. I just can't agree," Mrs. 
Kaplan said. 



127 



One of the biggest problems faced by Planned Parenthood is that since their 
abortion counseling programs were announced, private doctors have started 
referring patients there at an increasing rate. 

Many professionals cannot understand why doctors, now that abortion is 
legal, cannot handle the counseling and referral of their own patients, as they 
do with other medical problems. 

However, it appears that even doctors who are not against abortion are 
reticent to become involved in the abortion issue, and refer their patients to 
other agencies. 

Planned Parenthood officials feel the problem of abortion counseling is a 
community one, and hope to try to form a coalition of agencies doing counseling 
to set up a central information and referral system. 

Mrs. Harris says the Medical Advisory Committee of the agency will meet, 
and she hopes they approach the Academy of Medicine to ask for help in work- 
ing out the problems. 

Mrs. Harris also said the agency would try to find funds to hire additional 
counseling staff — they now have two people working 60 hours total per week — 
and would try to work with all community groups interested in the problem. 



[From the Feminists for Life, Jan. 14, 1974] 

The Abortion Kickbacks 

(By Roger Rapoport) 

Not all Los Angeles hospitals have to pay $50 to $100 to acquire patients. At 
least two prime suppliers of patients, the Rev. J. Hugh Anwyl — who used to 
be in the business of saving souls before he got into selling bodies — and Dr. 
Morton Barke firmly believe in volume discounts. During 1971 andn 1972 they 
sent 7,706 abortion cases to suburban Montclair Hospital at a mere $20 a head. 

The deal between the doctor and the reverend began in 1970. Anwyl, a former 
minister of the Mt. Hollywood Congregational Church, was then director of 
Clergy Counseling Service for Problem Pregnancies, and he also processed 
abortion referrals for Planned Parenthood/Los Angeles. When Anwyl met Dr. 
Barke, the reverend immediately began referring abortion cases to the gyne- 
cologist's personally owned West Coast Medical Group. Then Dr. Barke helped 
set up National Abortion Council to get still more patients. NAC did little more 
than take calls from abortion patients who were responding to NAC ads — and 
referred the callers to Dr. Barke. 

The Clergy Counseling Service and National Abortion Council referrals made 
Barke's West Coast Medical Group flourish. In the summer of 1971, Dr. Barke 
went to A.R. Markey, chairman of Century Medical Inc., which owned Mont- 
clair Hospital. Why not turn the money-losing, 34-bed facility into an abortion 
hospital? Barke promised to supply Montclair with 2,000 patients a month if 
Markey would pay $20 a head to National Abortion Council. Markey agreed and 
Barke began shipping in patients. But not enough. He fell short of his guaran- 
tee. So he went to Anwyl, who came up with a new source of patients. In the 
fall of 1971 Anwyl merged Clergy Counseling Service with Planned Parenthood/ 
Los Angeles and directed abortion referral work for both organizations. Since 
federally funded Planned Parenthood is the country's largest family planning 
agency, with over 700 clinics nationwide, it was easy for the Rev. Anwyl to 
persuade affiliates in states where abortions were illgal to refer patients to his 
friend, Barke, for abortions at Montclair. 

By November, 1971 Barke's West Coast Medical Group had expanded to a 
staff or eight doctors, two nurses and 20 clerical workers. Thanks to Anwyl, 
patients were flying in from all over. They were picked up one by one of the 
air-conditioned, 12-passenger vans from Barke's group, whisked to Montclair 
for quick abortions and returned to the airport within hours. Montclair paid 
$20 to Planned Parenthood/Los Angeles or NAC for each patient, regardless 
of whether she paid cash or was covered by the California version of Medicaid, 
Medi-Cal. The kickbacks were made under the guise of payments for psycho- 
logical testing and evaluation, which consisted of the following at NAC : just 
prior to their abortions, National Abortion Council patients filled out a one- 
page questionnaire. These forms were taken to the NAC office where a clerk 
rubber stamped them with a psychologist's name. 



128 

Montclair also kicked back $20 per patient to Planned Parenthood/Los 
-Vngeles for "psychological testing and evaluation." According to sources who 
w.-rr with West Coast Medical Group at the time, there is no evidence that 
the 'psychological testing and evaluation" was actually provided to these 
patients by Planned Parenthood. Moreover, Planned Parenthood/Los Angeles 
operates under a federal grant channelled to it through the Los Angeles Re- 
gional Familv Planning Council, and this grant provides money for "counsel- 
ing." Under the terms of the grant, Planned Parenthood/Los Angeles is pro- 
hibited from receiving any second pyament for counseling services to abortion 
patients. But between November 3, 1971 and March 28, 1972, it received from 
Montclair $52,940 for "psychological testing and evaluation" of 2,647 abortion 
patients. ,. . _, , 

According to the Rev. Anwyl— who became executive director of Planned 
Parenthood/Los Angeles in 1972— the organization's '71 and '72 financial re- 
ports do not show any hospital income for psychological testing and evaluation 
or any other direct services charged to abortion patients. "We never accept 
any payments of any kind on abortion referrals," the Rev. Anwyl says. "It's 
unethical. We don't allow it because it might influence where we send our 
patients. We want to be free to snd our patients to the best possible hospital." 

The fact is that I have copies of 20 checks that were sent from Montclair to 
Planned Parenthood/Los Angeles in payment for "psychological testing and 
evaluation." The first four of these checks were sent directly to Planned Parent- 
hood. But Dr. Barke wanted to be sure that Planned Parenthood was not get- 
ting paid off for any of his NAC patients, so he asked Century Medical Inc., 
the owner of Montclair Hospital, to send further checks to him for forwarding. 
On December 14, 1971 Century issued a check for $2,220 made out to Planned 
Parenthood-West Coast Med. Group, Inc. It was mailed to the West Coast 
Medical Group office and marked "personal and confidential," attention of Dr. 
Morton Barke. The next eight checks were also sent to Dr. Barke who, after 
examining them, had them delivered to the Rev. Anwyl. This procedure upset 
Anwyl, so Century tried to strike a compromise by sending the final seven 
payments — which were still marked to the attention of Dr. Barke — directly to 
Planned Parenthood. 

Planned Parenthood/Los Angeles was violating the terms of its federal grant 
in two ways. First, it was receiving a second payment for "psychological testing 
and evaluation" of abortion patients, not permissible under the terms of its 
grant. Second, it was failing to report this income to the federal government. 
Both these violations could result in termination of the government funding. 
More important, if there was appropriation of unreported revenue by an execu- 
tive of a federally funded organization, this could lead to felony prosecution. 

As for Dr. Barke, his funneling of checks to Planned Parenthood could run 
afoul of the California Business and Professional Code, which prohibits physi- 
cians from directing money to sources of patients. Also, any direct or indirect 
financing of National Abortion Council by Dr. Barke would be a violation of 
the California Business and Professional Code. 

In 1972, Dr. Barke and the Rev. Anwyl became dissatisfied with the $20-a- 
patient foe at Montclair. Barke tried to talk Century chairman A.R. Markey 
into selling him Montclair Hospital, with Anwyl sitting in on some of the nego- 
tiations. When that deal did not go through. Barke and Anwyl tried to boost 
Montclair's kickback by $5 per patient. Markey balked, and the abortion patient 
suppliers pulled out of Montclair in the spring of '72. 

After withdrawing from Montclair. they directed their patients to Bel Air 
for a time. Then. Barke became an owner of Inglewood Hospital, which im- 
mediately began receiving the maiority of Planned Parenthood's cases, then 
approaching 1.000 a month. The National Abortion Council changed its name 
tn tlie National Family Planning Council and began offering a full range of 
patient services, but the vast majority of its abortion cases ended up at Barke's 
Inglewood Hospital. 

[From the Medical World News, Nov. 9. 1973] 

AnoRTioN in Japan After 25 Years 

Risintr literally from the ashes of World War II, Japan has produced the 
economic- miracle of the 20th century. To help make that miracle possible in its 
bungary overcrowded islands, the Diet passed a liberal abortion law in 1948 as 
a means of holding the population down. 



129 



But on the 25th anniversary of that law, a saddened Japanese physician 
told colleagues from nearly 50 nations that his country's abortion policy has 
had some unfortunate consequences : Abortion is replacing contraception, and 
Japan has too few young people to care for the growing proportion of its 
population over 65. 

"Abortion has become a way of life," Prof. T.S. Ueno of Tokyo's Nihon 
University told the Ninth Congress of the International Academy of Legal and 
Social Medicine, in Rome. "Moral life has become disorderly. It is an age of 
free sex, and the life of the unborn is not respected. We can now say the law 
is a bad one." 

Japanese physicians, Dr. Ueno said, can receive a "designation" to perform 
abortions after a two-year "apprenticeship." A doctor having this designation 
may operate if in his judgment "the mother's health may be affected seriously 
by continuation of pregnancy or delivery, from the physical or economic view- 
point." 

A year after the "Eugenic Protection Law" was passed, 250,000 legal abor- 
tions were done, Dr. Ueno reports; last year no fewer than 1.5 million were 
done. 

"Abortion has become a substitute for contraception," he says. "About half 
the Japanese women who have abortions admit that they did not even try to 
prevent conception. Induced abortion has become so common it is almost com- 
pulsory for many women ; they feel it is a part of life in Japan that can't be 
helped. Some apartment house managers enforce a policy that no family in 
the building may have more than two children. Pregnant mothers are often 
asked by their gynecologists whether or not they intend to carry the child to 
term. The entire economy has hardened around the two-child family." 

Many Japanese are ashamed of having abortions, he suggested. Public opinion 
surveys suggest that most Japanese women do not approve of abortion even 
though they practice it. Only 18% of women surveyed said that they "did not 
feel anything in particular" after their first abortion, 35% "felt sorry about 
the unborn child," and 28% felt they had "done something wrong," Dr. Ueno 
told the congress. 

"Induced abortions are a source of easy income for doctors," he charged. 
"Cash is paid, so they don't have to be paid through health insurance; many 
find abortion to be a convenient source of side income." 

He also charged that legal abortions are "not remarkably safer" than illegal 
ones. He believes that the sudden change from pregnancy causes an imbalance 
of the sympathetic nervous system and has many other ill effects. Among them : 
dysmenorrhea, sterility, habitual spontaneous abortion, extrauterine pregnan- 
cies, cramps, headache, vertigo, exhaustion, sleeplessness, lumbago, neuralgia, 
debility and psychosomatic illness, perforation of the uterus, cervical lesions, 
infections, bleeding, and retention of some tissue. 

Another consequence of 25 years of abortion, according to Dr. Ueno : Japan 
has 14 million people over 65 among its population of 108 million. In the next 
20 years the over-65 population is expected to reach 29 million, of a total of 
130 million Japanese. Because this means too many old people for the young 
to support, he predicts strong pressure for euthanasia. 

"Easy abortion has been a bad experience for us," he told MWN. "It is now 
very difficult to control or to eradicate, despite growing criticism. It has be- 
came a way of life; the law might be changed but the practice cannot be 
controlled. 

"The sooner Japan returns to a solid law which forbids the taking of the 
life of the unborn, the better for our nation. Just as we need guard rails, 
signal lights, and speed limits, so we need precise laws governing abortion. 
We need such laws to save us from our individual and collective weakness," 
he concluded. 



[From the Uncertified Human] 

Euthanasias The Latest Threat Is on the Rise 

A year and a half ago two things used to be said : that the euthanasia move- 
ment would take ten years to materialize and that perhaps it never would. The 
first prediction is coming true eight years too early and the second statement 
is being made considerably less often. 



130 

PROPAGANDA BEGINNING 

In the January 14, 1972 issue of Life Magazine, an article appeared outlining 
the dilemma of the mother of a 1-year old mongoloid child "still unwanted and 
unnamed" who cost her parents much time and expense in treatments and care. 
He mother is quoted as saying : "Why, when there are too many people in the 
world, keep alive an unwanted, malformed child. ... I still say if there 
was a place where I could take this child and she would be put to sleep per- 
manently, I would do it." The story is a very sad one. It follows two articles 
on men who personally decided to discontinue agonizing treatments for terminal 
diseases and so die in peace. Yet strangly, the story of the mongoloid girl was 
also headed, "The Right to Die". Now really, the woman was campaigning 
for the girl's death, not her own. She admitted in a subsequent letter her in- 
tention to get a bill passed permitting her to put the child to sleep. Wouldn't 
"right to kill" be more appropriate? 

The Executive director of the fastgrowing Euthanasia Educational Fund 
centered in New York State informed the editor in a recent personal letter 
that 

Your letter is very perceptive about the other questions which arise and 
many of our members as individuals do believe in making a means of dying 
available, in providing for those who cannot speak for themselves and in the 
humane withdrawal of support from defective babies. However, all of these 
are illegal and as an organization we do not advocate any of them. 

If "providing for those who cannot speak for themselves" were legal, what 
provisions might they advocate? 

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR MERCY KILLING 

A Gallup Poll published in the Toronto Star for Sept. 27, 1972, indicated 
that the majority of people in Canada seem to favour mercy-killing at the 
patient's request. Yet, on the opposite page, there was a much-featured article 
by the United Church's former moderator (for our American readerSj the 
United Church of Canada is one of the bastions of lethal liberalism in this 
country) concluding that the only reason we do not similarly end the lives 
of those who have not requested it but whose existences have become mean- 
ingless is "selfish indifference". It seems that the idea of killing at the patient's 
request and killing without it when we feel justified are difficult to separate. 
People are becoming particularly vocal on the question of deformed or defective 
children, who are generally considered, as such, to be unwanted. Dr. Colin 
Ferguson, president elect of the Canadian Paediatrics Society, addressed the 
annual meeting, called for life-and-death guidelines for mongoloid children. 
(Toronto Star, July 16, 1972) He said, "It is a supreme penalty to put on some 
families to save the life of a mongolian idiot." He noted that a young mother 
could have other normal children if the defective baby were phased out and 
the total happiness would be easier for all concerned if socially acceptable 
guidelines were available", he concluded. Dr. Ferguson mentioned that another 
type of child also merited infanticidal consideration, those afflicted with 
myelomeningoceles, results in leg paralysis and lack of bowel control. He cited 
a Dr. David Morley of Britain who claims that such children cost the state 
one million dollars per year. Interestingly, on August 8, 1972 a surgeon at 
London's Hospital for Sick Children told the London Sun that these children 
should be left to die. He believes that a more selective approach is needed with 
respect to survival of the handicapped. Of course, selectivity can pose problems 
too. A controversy arose recently among anaestheticians, reported in 06 Oyn 
News, January 1, 1971, No. 1, p. 1 as to whether an anaesthetician should 
attempt to revive an infant he had accidentally anaesthetized during the 
birth process, insofar as that infant might be mentally retarded. One doctor 
objected to allowing the infant to die on the grounds that, without prior knowl- 
edge of the actual IQ potential of the infant, one could not gauge how much 
below normal it would be if at all. 

Thorp is a good deal of confusion about the meaning of the term "euthanasia". 
To some, it means allowing a person to die who wants to. and to others it 
means putting a person to sleep. It has been used to mean withdrawal of sup- 
port without the patient's consent or putting the patient to sleep without his or 
her consent. 



131 



THE "HONOURABLE" MAN 

Chaplain Reeves at Columbia University remarks that the dilemma in his 
view is basically this : there are two supreme challenges facing us all : to find 
an honourable equivalent to Spartan exposure on the rocks at the beginning 
of life and an honourable equivalent to the Eskimo hole in the ice at the end 
of life. (Not. Observer, Mar. 4, 72) One wanders in passing just what it is 
that the Reverend Reeves finds to be less than "honourable" about the Eskimo 
way if the end results are the same. It is the primitive methods he objects to? 
Are antiseptic hypodermics more "honourable" than the ice? 

LIKE THE ABORTION CAMPAIGNS 

All this bears a profund resemblance to many a successful abortion cam- 
paign, a fact which may disturb those who "fear that this sort of thing may 
get out of hand". Indeed it may — in fact it already is, out of hand. Let us 
elaborate. In the article in Life, the emotionally wrenching plea for a very 
hard case is reminiscent of the earlier pleas for abortion. "The mother whose 
child will almost certainly be born deformed" drew a great deal of sympathy 
for the "right to abortion". The mother whose child is born deformed is be- 
ginning to draw sympathy for infanticide. It does not really matter how you 
define infanticide; whether it involves "withdrawal of support" or drowning 
the child in a bucket is immaterial : If you want the child to die and you make 
that child die — that is infanticide. 

On March 5 of this year Time Magazine reported on an even clearer case 
from the Netherlands, this time it was senile euthanasia. The case was very 
bad indeed, as the old mother was quite sick. Her doctor daughter put her to 
sleep without her consent, and then because she was a "woman of principle" 
informed the nursing home director. The police were described as failing "to 
act against the popular doctor" and, prevailed upon, the public prosecutor 
charged her "reluctantly". Thus the stage is set: a hard case (hasn't anyone 
heard the principle that hard cases make bad laws?) a doctor of remorselessly 
high ethical principles, a popular doctor at that, and a judicial group which 
unwittingly makes a verdict out of its obvious unwillingness to act. By the 
time the case goes to trial it is a public issue and everything about the actual 
case except its emotional aura is forgotten. For one thing, someone started a 
foundation for voluntary euthanasia, either forgetting or not caring that this 
case was about involuntary euthanasia. A group of doctors signed an open 
letter to the Minister of Justice accusing themselves of the saime crime. This is 
very similar to the "abortion forums" where doctors admit to performing il- 
legal abortions. The fact that the government was unwilling to bring Dr. 
Postma to trial gave safety in numbers to other physicians and it soon began 
to be supposed that whatever a number of physicians do must be morally right. 
In other words, as soon as the government admitted that the hardness of the 
case made them reluctant to try Dr. Postma on the principle, they found them- 
selves having to accept the principle itself. The euthanasia foundation acquired 
3,000 members in a week. The petition in support of (presumably involuntary) 
euthanasia that was circulated in Dr. Postma's town got two thousand signa- 
tures. The Minister of Justice pointed out the difference between active and 
passive euthanasia, admitting that the latter is widely and justifiably used 
in hopeless cases. Then he illustrated a common confusion in thinking by 
asking rhetorically, where would active euthanasia lead? This allowed many 
people to get the idea that mercy-killing would be all right as a principle 
so long as it did not overstep some mythical boundary of propriety, to be 
defined by the Minister of Justice perhaps, or whoever else feels qualified. No 
wonder then, that so many euthanasia lobbies flourished in the utter confusion 
of the case. 

AN EASY EXCUSE 

Dr. Postma pointed out that her mother's suffering was not "unbearable", 
and said, "Her physical suffering was serious, no more. But the mental suffering 
became unbearable." For some reason, euthanasia advocates, like abortion ad- 
vocates, always fall back on "mental suffering". Because it admits of no particu- 
lar definition or alleviation, as physical suffering does, it makes at much easier 
excuse to plead at an emotional trial. Dr. Postma said that the mental suffering 
"was most important to me. Now, after all these months, I am convinced I 
should have done it much sooner." Should she have done it before her mother 



132 

started to suffer mentally? She was given one week suspended sentence and 
a year's probation. Her friends handed her a single flower each in sympathy. 
Her supporters considered it a defeat that she was not acquitted. 

What is important about this case is only partly the suffering involved. Per- 
haps Dr. Postma's mother was better off dead. What the case shows as far as 
the staff of the Uncertified Human is concerned, however, is the appalling in- 
ability of the courts to understand that they are dealing, not with a particular 
emotional case but with a principle of whether or not we are to legislate into 
existence a concept of "life without value". The Dutch judiciary did realize 
that the situation "might lead" to unpleasant consequences but what they did 
not see is that the situation is an unpleasant consequence in itself. 

Have they forgotten so soon ? 

The Ovulation Method 

A study of the secretions of the vagina by two doctors from Australia, Lyn 
Billings MD and John Billings MD, has finally revealed a way to truly control 
our own fertility, through knowledge of how our body works. It is called the 
Ovulation Method because it teaches us to know when we are ovulating. The 
doctors found out that a woman's secretions give a clear indication of when she 
is fertile. The cycle goes like this : the woman menstruates ; after she has 
finishing menstruating there is an indefinite period during which she had no 
secretions at all, called the "dry days". These are followed by several days 
in which there are secretions which increase ; during this time the woman is 
fertile because the secretions keep the sperm alive and conduct them upward. 
She will ovulate in time for the sperm to reach the egg. The secretions become 
slippery and will stretch without breaking, and then become egg-white. On this 
day the woman ovulates. Counting this day as day one, the woman should 
count a total of four days. For four days the egg is passing out of her body and 
she is still fertile. After these four days the egg is gone and it does not matter 
whether there are more secretions or not ; the woman can't get pregnant 
because the egg is gone. Menstruation begins exactly 14 days after the egg- 
white day, the ovulation day, for most women. This method of detection should 
be tried by a woman for a month or two without intercourse until she becomes 
familiar with it because the semen will confuse her at first. After that, since 
the semen is different, the woman can tell the difference. The two doctors 
state that women do not ovulate twice except on the same day. 

Widely fluctuating periods are always a result of a variation in the number 
of dry days. It is possible to detect ovulation using this method regardless of 
whether the woman is regular or irregular, whether she has been pregnant 
recently or is nursing and has no periods, or whether she is in the menopause. 
If she finds the stringy secretions followed by the egg-white secretions, she 
is ovulating. 

Now this information can be used to pinpoint the time of fertility for those 
who wish to abstain. They should avoid all contact between each other's gen- 
itals because it is possible to become pregnant even if penetration does not 
occur or even if withdrawal is practiced. The period of abstention would last 
about a week. The other weeks are safe. Reliability of abstention with the 
ovulation method is good. Only 1.5 pregnancies occur for 100 woman/years 
compared to one pregnancy per 100 woman/years with the Pill. This informa- 
tion can also be used to determine when a woman is fertile so some other form 
of conception control can be used, such as condom, foam, or diaphragm. It 
is not necessary to use some other from of conception control during the weeks 
when the woman is not fertile. It may very well increase the reliability of other 
forms of conception control because a woman will not be tempted not to use 
contraception on days when she thinks she is not fertile but she really is, the 
time when many accidental pregnancies occur. In the doctors' studies failure 
of the ovulation method was traced to a failure to use the method properly, 
i.e. to distrust its evidence and act contrary to it. The ovulation method can 
he used with any form of conception control except the Pill because the Pill 
changes the secretions and suppresses ovulation. A woman can learn to use it 
while wearing an IT T D in preparation for having it removed so that she can 
control her own fertility rather than depending on a doctor to be willing to 
do it for her. Tt is excellent for women's self-help clinics to teach. It will not 
make pharmaceutical houses rich and can be used in the absence of technology. 



133 



The two doctors recommend that women teach £ach other how to use it. It is 
easy to use and will work for the poor. It will not mess up your body ecology. 
The only disadvantage I can find to it is that you cannot get pregnant "acci- 
dentally" anymore. You know when you are fertile even when you don't want 
to know. 

The ovulation method can be used for several other things. If you want to 
get pregnant and are having trouble it can pinpoint ovulation for you. If you 
want to try for a baby girl or boy it will tell you when to have sex and when 
to abstain to increase the chances of having a child of the sex you want. The 
method of sex selection described on the reverse side is 85% reliable. 



134 



LEO ALEXANDER 



Medical Science 
Under Dictatorship 

From Child and Family, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1971 



SCIENCE UNDER dictatorship be- 
comes subordinated to the guiding 
philosophy of the dictatorship. Irre- 
spective of other ideologic trappings, 
the guiding philosophic principle of 
recent dictatorships, including that 
of the Nazis, has been Hegelian in 
that what has been considered "ra- 
tional utility" and corresponding 
doctrine and planning has replaced 
moral, ethical and religious values. 
Nazi propaganda was highly effec- 
tive in perverting public opinion and 
public conscience, in a remarkably 
short time. In the medical profes- 
sion this expressed itself in a rapid 
decline in standards of professional 
ethics. Medical science in Nazi Ger- 
many collaborated with this Hege- 
lian trend particularly in the follow- 
ing enterprises: the mass extermi- 
nation of the chronically sick in the 
interest of saving "useless" ex- 
penses to the community as a whole ; 
the mass extermination of those 
considered socially disturbing or 
racially and ideologically unwanted; 
the individual, inconspicuous exter- 
mination of those considered dis- 
loyal within the ruling group; and 
the ruthless use of "human experi- 
mental material" for medicomilitary 
research. 



This paper discusses the origins 
of these activities, as well as their 
consequences upon the body social, 
and the motivation of those partici- 
pating in them. 

Preparatory propaganda 

Even before the Nazis took open 
charge in Germany, a propaganda 
barrage was directed against the 
traditional compassionate nineteenth 
century attitudes toward the chron- 
ically ill, and for the adoption of 
a utilitarian, Hegelian point of 
view. Sterilization and euthanasia 
of persons with chronic mental ill- 
nesses was discussed at a meeting of 
Bavarian psychiatrists in 1931. 1 By 
1936 extermination of the physically 
or socially unfit was so openly ac- 
cepted that its practice was men- 
tioned incidentally in an article pub- 
lished in an official German medical 
journal. 2 

Lay opinion was not neglected in 
this campaign. Adults were propa- 
gandized by motion pictures, one of 
which, entitled "I Accuse," deals en- 
tirely with euthanasia. This film de- 
picts the life history of a woman 
suffering from multiple sclerosis; 
in it her husband, a doctor, finally 



135 



kills her to the accompaniment of 
soft piano music rendered by a sym- 
pathetic colleague in an adjoining 
room. Acceptance of this ideology 
was implanted even in the children. 
A widely used high school mathe- 
matics text, Mathematics in the 
Service of National Political Educa- 
tion, 3 includes problems stated in 
distorted terms of the cost of caring 
for and rehabilitating the chronical- 
ly sick and crippled. One of the 
problems asked, for instance, how 
many new housing units could be 
built and how many marriage-allow- 
ance loans could be given to newly 
wedded couples for the amount of 
money it cost the state to care for 
"the crippled, the criminal and the 
insane." 

Euthanasia 

The first direct order for euthana- 
sia was issued by Hitler on Septem- 
ber 1, 1939, and an organization was 
set up to execute the program. Dr. 
Karl Brandt headed the medical sec- 
tion, and Phillip Bouhler the admin- 
istrative section. All state institu- 
tions were required to report on pa- 
tients who had been ill five years 
or more and who were unable to 
work, by filling out questionnaires 
giving name, race, marital status, 
nationality, next of kin, whether 
regularly visited and by whom, who 
bore financial responsibility and so 
forth. The decision regarding which 
patients should be killed was made 
entirely on the basis of this brief 

DR. ALEXANDER is Assistant Clini- 
cal Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts Uni- 
versity Medical School, Boston. 



information by expert consultants, 
most of whom were professors of 
psychiatry in the key universities. 
These consultants never saw the 
patients themselves. The thorough- 
ness of their scrutiny can be ap- 
praised by the work of one expert, 
who between November 14 and De- 
cember 1, 1940, evaluated 2109 ques- 
tionnaires. 

These questionnaires were col- 
lected by a "Realm's Work Commit- 
tee of Institutions for Cure and 
Care." 4 A parallel organization de- 
voted exclusively to the killing of 
children was known by the similarly 
euphemistic name of "Realm's Com- 
mittee for Scientific Approach to 
Severe Illness Due to Heredity 
and Constitution." The "Charitable 
Transport Company for the Sick" 
transported patients to the killing 
centers, and the "Charitable Foun- 
dation for Institutional Care" was in 
charge of collecting the cost of the 
killings from the relatives, without, 
however, informing them what the 
charges were for; in the death 
certificates the cause of death was 
falsified. 

What these activities meant to the 
population at large was well ex- 
pressed by a few hardy souls who 
dared to protest. A member of the 
court of appeals at Frankfurt-am- 
Main wrote in December, 1939 : 

There is constant discussion of 
the question of the destruction of 
socially unfit life — in the places 
where there are mental institu- 
tions, in neighboring towns, 
sometimes over a large area, 
throughout the Rhineland, for 



136 



example. The people have come 
to recognize the vehicles in which 
the patients are taken from their 
original institution to the inter- 
mediate institution and from 
there to the liquidation institu- 
tion. I am told that when they 
see these buses even the children 
call out: 'They're taking some 
more people to be gassed.' From 
Limburg it is reported that every 
day from one to three buses with 
shades drawn pass through on the 
way from Weilmunster to Hada- 
mar, delivering inmates to the 
liquidation institution there. Ac- 
cording to the stories the arrivals 
are immediately stripped to the 
skin, dressed in paper shirts, and 
forthwith taken to a gas chamber, 
where they are liquidated with 
hydrocyanic acid gas and an 
added anesthetic. The bodies are 
reported to be moved to a com- 
bustion chamber by means of a 
conveyor belt, six bodies to a 
furnace. The resulting ashes are 
then distributed into six urns 
which are shipped to the families. 
The heavy smoke from the crema- 
tory building is said to be visible 
over Hadamar every day. There 
is talk, furthermore, that in some 
cases heads and other portions of 
the body are removed for anatom- 
ical examination. The people 
working at this liquidation job 
in the institutions are said to be 
assigned from other areas and 
are shunned completely by the 
populace. This personnel is de- 
scribed as frequenting the bars 
at night and drinking heavily. 
Quite apart from these overt in- 



cidents that exercise the imagina- 
tion of the people, they are dis- 
quieted by the question of wheth- 
er old folk who have worked hard 
all their lives and may merely 
have come into their dotage are 
also being liquidated. There is 
talk that the homes for the aged 
are to be cleaned out too. The 
people are said to be waiting for 
legislative regulation providing 
some orderly method that will in- 
sure especially that the aged 
feebleminded are not included in 
the program. 

Here one sees what "euthanasia" 
means in actual practice. According 
to the records, 275,000 people were 
put to death in these killing cen- 
ters. Ghastly as this seems, it 
should be realized that this program 
was merely the entering wedge for 
exterminations of far greater scope 
in the political program for genocide 
of conquered nations and the racially 
unwanted. The methods used and 
personnel trained in the killing cen- 
ters for the chronically sick became 
the nucleus of the much larger cen- 
ters in the East, where the plan was 
to kill all Jews and Poles and to cut 
down the Russian population by 
30,000,000. 

The original program developed 
by Nazi hotheads included also the 
genocide of the English, with the 
provision that the English males 
were to be used as laborers in the 
vacated territories in the East, there 
to be worked to death, whereas the 
English females were to be brought 
into Germany to improve the quali- 
ties of the German race. (This was 



137 



indeed a peculiar admission on the 
part of the German eugenists.) 

In Germany the exterminations 
included the mentally defective, psy- 
chotics (particularly schizophrenics), 
epileptics and patients suffering 
from infirmities of old age and from 
various organic neurologic disorders 
such as infantile paralysis, Parkin- 
sonism, multiple sclerosis and brain 
tumors. The technical arrangements, 
methods and training of the killer 
personnel were under the direction 
of a committee of physicians and 
other experts headed by Dr. Karl 
Brandt. The mass killings were first 
carried out with carbon monoxide 
gas, but later cyanide gas ("cyclon 
B") was found to be more effective. 
The idea of camouflaging the gas 
chambers as shower baths was de- 
veloped by Brack, who testified be- 
fore Judge Sebring that the patients 
walked in calmly, deposited their 
towels and stood with their little 
pieces of soap under the shower out- 
lets, waiting for the water to start 
running. This statement was ample 
rebuttal of his claim that onlv the 
most severely regressed patients 
among the mentally sick and only 
the moribund ones among the physi- 
cally sick were exterminated. In 
truth, all those unable to work and 
considered nonrehabilitable were 
killed. 

All but their squeal was utilized. 
However, the program grew so big 
that even scientists who hoped to 
benefit from the treasure of material 
supplied by this totalitarian method 
wpre disannointed. A neuropatho T o- 
gist. Dr. Hallervorden, who had ob- 
tained 500 brains from the killing 



centers for the insane, gave me a 
vivid firsthand account. 5 The Char- 
itable Transport Company for the 
Sick brought the brains in batches 
of 150 to 250 at a time. Hallervor- 
den stated: 

There was wonderful material 
among those brains, beautiful 
mental defectives, malformations 
and early infantile diseases. I 
accepted those brains of course. 
Where they came from and how 
they came to me was really none 
of my business. 

In addition to the material he 
wanted, all kinds of other cases were 
mixed in, such as patients suffering 
from various types of Parkinsonism, 
simple depressions, involutional de- 
pressions and brain tumors, and all 
kinds of other illnesses, including 
psychopathy that had been difficult 
to handle: 

These were selected from the 
various wards of the institutions 
according to an excessively simple 
and quick method. Most institu- 
tions did not have enough physi- 
cians, and what physicians there 
were were either too busy or did 
not care, and they delegated the 
selection to the nurses and attend- 
ants. Whoever looked sick or was 
otherwise a probVm was put on a 
list and was transported to the 
killing center. The worst thing 1 
about this business was that it 
produced a certain brutalization 
of the nursing personnel. They 
got to simplv picking out those 
whom they did not like, and the 



138 



doctors had so many patients that 
they did not even know them, and 
put their names on the list. 

Of the patients thus killed, only the 
brains were sent to Dr. Hallervor- 
den ; they were killed in such large 
numbers that autopsies of the bodies 
were not feasible. That, in Dr. Hal- 
lervorden's opinion, greatly reduced 
the scientific value of the material. 
The brains, however, were always 
well fixed and suspended in formalin, 
exactly according to his instructions. 
He thinks that the cause of psychi- 
atry was permanently injured by 
these activities, and that psychia- 
trists have lost the respect of the 
German people forever. Dr. Haller- 
vorden concluded: "Still, there were 
interesting cases in this material." 

In general only previously hos- 
pitalized patients were exterminated 
for reasons of illness. An exception 
is a program carried out in a north- 
western district of Poland, the 
"Warthegau," where a health sur- 
vey of the entire population was 
made by an "S.S. X-Ray Battalion" 
headed by Professor Hohlfelder, 
radiologist of the University of 
Frankfurt-am-Main. Persons found 
to be infected with tuberculosis 
were carted off to special extermina- 
tion centers. 

It is rather significant that the 
German people were considered by 
their Nazi leaders more ready to ac- 
cept the exterminations of the sick 
than those for political reasons. It 
was for that reason that the first 
exterminations of the latter group 
were carried out under the guise of 
sickness. So-called "psychiatric ex- 



perts" were dispatched to survey the 
inmates of camps with the specific 
order to pick out members of racial 
minorities and political offenders 
from occupied territories and to dis- 
patch them to killing centers with 
specially made diagnoses such as 
that of "inveterate German hater" 
applied to a number of prisoners who 
had been active in the Czech under- 
ground. 

Certain classes of patients with 
mental diseases who were capable of 
performing labor, particularly mem- 
bers of the armed forces suffering 
from psychopathy or neurosis, were 
sent to concentration camps to be 
worked to death, or to be reassigned 
to punishment battalions and to be 
exterminated in the process of re- 
moval of mine fields. 6 

A large number of those marked 
for death for political or racial rea- 
sons were made available for "medi- 
cal" experiments involving the use 
of involuntary human subjects. From 
1942 on, such experiments carried 
out in concentration camps were 
openly presented at medical meet- 
ings. This program included "termi- 
nal human experiments," a term in- 
troduced by Dr. Rascher to denote 
an experiment so designed that its 
successful conclusion depended upon 
the test person's being put to death. 

The science of annihilation 

A large part of this research was 
devoted to the science of destroying 
and preventing life, for which I have 
proposed the term "ktenology," the 
science of killing. 7 - 9 In the course 
of this ktenologic research, methods 



139 



of mass killing and mass steriliza- 
tion were investigated and developed 
for use against non-German peoples 
or Germans who were considered 
useless. 

Sterilization methods were widely 
investigated, but proved impractical 
in experiments conducted in concen- 
tration camps. A rapid method de- 
veloped for sterilization of females, 
which could be accomplished in the 
course of a regular health examina- 
tion, was the intrauterine injection 
of various chemicals. Numerous 
mixtures were tried, some with 
iodopine and others containing bari- 
um; another was most likely silver 
nitrate with iodized oil, because the 
result could be ascertained by X-ray 
examination. The injections were 
extremely painful, and a number of 
women died in the course of the 
experiments. Professor Karl Clau- 
berg reported that he had developed 
a method at the Auschwitz concen- 
tration camp by which he could 
sterilize 1000 women in one day. 

Another method of sterilization, 
or rather castration, was proposed 
by Viktor Brack especially for con- 
quered populations. His idea was 
that X-ray machinery could be built 
into desks at which the people would 
have to sit, ostensibly to fill out a 
questionnaire requiring five min- 
utes ; they would be sterilized with- 
out being aware of it. This method 
failed because experiments carried 
out on 100 male prisoners brought 
out the fact that severe X-ray burns 
were produced on all subjects. In 
the course of this research, which 
was carried out by Dr. Horst Schu- 
man, the testicles of the victims 



were removed for histologic exami- 
nation two weeks later. I myself 
examined four castrated survivors 
of this ghastly experiment. Three 
had extensive necrosis of the skin 
near the genitalia, and the other an 
extensive necrosis of the urethra. 
Other experiments in sterilization 
used an extract of the plant Caladi- 
um seguinum, which had been shown 
in animal studies by Madaus and 
his co-workers 10 X1 to cause selective 
necrosis of the germinal cells of the 
testicles as well as the ovary. 

The development of methods for 
rapid and inconspicuous individual 
execution was the objective of an- 
other large part of the ktenologic 
research. These methods were to be 
applied to members of the ruling 
group, including the SS itself, who 
were suspected of disloyalty. This, 
of course, is an essential require- 
ment in a dictatorship, in which 
"cutthroat competition" becomes a 
grim reality, and any hint of faint- 
heartedness or lack of enthusiasm 
for the methods of totalitarian rule 
is considered a threat to the entire 
group. 

Poisons were the subject of many 
of these experiments. A research 
team at the Buchenwald concentra- 
tion camp, consisting of Drs. Joa- 
chim Mrugowsky, Erwin Ding-Schu- 
ler and Waldemar Hoven, developed 
the most widely used means of in- 
dividual execution under the guise 
of medical treatment — namely, the 
intravenous injection of phenol or 
gasoline. Several alkaloids were also 
investigated, among them aconitine, 
which was used by Dr. Hoven to kill 
several imprisoned former fellow SS 



140 



men who were potential witnesses 
against the camp commander, Koch, 
then under investigation by the 
SS. At the Dachau concentration 
camp Dr. Rascher developed the 
standard cyanide capsules, which 
could be easily bitten through, either 
deliberately or accidentally, if mixed 
with certain foods, and which, ironi- 
cally enough, later became the means 
with which Himmler and Goering 
killed themselves. In connection with 
these poison experiments there is an 
interesting incident of characteristic 
sociologic significance. When Dr. 
Hoven was under trial by the SS 
the investigating SS judge, Dr. Mor- 
gen, proved Hoven's guilt by feeding 
the poison found in Dr. Hoven's 
possession to a number of Russian 
prisoners of war; these men died 
with the same symptoms as the SS 
men murdered by Dr. Hoven. This 
worthy judge was rather proud of 
this efficient method of proving Dr. 
Hoven's guilt and appeared entirely 
unaware of the fact that in the 
process he had committed murder 
himself. 

Poisons, however, proved too ob- 
vious or detectable to be used for the 
elimination of high-ranking Nazi 
party personnel who had come into 
disfavor, or of prominent prisoners 
whose deaths should appear to stem 
from natural causes. Phenol or gaso- 
line, for instance, left a telltale odor 
with the corpse. For this reason a 
number of more subtle methods were 
devised. One of these was artificial 
production of septicemia. An intra- 
muscular injection of 1 cc. of pus, 
containing numerous chains of 
;>tococci, was the first step. The 



site of injection was usually the in- 
side of the thigh, close to the adduc- 
tor canal. When an abscess formed 
it was tapped, and 3 cc. of the 
creamy pus removed was injected 
intravenously into the patient's op- 
posite arm. If the patient then died 
from septicemia, the autopsy proved 
that death was caused by the same 
organism that had caused the ab- 
scess. These experiments were car- 
ried out in many concentration 
camps. At the Dachau camp the 
subjects were almost exclusively 
Polish Catholic priests. However, 
since this method did not always 
cause death, sometimes resulting 
merely in a local abscess, it was con- 
sidered inefficient, and research was 
continued with other means but 
along the same lines. 

The final triumph on the part of 
ktenologic research aimed at finding 
a method of inconspicuous execution 
that would produce autopsy findings 
indicative of death from natural 
causes was the development of re- 
peated intravenous injections of 
suspensions of live tubercle bacilli, 
which brought on acute miliary tu- 
berculosis within a few weeks. This 
method was produced by Professor 
Dr. Heissmeyer, who was one of Dr 
Gebhardt's associates at the SS hos- 
pital of Hohenlychen. As a means 
of further camouflage, so that the 
SS at large would not suspect the 
purpose of these experiments, the 
preliminary tests for the efficacy of 
this method were performed exclu- 
sively on children imprisoned in the 
Neuengamme concentration camp. 

For use in "medical" executions 
of prisoners and of members of the 



141 



SS and other branches of the Ger- 
man armed forces the use of simple 
lethal injections, particularly phenol 
injections, remained the instrument 
of choice. Whatever methods he 
used, the physician gradually became 
the unofficial executioner, for the 
sake of convenience, informality and 
relative secrecy. Even on German 
submarines it was the physician's 
duty to execute the troublemakers 
among the crew by lethal injections. 

Medical science has for some time 
been an instrument of military pow- 
er in that it preserved the health 
and fighting efficiency of troops. 
This essentially defensive purpose is 
not inconsistent with the ethical 
principles of medicine. In World 
War I the German empire had en- 
listed medical science as an instru- 
ment of aggressive military power 
by putting it to use in the develop- 
ment of gas warfare. It was left to 
the Nazi dictatorship to make medi- 
cal science into an instrument of 
political power — a formidable, essen- 
tial tool in the complete and effective 
manipulation of totalitarian control. 
This should be a warning to all civil- 
ized nations, and particularly to in- 
dividuals who are blinded by the 
"efficiency" of a totalitarian rule, 
under whatever name. 

This entire body of research as 
reported so far served the master 
crime to which the Nazi dictatorship 
was committed — namely, the geno- 
cide of non-German peoples and the 
elimination by killing, in groups or 
singly, of Germans who were con- 
sidered useless or disloyal. In effect- 
ing the two parts of this program, 
Himmler demanded and received the 



cooperation of physicians and of 
German medical science. The result 
was a significant advance in the 
science of killing, or ktenology. 

Medicomilitary research 

Another chapter in Nazi scientific 
research was that aimed to aid the 
military forces. Many of these ideas 
originated with Himmler, who fan- 
cied himself a scientist. 

When Himmler learned that the 
cause of death of most SS men on 
the battlefield was hemorrhage, he 
instructed Dr. Sigmund Rascher to 
search for a blood coagulant that 
might be given before the men went 
into action. Rascher tested this 
coagulant when it was developed 
by clocking the number of drops 
emanating from freshly cut amputa- 
tion stumps of living and conscious 
prisoners at the crematorium of 
Dachau concentration camp and by 
shooting Russian prisoners of war 
through the spleen. 

Live dissections were a feature of 
another experimental study designed 
to show the effects of explosive de- 
compression. 12-14 A mobile decom- 
pression chamber was used. It was 
found that when subjects were made 
to descend from altitudes of 40,000 
to 60,000 feet without oxygen, se- 
vere symptoms of cerebral dysfunc- 
tion occurred — at first convulsions, 
then unconsciousness in which the 
body was hanging limp and later, 
after wakening, temporary blind- 
ness, paralysis or severe confu- 
sional twilight states. Rascher, who 
wanted to find out whether these 
symptoms were due to anoxic 
changes or to other causes, did what 



142 



appeared to him the most simple 
thing: he placed the subjects of the 
experiment under water and dis- 
sected them while the heart was still 
beating, demonstrating air embolism 
in the blood vessels of the heart, 
liver, chest wall and brain. 

Another part of Dr. Rascher's re- 
search, carried out in collaboration 
with Holzloehner and Finke, con- 
cerned shock from exposure to cold. 15 
It was known that military person- 
nel generally did not survive immer- 
sion in the North Sea for more than 
sixty to a hundred minutes. Rascher 
therefore attempted to duplicate 
these conditions at Dachau concen- 
tration camp and used about 300 
prisoners in experiments on shock 
from exposure to cold; of these 80 
or 90 were killed. (The figures do 
not include persons killed during 
mass experiments on exposure to 
cold outdoors.) In one report on 
this work Rascher asked permission 
to shift these experiments from 
Dachau to Auschwitz, a larger camp 
where they might cause less disturb- 
ance because the subjects shrieked 
from pain when their extremities 
froze white. The results, like so 
many of those obtained in the Nazi 
research program, are not depend- 
able. In his report Rascher stated 
that it took from fifty-three to a 
hundred minutes to kill a human 
being by immersion in ice water — a 
time closely in agreement with the 
known survival period in the North 
Sea. Inspection of his own experi- 
mental records and statements made 
to me by his close associates showed 
that it actually took from eighty 
minutes to five or six hours to kill 



an undressed person in such a man- 
ner, whereas a man in full aviator's 
dress took six or seven hours to kill. 
Obviously, Rascher dressed up his 
findings to forestall criticism, al- 
though any scientific man should 
have known that during actual ex- 
posure many other factors, includ- 
ing greater convection of heat due to 
the motion of water, would affect the 
time of survival. 

Another series of experiments 
gave results that might have been 
an important medical contribution if 
an important lead had not been 
ignored. The efficacy of various vac- 
cines and drugs against typhus was 
tested at the Buchenwald and Natz- 
weiler concentration camps. Pre- 
vaccinated persons and non-vacci- 
nated controls were injected with 
live typhus rickettsias, and the death 
rates of the two series compared. 
After a certain number of passages, 
the Matelska strain of typhus ric- 
kettsia proved to become avirulent 
for man. Instead of seizing upon 
this as a possibility to develop a live 
vaccine, the experimenters, includ- 
ing the chief consultant, Professor 
Gerhard Rose, who should have 
known better, were merely annoyed 
at the fact that the controls did not 
die either, discarded this strain and 
continued testing their relatively in- 
effective dead vaccines against a new 
virulent strain. This incident shows 
that the basic unconscious motiva- 
tion and attitude has a great influ- 
ence in determining the scientist's 
awareness of the phenomena that 
pass through his vision. 

Sometimes human subjects were 
used for tests that were totally un- 



143 



necessary, or whose results could 
have been predicted by simple chemi- 
cal experiments. For example, 90 
gypsies were given unaltered sea 
water and sea water whose taste 
was camouflaged as their sole source 
of fluid, apparently to test the well- 
known fact that such hypertonic 
saline solutions given as the only 
source of supply of fluid will cause 
severe physical disturbance or death 
within six to twelve days. These 
persons were subjected to the tor- 
tures of the damned, with death re- 
sulting in at least two cases. 

Heteroplastic transplantation ex- 
periments were carried out by Pro- 
fessor Dr. Karl Gebhardt at Himm- 
ler's suggestion. Whole limbs — 
shoulder, arm or leg — were ampu- 
tated from live prisoners at Ravens- 
brueck concentration camp, wrapped 
in sterile moist dressings and sent 
by automobile to the SS hospital at 
Hohenlychen, where Professor Geb- 
hardt busied himself with a futile 
attempt at heteroplastic transplanta- 
tion. In the meantime the prisoners 
deprived of a limb were usually 
killed by lethal injection. 

One would not be dealing with 
German science if one did not run 
into manifestations of the collector's 
spirit. By February, 1942, it was 
assumed in German scientific circles 
that the Jewish race was about to 
be completely exterminated, and 
alarm was expressed over the fact 
that only very few specimens of 
skulls and skeletons of Jews were at 
the disposal of science. It was there- 
fore proposed that a collection of 
150 bodv casts and skeletons of Jews 
be preserved for perusal by future 



students of anthropology. Dr. Au- 
gust Hirt, professor of anatomy at 
the University of Strassburg, de- 
clared himself interested in estab- 
lishing such a collection at his ana- 
tomic institute. He suggested that 
captured Jewish officers of the Rus- 
sian armed forces be included, as 
well as females from Auschwitz con- 
centration camp; that they be 
brought alive to Natzweiler concen- 
tration camp near Strassburg; and 
that after "their subsequently in- 
duced death — care should be taken 
that the heads not be damaged 
[sic]" the bodies be turned over to 
him at the anatomic institute of the 
University of Strassburg. This was 
done. The entire collection of bodies 
and the correspondence pertaining 
to it fell into the hands of the 
United States Army. 

One of the most revolting experi- 
ments was the testing of sulfona- 
mides against gas gangrene by Pro- 
fessor Gebhardt and his collabora- 
tors, for which young women cap- 
tured from the Polish Resistance 
Movement served as subjects. Ne- 
crosis was produced in a muscle of 
the leg by ligation and the wound 
was infected with various types of 
gas-gangrene bacilli ; frequently, 
dirt, pieces of wood and glass splint- 
ers were added to the wound. Some 
of these victims died, and others 
sustained severe mutilating deformi- 
ties of the leg. 

Motivation 

An important feature of the ex- 
periments performed in concentra- 
tion camps is the fact that they not 
only represented a ruthless and cal- 



144 



lous pursuit of legitimate scientific 
goals but also were motivated by 
rather sinister practical ulterior 
political and personal purposes, aris- 
ing out of the requirements and 
problems of the administration of 
totalitarian rule. 

Why did men like professor Geb- 
hardt lend themselves to such ex- 
periments? The reasons are fairly 
simple and practical, no surprise to 
anyone familiar with the evidence 
of fear, hostility, suspicion, rivalry 
and intrigue, the fratricidal struggle 
euphemistically termed the "self- 
selection of leaders," that went on 
within the ranks of the ruling Nazi 
party and the SS. The answer was 
fairly simple and logical. Dr. Geb- 
hardt performed these experiments 
to clear himself of the suspicion that 
he had been contributing to the 
death of SS General Reinhard ("The 
Hangman") Heydrich, either neg- 
ligently or deliberately, by failing to 
treat his wound infection with sul- 
fonamides. After Heydrich died 
from gas gangrene, Himmler him- 
self told Dr. Gebhardt that the only 
way in which he could prove that 
Heydrich's death was "fate deter- 
mined" was by carrying out a 
"large-scale experiment" in prison- 
ers, which would prove or disprove 
that people died from gas gangrene 
irrespective of whether they were 
treated with sulfonamides or not. 

Dr. Sigmund Rascher did not be- 
come the notorious vivisectionist of 
Dachau concentration camp and the 
willing tool of Himmler's research 
interests until he had been forbid- 
den to use the facilities of the Path- 
ological Institute of the Universitv 



of Munich because he was suspected 
of having Communist sympathies. 
Then he was ready to go all out and 
to do anything merely to regain ac- 
ceptance by the Nazi party and the 
SS. 

These cases illustrated a method 
consciously and methodically used in 
the SS, an age-old method used by 
criminal gangs everywhere : that of 
making suspects of disloyalty clear 
themselves by participation in a 
crime that would definitely and ir- 
revocably tie them to the organiza- 
tion. In the SS this process of rein- 
forcement of group cohesion was 
called "Blutkitt" (blood-cement), a 
term that Hitler himself is said to 
have obtained from a book on Gen- 
ghis Khan in which this technic 
was emphasized. 

The important lesson here is that 
this motivation, with which one is 
familiar in ordinary crimes, applies 
also to war crimes and to ideologi- 
cally conditioned crimes against hu- 
manity — namely, that fear and cow- 
ardice, especially fear of punishment 
or of ostracism by the group, are 
often more important motives than 
simple ferocity or aggressiveness. 

The early change in 
medical attitudes 

Whatever proportions these crimes 
finally assumed, it became evident to 
all who investigated them that they 
had started from small beginnings. 
The beginnings at first were merely 
a subtle shift in emphasis in the 
basic attitude of the physicians. It 
started with the acceptance of the 
attitude, basic in the euthanasia 



145 



movement, that there is such a thing 
as life not worthy to be lived. This 
attitude in its early stages con- 
cerned itself merely with the severe- 
ly and chronically sick. Gradually 
the sphere of those to be included 
in this category was enlarged to 
encompass the socially unproduc- 
tive, the ideologically unwanted, the 
racially unwanted and finally all 
non-Germans. But it is important 
to realize that the infinitely small 
wedged-in lever from which this en- 
tire trend of mind received its im- 
petus was the attitude toward the 
nonrehabilitable sick. 

It is, therefore, this subtle shift 
in emphasis of the physicians' atti- 
tude that one must thoroughly in- 
vestigate. It is a recent significant 
trend in medicine, including psychia- 
try, to regard prevention as more im- 
portant than cure. Observation and 
recognition of early signs and symp- 
toms have become the basis for pre- 
vention of further advance of dis- 
ease. 8 

In looking for these early signs 
one may well retrace the early steps 
of propaganda on the part of the 
Nazis in Germany as well as in the 
countries that they overran and in 
which they attempted to gain sup- 
porters by means of indoctrination, 
seduction and propaganda. 

The example of successful 

resistance by the 

physicians of the Netherlands 

There is no doubt that in Ger- 
many itself the first and most effec- 
tive step of propaganda within the 
medical profession was the propa- 
ganda barrage against the useless, 



incurably sick described above. Sim- 
ilar, even more subtle efforts were 
made in some of the occupied coun- 
tries. It is to the everlasting honor 
of the medical profession of Holland 
that they recognized the earliest and 
most subtle phases of this attempt 
and rejected it. When Seiss-Inquart, 
Reich Commissar for the Occupied 
Netherlands Territories, wanted to 
draw the Dutch physicians into the 
orbit of the activities of the German 
medical profession, he did not tell 
them "You must send your chronic 
patients to death factories" or "You 
must give lethal injections at Gov- 
ernment request in your offices," but 
he couched his order in most careful 
and superficially acceptable terms. 
One of the paragraphs in the order 
of the Reich Commissar of the Neth- 
erlands Territories concerning the 
Netherlands doctors of 19 December 
1941 reads as follows: 

It is the duty of the doctor, 
through advice and effort, con- 
scientiously and to his best abil- 
ity, to assist as helper the person 
entrusted to his care in the main- 
tenance, improvement, and re-es- 
tablishment of his vitality, physi- 
cal efficiency and health. The ac- 
complishment of this duty is a 
public task." 16 

The physicians of Holland rejected 
this order unanimously because they 
saw what it actually meant — namely, 
the concentration of their efforts on 
mere rehabilitation of the sick for 
useful labor, and abolition of medi- 
cal secrecy. Although on the sur- 
face the new order appeared not too 



146 



grossly unacceptable, the Dutch phy- 
sicians decided that it is the first, 
although slight, step away from 
principle that is the most important 
one. The Dutch physicians declared 
that they would not obey this order. 
When Seiss-Inquart threatened them 
with revocation of their licenses, 
they returned their licenses, re- 
moved their shingles and, while see- 
ing their own patients secretly, no 
longer wrote death or birth certifi- 
cates. Seiss-Inquart retraced his 
steps and tried to cajole them — still 
to no effect. Then he arrested 100 
Dutch physicians and sent them to 
concentration camps. The medical 
profession remained adamant and 
quietly took care of their widows 
and orphans, but would not give in. 
Thus it came about that not a single 
euthanasia or non-therapeutic steril- 
ization was recommended or partici- 
pated in by any Dutch physician. 
They had the foresight to resist be- 
fore the first step was taken, and 
they acted unanimously and won out 
in the end. It is obvious that if the 
medical profession of a small nation 
under the conqueror's heel could 
resist so effectively the German med- 
ical profession could likewise have 
resisted had they not taken the fatal 
first step. It is the first seemingly 
innocent step away from principle 
that frequently decides a career of 
crime. Corrosion begins in micro- 
scopic proportions. 

The situation in the 
United States 

The question that this fact 
prompts is whether there are any 



danger signs that American physi- 
cians have also been infected with 
Hegelian, cold-blooded, utilitarian 
philosophy and whether early traces 
of it can be detected in their medi- 
cal thinking that may make them 
vulnerable to departures of the type 
that occurred in Germany. Basic 
attitudes must be examined dispas- 
sionately. The original concept of 
medicine and nursing was not based 
on any rational or feasible likelihood 
that they could actually cure and 
restore but rather on an essentially 
maternal or religious idea. The Good 
Samaritan had no thought of nor 
did he actually care whether he 
could restore working capacity. He 
was merely motivated by the com- 
passion in alleviating suffering. Ber- 
nal 17 states that prior to the advent 
of scientific medicine, the physician's 
main function was to give hope to 
the patient and to relieve his rela- 
tives of responsibility. Gradually, in 
all civilized countries, medicine has 
moved away from this position, 
strangely enough in direct propor- 
tion to man's actual ability to per- 
form feats that would have been 
plain miracles in days of old. How- 
ever, with this increased efficiency 
based on scientific development went 
a subtle change in attitude. Physi- 
cians have become dangerously close 
to being mere technicians of reha- 
bilitation. This essentially Hegelian 
rational attitude has led them to 
make certain distinctions in the 
handling- of acute and chronic dis- 
eases. The patient with the latter 
carries an obvious stigma as the 
one less likely to be fully rehabili- 
tate for social usefulness. In an 



147 



increasingly utilitarian society these 
patients are being looked down upon 
with increasing definiteness as un- 
wanted ballast. A certain amount 
of rather open contempt for the peo- 
ple who cannot be rehabilitated with 
present knowledge has developed. 
This is probably due to a good deal 
of unconscious hostility, because 
these people for whom there seem to 
to be no effective remedies have be- 
come a threat to newly acquired de- 
lusions of omnipotence. 

Hospitals like to limit themselves 
to the care of patients who can be 
fully rehabilitated, and the patient 
whose full rehabilitation is unlikely 
finds himself, at least in the best 
and most advanced centers of heal- 
ing, as a second-class patient faced 
with a reluctance on the part of 
both the visiting and the house staff 
to suggest and apply therapeutic 
procedures that are not likely to 
bring about immediately striking re- 
sults in terms of recovery. I wish 
to emphasize that this point of view 
did not arise primarily within the 
medical profession which has always 
been outstanding in a highly com- 
petitive economic society for giving 
freely and unstintingly of its time 
and efforts, but was imposed by the 
shortage of funds available, both 
private and public. From the atti- 
tude of easing patients with chronic 
diseases away from the doors of the 
best types of treatment facilities 
available to the actual dispatching 
of such patients to killing centers is 
a long but nevertheless logical step. 
Resources for the so-called incurable 
patient have recently become prac- 
tically unavailable. 



There has never in history been a 
shortage of money for the develop- 
ment and manufacture of weapons 
of war ; there is and should be none 
now. The disproportion of monetary 
support for war and that available 
for healing and care is an anachron- 
ism in an era that has been de- 
scribed as the "enlightened age of 
the common man" by some observ- 
ers. The comparable cost of jet 
planes and hospital beds is too ob- 
vious for any excuse to be found 
for a shortage of the latter. I trust 
that these remarks will not be mis- 
understood. I believe that armament, 
including jet planes, is vital for the 
security of the republic, but ade- 
quate maintenance of standards of 
health and alleviation of suffering 
are equally vital, both from a prac- 
tical point of view and from that of 
morale. All who took part in induc- 
tion-board examinations during the 
war realize that the maintenance 
and development of national health 
is of as vital importance as the 
maintenance and development of 
armament. 

The trend of development in the 
facilities available for the chronical- 
ly ill outlined above will not neces- 
sarily be altered by public or state 
medicine. With provision of public 
funds in any setting of public ac- 
tivity the question is bound to come 
up, "Is it worth while to spend a 
certain amount of effort to restore a 
certain type of patient?" This ra- 
tionalistic point of view has insidi- 
ouslv crept into the motivation of 
medical effort, supplanting the old 
Hippocratic point of view. In emer- 
gency situations, military or other- 



148 



wise, such grading of effort may be 
pardonable. But doctors must be- 
ware lest such attitudes creep into 
the civilian public administration of 
medicine entirely outside emergency 
situations, because once such con- 
siderations are at all admitted, the 
more often and the more definitely 
the question is going to be asked, 
"Is it worth while to do this or that 
for this type of patient?" Evidence 
of the existence of such an attitude 
stared at me from a report on the 
activities of a leading public hospital 
unit, which stated rather proudly 
that certain treatments were given 
only when they appeared promising : 

Our facilities are such that a 
case load of 20 patients is regu- 
larly carried ... in selecting cases 
for treatment careful considera- 
tion is given to the prognostic 
criteria, and in no instance have 
we instituted treatment merely to 
satisfy relatives or our own con- 
sciences. 

If only those whose treatment is 
worthwhile in terms of prognosis 
are to be treated, what about the 
other ones? The doubtful patients 
are the ones whose recovery appears 
unlikely, but frequently if treated 
ally, they surprise the best 
prognoeticators. And what shall be 
during that long time lag after 
the disease has been called incurable 
and the tinir of (hath and autopsy? 
thai period during which it is 
most difficult to find hospitals and 
other therapeutic organizations for 
the wdfarc ;md alleviation of suffer- 
ing of the patient. 



Under all forms of dictatorship 
the dictating bodies or individuals 
claim that all that is done is being 
done for the best of the people as a 
whole, and that for that reason they 
look at health merely in terms of 
utility, efficiency and productivity. 
It is natural in such a setting that 
eventually Hegel's principle that 
"what is useful is good" wins out 
completely. The killing center is the 
reductio ad absurdum of all health 
planning based only on rational prin- 
ciples and economy and not on hu- 
mane compassion and divine law. To 
be sure, American physicians are 
still far from the point of thinking 
of killing centers, but they have ar- 
rived at a danger point in thinking, 
at which likelihood of full rehabili- 
tation is considered a factor that 
should determine the amount of 
time, effort and cost to be devoted to 
a particular type of patient on the 
part of the social body upon which 
this decision rests. At this point 
Americans should remember that the 
enormity of a euthanasia move- 
ment is present in their own midst. 
To the psychiatrist it is obvious that 
this represents the eruption of un- 
conscious aggression on the part of 
certain administrators alluded to 
above, as well as on the part of rela- 
tives who have been understandably 
frustrated by the tragedy of illness 
in its close interaction unon their 
own lives. The hostility of a father 
erupting against his feebleminded 
son is understandable and should 
be considered from the psvchiatric 
point of view, but it certainly should 
not influence social thinking. The 
development of effective analgesics 



149 



and pain-relieving operations has 
taken even the last rationalization 
laway from the supporters of eutha- 
masia. 

The case, therefore, that I should 
like to make is that American medi- 
cine must realize where it stands in 
its fundamental premises. There can 
be no doubt that in a subtle way the 
Hegelian premise of "what is useful 
is right" has infected society, includ- 
ing the medical portion. Physi- 
cians must return to the older 
premises, which were the emotional 
foundation and driving force of an 
amazingly successful quest to in- 
crease powers of healing and which 
are bound to carry them still farther 
if they are not held down to earth 
by the pernicious attitudes of an 
overdone practical realism. 

What occurred in Germany may 
have been the inexorable historic 
progression that the Greek histor- 
ians have described as the law of the 
fall of civilizations and that Toyn- 
bee 18 has convincingly confirmed — 
namely, that there is a logical se- 
quence from Koros to Hybris to Ate, 
which means from surfeit to dis- 
dainful arrogance to disaster, the 
surfeit being increased scientific and 
practical accomplishments, which, 
however, brought about an inclina- 
tion to throw away the old motiva- 
tions and values by disdainful arro- 
gant pride in practical efficiency. 
Moral and physical disaster is the 
inevitable consequence. 

Fortunately, there are develop- 
ments in this democratic society 
that counteract these trends. Nota- 
ble among them are the societies 
of patients afflicted with various 



chronic diseases that have sprung 
up and are dedicating themselves to 
guidance and information for their 
fellow sufferers and for the support 
and stimulation of medical research. 
Among the earliest was the mental 
hygiene movement, founded by a 
former patient with mental disease. 
Then came the National Founda- 
tion for Infantile Paralysis, the 
tuberculosis societies, the Ameri- 
can Epilepsy League, the National 
Association to Control Epilepsy, 
the American Cancer Society, The 
American Heart Association, "Alco- 
holics Anonymous" and, most recent- 
ly the National Multiple Sclerosis 
Society. All these societies, which 
are coordinated with special medi- 
cal societies and which received in- 
spiration and guidance from out- 
standing physicians, are having an 
extremely wholesome effect in in- 
troducing fresh motivating power 
into the ivory towers of academic 
medicine. It is indeed interesting 
and an assertion of democratic vital- 
ity that these societies are activated 
by and for people suffering from 
illnesses who, under certain dictator- 
ships, would have been slated for 
euthanasia. 

It is thus that these new societies 
have taken over one of the ancient 
functions of medicine — namely, to 
give hope to the patient and to re- 
lieve his relatives. These societies 
need the wholehearted support of the 
medical profession. Unfortunately, 
this support is by no means yet 
unanimous. A distinguished physi- 
cian, investigator and teacher at an 
outstanding university recently told 
me that he was opposed to these 



150 



Ial societies and clinics because 
they had nothing to offer to the pa- 
It would be better to wait 
until someone made a discovery acci- 
dentally and then start clinics. It is 
my opinion, however, that one can- 
not wait for that. The stimulus sup- 
plied by these societies is necessary 
to give stimulus both to public de- 
mand and to academic medicine, 
which at times grows stale and un- 
productive even in its most outstand- 
ing centers, and whose existence did 
nothing to prevent the executioner 
from having logic on his side in 
Germany. 

Another element of this free dem- 
ocratic society and enterprise that 
has been a stimulus to new develop- 
ments is the pharmaceutical indus- 
try, which, with great vision, has in- 
vested considerable effort in the 
sponsorship of new research. 

Dictatorships can be indeed de- 
fined as systems in which there is 
a prevalence of thinking in destruc- 
tive, rather than in ameliorative 
terms in dealing with social prob- 
lems. The ease with which destruc- 
tion of life is advocated for those 
considered either socially useless or 
illy disturbing instead of educa- 
tional or ameliorative measures may 
be the first danger sign of loss of 
creative liberty in thinking, which is 
the hallmark of democratic society. 
All deetructivenes8 ultimately leads 
f -destruction ; the fate of the 
SS and of Nazi Germany is an elo- 
quent example. The destructive prin- 
ciple, once unleashed, is bound to 
engulf the whole personality and to 
•• all its relationships. Destruc- 
- and destructive concepts 



arising therefrom cannot remain 
limited or focused upon one subject 
or several subjects alone, but must 
inevitably spread and be directed 
against one's entire surrounding 
world, including one's own group 
and ultimately the self. The amelio- 
rative point of view maintained in 
relation to all others is the only 
real means of self-preservation. 

A most important need in this 
country is for the development of 
active and alert hospital centers for 
the treatment of chronic illnesses. 
They must have active staffs similar 
to those of the hospitals for acute 
illnesses, and these hospitals must 
be fundamentally different from the 
custodial repositories for derelicts, 
of which there are too many in 
existence today. Only thus can one 
give the right answer to divine 
scrutiny : Yes, we are our brothers' 
keepers. O 

REFERENCES 

1 Bumke, O. Discussion of Faltlhauser, K. 
Zur Frage der Sterilisierung geistig Abnormer. 
AUg. Ztachr. f. Psychiat., 96:372, 1932. 

2 Dierichs, R. Beitrag zur psychischen An- 
staltsbehandlung 'i uberkuloser. Zischr. f. 
Tuberk., 74:21-8, 1936. 

3 Dorner, A. Mathematik in Dienste der 
Nationalpolitischen Erziehung: Ein Handbuch 
fur Lehrer, herausgegeben in Auftrage des 
Reich8verbande8 Deutscher mathematischer Ge- 
sellgchaften und Vereine. Moritz Diesterweg, 
Frankfurt, 1935, pp. 1-118. Second edition 
(revised). 1936, pp. 1-118, Third edition (re- 
vised) . 

4 Alexander, L. Public Mental Health Prac- 
tices in Germany, Sterilization and Execution 
of Patients Suffering from Nervous or Mental 
Disease. Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub- 
committee, Item No. 24, File No. XXVIII-50, 
Aug. 1946, pp. 1-173. 

5 — • Neuropathology and Neurophysiol- 
ogy, Including Electro-Encephalography in 
War-time Germany. Combined Intelligence Ob- 
jectives Subcommittee, Item No. 24, File No. 
XXVII-1, July 1945, pp. 1-65. 

* ~~r • German Military Neuropsychiatry 

and Neurosurgery. Combined Intelligence Ob- 
jectives Subcommittee, Item No. 24, File No 
XXVIII-49, Aug. 1945, pp. 1-138. 

_ 7 ~ :• Sociopsychologic Structure of SS . 

Psychiatric Report of Nurnberg Trials for 

^? r ,. Cr } me £- Arch " Neurol. & Psychiat., 69 
bii-ii, 1948. 



151 



8 . War Crimes : Their Social-Psycho- 
logical Aspects. Amer. J. Psychiat., 105:170-7, 
1948. 

9 . War Crimes and Their Motivation : 

Socio-Psychological Structure of SS and Crim- 
inalization of Society. J. Crim. Law & Crim- 
inal., 39:298-326, 1948. 

10 Madaus, G., and Koch, F. Tierexperimen- 
telle Studien zur Frage der Medikamentosen 
Sterilisierung (durch Caladium seguinum) 
(Dieffenbachia seguina) . Ztschr. f. d. ges. 
exper. Med., 109:68-87, 1941. 

li Madaus, G. Zauberpftanzen im Lichte ex- 
perimenteller Forschung, Das Schweigrohr — 
Caladium seguinum. Umsehau, 24:600-2, 1941. 

12 Alexander, L. Miscellaneous Aviation Med- 
ical Matters. Combined Intelligence Objectives 
Subcommittee, Item No. 24, File No. XXIX-21, 
Aug. 1945, pp. 1-163. 

13 Document 1971 a PS. 



14 Document NO 220. 

15 Alexander, L. Treatment of Shock from 
Prolonged Exposure to Cold, Especially in 
Water. Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub- 
committee, Item No. 24, File No. XXVI-37. 
July 1945, pp. 1-228. 

16 Seiss-Inquart. Order of the Reich Com- 
missar for the Occupied Netherlands Terri- 
tories Concerning the Netherlands Doctors. 
(Gazette containing the orders for the Oc- 
cupied Netherlands Territories), Dec. 1941, 
pp. 1004-26. 

17 Bernal, J. D. The Social Function of 
Science. George Routledge & Sons, London, 

1946, 482 pp. Sixth edition. 

18 Toynbee, A. J. A Study of History, 
Abridgement of Vol. I-VI. By D. C. Somervell. 
Oxford Univ. Press, New York and London, 

1947, 617 pp. 



Reprinted from The New England Journal of Medicine, 2H :S9-b7, 19J,9. 
© 19b9 by the Massachusetts Medical Society. 



Editor's Comment: 

His stark experience as an official 
American medical expert at the Nur- 
emberg Trials of German physician- 
executioners of Nazi medical atrocities 
clearly had a profound effect on A. 
The experience impelled him to record 
the insidious progression of corrosive 
medical thinking which led to the de- 
gradation of the German medical pro- 
fession and to warn his American col- 
leagues with startling prophetic insight 
and foresight that what happened there 
could happen here. 

It must be remembered that in the 
decades preceding World War II, Ger- 
man medicine was preeminent. Ger- 
many was the leading world center for 
post-graduate medical studies. As the 
United States is to the world of medi- 
cine today, Germany was then. To see 
this great giant topple not only shocked 
the medical world but raised for the 
reflective the crucial question of how 
the giant's downfall came about. 

A's answer has great simplicity — a 
simplicity that gets to the heart of the 
matter: that the moment German 
medicine forgot that cure etymological- 
ly derives from care and deviated from 



medicine's prime end of healing, it be- 
gan its inexorable road to doom. 
These are his words: 

Whatever proportions these crimes 
finally assumed, it became evident 
to all who investigated them that 
they had started from small begin- 
nings. The beginnings at first were 
merely a subtle shift in emphasis in 
the basic attitude of physicians. It 
started with the acceptance of the 
attitude, basic in the euthanasia 
movement, that there is such a thing 
as life not worthy to be lived. 

He adds, 

This attitude in its early stages 
concerned itself merely with the 
severely and chronically sick. Grad- 
ually the sphere of those to be in- 
cluded in this category was enlarged 
to encompass the socially unproduc- 
tive, the ideologically unwanted, the 
racially unwanted and finally all 
non-Germans. But it is important 
to realize that the infinitely small 
wedged-in lever from which this en- 



152 



tire trend of mind received its im- 
petus was the attitude toward the 
nonrehabilitable sick. 

Intellectuals today, of course, bristle 
BeLf-righteoosly at the "camel's nose in 
the tent" thesis. They insist that firm 
intellects have no difficulty drawing a 
line when small beginnings exceed their 
la. In believing this they miss the 
stark lesson of the ripening of the Ger- 
man medical profession for Nazi ex- 
ploitation. They also forget Judge Car- 
famous reminder of "the ten- 
dency of a principle to expand itself 
to the limit of its logic." (Nature of 
idicicU Process. P. 51). 

The major historical questions we 
must confront are, where were the firm 
intellects when German medicine be- 
gan its calamitous descent into bar- 
barism? What lassitude enveloped the 
body of German medicine when the 
German euthanasia movement took 
hold in the nineteen twenties, ten years 
before Hitler's ascendency? Despite 
the clear-cut warning from the history 
of the Third Reich and the German 
medical profession, are we in the 
United States retracing their demonic 
retrogression wherein killing super- 
sedes healing? 

German medicine, at least, had the 
excuse of not knowing the magnitude 
of what was to befall them. Are we 
incapable of learning from history's 
explicit lesson? Can we not see that 
what happened there is now happening 
here in an inexorable sequence? 

A. made clear when the above paper 



was written, that 

The killing center is the reductio 
ad absurdum of all health planning 
based only on rational principles 
and economy and not on human com- 
passion and divine law. To be sure, 
American physicians are still far 
from the point of thinking of killing 
centers, but they have arrived at a 
danger point in thinking, at which 
likelihood of full rehabilitation is 
considered a factor that should de- 
termine the amount of time, effort 
and cost to be devoted to a particu- 
lar type of patient on the part of 
the social body upon which this de- 
cision rests. At this point Ameri- 
cans should remember that the 
enormity of a euthanasia movement 
is present in their midst. 

Since 1949, when A. wrote the above, 
we have in fact progressed to killing 
centers. Hundreds of thousands of un- 
born children are being killed yearly 
in abortariums. The movement for 
euthanasia of the already born is gal- 
loping along at great speed. Killing 
has become the major prevalent medi- 
cal procedure of the medical profession 

A's paper should be read by every- 
one who can read. Our debt to him is 
immense. His prescient grasp of the 
need to rescue the German lesson for 
posterity is literally clairvoyant. That 
he has become a leading spokesman 
against abortion and euthanasia should 
become an exemplar for all. HR 



153 



PAUL C. WEICK 
DON J. YOUNG 



The Ohio Decision 
on Abortion 

From Child and Family, Vol 10, Mo. 1, 1971 



this is another in a series of 
cases which have been and are being 
filed in various courts throughout 
the United States attacking the con- 
stitutionality of state statutes for- 
bidding abortions. This particular 
action was brought under Title 28 
U.S.C. §§1331-1343, Title 28 U.S.C. 
§§2201 and 2202, Title 28 U.S.C. 
§§2281 and 2284, and Title 42 U.S.C. 
§1983. The plaintiffs seek a declara- 
tory judgment that Ohio's abortion 
statute, Section 2901.16 Ohio Rev. 
Code (1), is unconstitutional under 
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, 
Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments 
to the Constitution of the United 
States. They also seek injunctive 
relief against the enforcement of 
the statute. Hence a three judge 
court was convened to hear and de- 
termine the matter. 

The plaintiffs claim that each of 
them represents a class of persons 
who are affected by the Ohio statute 
complained of. One plaintiff is a 
physician specializing in obstetrics 
and gynecology; one is a psychia- 
trist; one is a social worker ; one is 
a minister of religion ; and the final 
one is a young woman, married but 
separated from her husband, the 
mother of one child born in wedlock, 
and at the time of commencement 



of the action early in September, 
1970, eight to ten weeks pregnant 
with another child conceived in wed- 
lock. 

The defendants named in the 
amended complaint are the Governor 
and Attorney General of the State 
of Ohio, the Prosecuting Attorney 
of Lucas County, Ohio, wherein this 
Division of the District Court sits, 
and the Chief of Police of the City 
of Toledo, the county seat of Lucas 
County. 

The amended complaint seeks a 
declaratory judgment that Section 
2901.16 Ohio Rev. Code is in vio- 
lation of the rights of the plaintiffs 
under the six amendments to the 
Constitution listed above and for in- 
junctive relief. 

A motion for a temporary re- 
straining order was heard and over- 
ruled by the single judge of the 
Western Division of the Northern 
District of Ohio, and a motion to 
intervene as a party defendant on 
behalf of the unborn child of the 
plaintiff Mary Doe, and the class of 
unborn children of the women ot 
the class represented by Mary Doe, 
filed by Homer Schroeder, M.D., was 
granted by this single judge. 

Dr. Schroeder also filed a motion 
to be appointed as Guardian ad 



154 



Litem for the unborn child, and 
motions for leave to file briefs 
amic ■ were filed by a group 

of some forty organizations and in- 
dividuals supporting the plaintiffs, 
and by the Ohio Right to Life So- 
ciety, Inc. supporting the defend- 
ants. Various other motions were 
filed, including motions by all of the 
defendants except the intervening 
defendant Schroeder to dismiss the 
complaint, and a motion of the 
plaintiffs to dismiss the intervening 
ndant Schroeder. 

The motions to dismiss were over- 
ruled, as were the motion to appoint 
a guardian od litem for the unborn 
child and children, and the other 
technical motions. The two princi- 
pal motions for leave to file briefs 
amicus curiae were granted. 

The case was submitted upon the 
evidence offered at the hearing on 
the motion for a temporary restrain- 
ing order, certain stipulations, the 
deposition of John F. Hillabrand, 
M.D., the briefs, and arguments of 
coun 

The evidence indicated that the 

plaintiffs Steinberg and Fitzgerald 

had been consulted by the plaintiff 

Mary Doe. When Dr. Steinberg ex- 

amined her on October second, she 

ired to he eight to ten weeks 

ant, but he testified that an- 

might think she was 

twelve to fourteen weeks pregnant. 

THE HON". MR. WEICK is an Appel- 
U.S. Dist. Ct., Northern 
tern Div. 

THE HON. MR. YOUNG is a Trial 
n U.S. Dist. Ct., North- 
ern Dist. Ohio, Western Div. 



He also testified that she was in 
normal physical condition, and that 
her previous pregnancy had been 
normal, with no complications. He 
further testified that at that stage 
of her pregnancy, abortion would 
present less hazard to life than to 
carry the child to term, but this 
situation would not continue, as the 
hazards of abortion increase later 
in pregnancy. 

The plaintiff psychiatrist, Dr. 
Fitzgerald, testified that Mary Doe 
had a serious defect in her ability 
to make judgments about people and 
situations ; that her daydreams in- 
fluenced her more than the actual 
facts; that she was moderately de- 
pressed and withdrawn; that she 
was seriously disturbed, and pre- 
sented gross or serious defects in 
her ego-functioning; that she could 
become a child-battering mother; 
and that she irrationally rejected 
the alternative to abortion of carry- 
ing the child to term and then con- 
senting to adoptive placement. How- 
ever, he did not predict that she 
would either die or kill herself if 
this pregnancy were carried to term, 
although it would do her grave psy- 
chological harm. He stated that the 
likelihood of great damage coming 
to the infant from neglect or abuse 
were high indeed. It was his con- 
clusion that in such states as Cali- 
fornia or Colorado, Mary Doe could 
receive therapeutic approval for 
abortion on psychiatric and medical 
grounds. 

The evidence revealed that Mary 
Doe was a welfare recipient in 
Wood County, Ohio, adjacent to 
Lucas County. She is twenty-one 



155 



years old. 

Both of the plaintiff doctors testi- 
fied that they believed they would be 
violating the Ohio abortion statute 
if they advised the plaintiff Mary 
Doe to seek an abortion outside the 
State of Ohio, although it was stipu- 
lated in evidence that no physician 
had ever been prosecuted in Lucas 
County for a violation of Section 
2901.16 Ohio Rev. Code as an aider 
and abettor on the ground that he 
counseled or procured an abortion, 
nor had any minister or social 
worker. It was also stipulated that 
no such prosecutions had ever been 
threatened, nor had any of the plain- 
tiffs ever been warned by any law 
enforcement authorities. 

The only other evidence in the 
case was the deposition of Dr. Hil- 
labrand offered by the defendants. 
This concerned the development of 
unborn children from conception to 
birth. It also offered statistical evi- 
dence that the risk of maternal mor- 
tality was far higher from abortions 
performed even under clinical condi- 
tions than from carrying the child 
until natural childbirth. This testi- 
mony is, of course, in square conflict 
with that of the plaintiff Steinberg, 
but it is unnecessary for the pur- 
poses of this opinion to resolve this 
conflict, since it involves policy con- 
siderations which are properly legis- 
lative, rather than judicial, concerns. 

This case presents threshold ques- 
tions of the right to injunctive re- 
lief, standing of the plaintiffs to 
maintain the action, and the doc- 
trine of abstention. These problems 
have been considered in other simi- 
lar cases. 



The question of standing is con- 
sidered in Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 
1217 (N.D. Texas 1970), and Doe v. 

Bolton, F. Supp. (N.D. 

Georgia 1970). Both cases resolved 
the question favorably to parties 
who stood in the positions of the 
plaintiffs here. We accept the con- 
clusions in these cases, and hold 
that the plaintiffs herein have 
proper standing to maintain this 
action. Cf. Flast v. Cohen, 32 U.S. 
83 (1968). 

The problem of abstention was 
considered and abstention denied in 
the case of Babbitz v. McCann, 310 
F. Supp. 293 (E.D. Wis. 1970) app. 
dis. 39 U.S.L.W. 3144 (Oct. 12 
1970). See also, Doe v. Bolton, 
supra. There was no proof that 
prosecution of any of the plaintiffs 
was commenced or even threatened. 
Plaintiffs are therefore not entitled 
to injunctive relief. The prayer for 
injunction restraining the enforce- 
ment of the statute is therefore 
denied. 

This then requires a resolution of 
the merits of the plaintiffs' request 
for declaratory relief, to which we 
now address ourselves. 

The plaintiffs' first contention is 
that Section 2901.16 Ohio Rev. Code 
is unconstitutionally vague and in- 
definite. This same contention has 
been raised in a number of cases, in- 
volving statutes of different states. 
There are differences in language 
among all of the various statutes 
that have been brought before the 
courts, and by using the same sort 
of hairsplitting semanticism that 
the plaintiffs have employed in argu- 
ment, it would be possible to dis- 



156 



•he Ohio statute from the 

not appear to us, 

sufficient dif- 

e among the vari- 

nvolved in other cases 

:• desirable to use so nar- 

and limited an approach to the 

ems preferable to take 

:id with one group or the other 

of the divided authorities. 

Abortion statutes have been held 
unconstitutionally vague in the cases 
rnia v. Belous, 71 Cal. 2d 
Cal. Rptr. 354 (1969), 458 
, 397 U.S. 915 
States v. Vuitch, 
Supp. 1032 (D.D.C. 1969), 
juris, noted, 397 U.S. 1061 
v. Wade, 314 F. 
Supp. 1217 (N.D. Texas 1970). Con- 
holdings are found in Babbitz 
v. McCann, supra and Rosen v. The 
nana State Board of Medical 

rs, F. Supp. 

fE.D. La. New Orleans Div. 1970). 
The question was raised, but not 
led, in Dor v. Bolton, supra. 
We believe that the better reason- 
ing is found in those cases which 
hold that there is no unconstitutional 
ess in the abortion statutes 
which thev consider. It appears to 
iiat the vagueness which dis- 
a the plaintiffs herein results 
from their own strained construc- 
tion of the language used, coupled 
with the modern notion among law 
-•iters that anything that is 
not c n numerous paragraphs 

r »f n >gal terminology is too 

support a criminal con- 
v. Toledo Metro- 
nq Authority, 311 F. 
-.D. Ohio W.D. 1970). 



The words of the Ohio statute, taken 
in their ordinary meaning, have 
over a long period of years proved 
entirely adequate to inform the pub- 
lic, including both lay and profes- 
sional people, of what is forbidden. 
The problem of the plaintiffs is not 
that they do not understand, but 
that basically they do not accept, its 
proscription. 

The second contention of the 
plaintiffs and those amicus curiae 
who support their position is that 
the Ohio abortion statute deprives 
them of the right of privacy which 
is supposedly protected by several 
amendments to the Constitution of 
the United States. The arguments 
and authorities cited go on at in- 
ordinate length, but when the me- 
ringue is sluiced away, they come 
down to the contention that the de- 
cision of the Supreme Court in 
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 
479 (1965), which recognized the 
right of marital privacy by voiding 
a statute preventing dissemination 
of contraceptive information and de- 
vices, must by extension protect the 
right to destroy the product of con- 
ception after it has taken place. 

Again the authorities are divided, 
some courts accepting the plaintiffs' 
view, and others refusing to do so. 
The majoritv of this Court do not 
accept the plaintiffs' contentions as 
constitutionally valid, but believes 
that the cases which do accept them 
have not been based on a proper 
legal or factual understanding. The 
plaintiffs' contentions seek to extend 
far beyond the holding in the Gris- 
wold case this "right of privacy," 
which is nowhere expressly men- 



157 



tioned in the Constitution or its 
amendments, but is only found in 
the "penumbra" of those articles. 
Rights, the provision of which is 
only implied or deduced, must in- 
evitably fall in conflict with the ex- 
press provisions of the Fifth and 
Fourteenth Amendments that no per- 
son shall be deprived of life with- 
out due process of law. The differ- 
ence between this case and Griswold 
is clearly apparent, for here there 
is an embryo or fetus incapable of 
protecting itself. There, the only 
lives were those of two competent 
adults. 

Without go,ing into all of the 
myriad of cases and texts that deal 
with various aspects of this prob- 
lem, the question resolves itself into 
whether or not the state has a 
legitimate interest to legislate for 
the purpose of affording an embry- 
onic or fetal organism an opportu- 
nity to survive. We think it has and 
on balance it is superior to the 
claimed right of a pregnant woman 
or anyone else to destroy the fetus 
except when necessary to preserve 
her own life. 

One of the great puzzles of the 
law is why its practitioners blithely 
argue their cases and make their de- 
cision in total disregard, if not ig- 
norance, of the laws of nature. 
Automobile collision cases, for ex- 
ample, are often decided on the basis 
of facts which are completely impos- 
sible under the physical laws of mo- 
tion and mechanics. So in this area, 
those decisions which strike down 
state abortion statutes by equating 
contraception and abortion pay no 
attention to the facts of biology. 



The evidence offered by the de- 
fendants in this case shows clearly, 
conclusively, and in detail that nei- 
ther the human ovum or spermato- 
zoon are alive, or capable of inde- 
pendent life, in the accepted mean- 
ing of that word. One dictionary 
definition of the word "life" is 

. . . that quality or character 
[that] distinguishes an animal or 
a plant from inorganic or dead 
organic bodies and which is espe- 
cially manifested by metabolism, 
growth, reproduction and internal 
powers of adaptation to the en- 
vironment. Webster's New Inter- 
national Dictionary of the Eng- 
lish Language (2nd ed. 1934). 

Biologically, when the spermatozoon 
penetrates and fertilizes the ovum, 
the result is the creation of a new 
organism which conforms to the 
definition of life just given. Al- 
though this is a definite beginning, 
there is no assurance in any particu- 
lar case as to how long the life thus 
begun will continue. It may endure 
only a few hours or days, or it may 
continue in excess of a century, so 
far as human life is concerned. In 
other life forms it may continue for 
many measurable centuries, or even 
for an immeasurable and endless 
period. Thus when a new life comes 
into being with the union of human 
egg and sperm cells, it may termi- 
nate, or be terminated, at any mo- 
ment after it commences, and before, 
at, or after the particular develop- 
mental process called "birth" takes 
place. Such terms as "quick" or 
"viable," which are frequently en- 



158 



countered in legal discussion, are 

itifically imprecise and without 

•gnized medical meaning, and 

hence irrelevant to the problem here 

i. As scientific knowledge 

of prenatal physiological processes 

increases, medical intervention will 

hance of avoiding 

premature termination of lives of 

children, both before and after birth. 

Thus contraception, which is dealt 

with in Griswold, is concerned with 

preventing the creation of a new 

and independent life. The right and 

power of a man or a woman to de- 

termine whether or not to partici- 

in this process of creation is 

ply a private and personal one 

with which the law cannot and 

should not interfere. 

It seems clear, however, that the 
conclusions in Griswold as to 
the rights of individuals to deter- 
mine without governmental inter- 
ference whether or not to enter into 
the processes of procreation cannot 
be extended to cover those situations 
wherein, voluntarily or involuntari- 
he preliminaries have ended, 
and a new life has begun. Once 
human life has commenced, the 
itutional protections found in 
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amend- 
ments impose upon the state the 
dutv of safeguarding it. 

piously, of course, there are 
limits to the protection which the 
can and must extend to human 
but these are clear and well- 
marked in the law, and have been 
•iries, essentially on the 
'•vation is the 
law of nature." Thus through- 
he development of our law, 



self-defense has always been recog- 
nized as a justification for homicide. 
Hence the provision in the statute 
here in question that abortion is 
noncriminal when it is necessary, 
or declared by two physicians to be 
necessary, to preserve the life of the 
mother. One human life may legally 
be terminated when doing so is 
necessary to preserve or protect an- 
other or others. 

There is authority for the propo- 
sition that human life commences at 
the moment of conception. 

Biologically speaking, the life 
of a human being begins at the 
moment of conception in the 
mother's womb. 42 Am. Jr. 2d, 
Infants §2 at p. 9 (1968). 

From the viewpoint of the civil 
law and the law of property, a 
child en ventre sa mere is not 
only regarded as a human being, 
but as such from the moment of 
conception . . . which it is in fact. 
Bonbrest v. Kotz, 65 F. Supp. 
138, 140 (D.D.C. 1946). 

. . . medical authority has rec- 
ognized long since that the child 
is in existence from the moment 
of conception . . . W. Prosser, The 
Law of Torts, §56 at 355 (3rd ed. 
1964). 

In this connection it should be 
noted that Ohio never did follow 
Mr. Justice Holmes's opinion in 
Dietrich v. Northampton. 138 Mass. 
14, 52 Am. Rep. 242 (1884), which 
for more than half a century fouled 
up the tort law with respect to pre- 
natal injuries, but is now pretty well 
abandoned by all courts except those 



159 



which, once having made a mistake, 
cannot admit it, but expect the legis- 
lature to rescue the public from the 
consequences of their error. The 
courts of Ohio have never hesitated 
to protect a child merely because it 
was unborn at the time of injury. 

If the law is in accord with 
science for the purpose of protect- 
ing property rights, how can it pos- 
sibly not be in accord with science 
for the purpose of protecting life 
itself, without which no property 
right has any worth or value what- 
soever ? 

It should perhaps be mentioned 
that the implication, or sometimes 
the express statement, found in 
arguments of persons in the posi- 
tion of the plaintiffs in this case, 
which equates the necessity of giv- 
ing birth to a child with the neces- 
sity of rearing the child, has no 
foundation in law or fact. The law 
may take permanently from its nat- 
ural parents a child who is neglected 
by them, and the frequent pusil- 
lanimity of courts and social agen- 
cies in this regard does not change 
the legal situation. The statutes of 
practically all states provide for the 
voluntary surrender of children. 
When the statutes are complied 
with, the child is legally and prac- 
tically as dead to its natural parents 
as if it had been aborted, stillborn, 
or had died in infancy. The valid- 
ity and effectiveness of surrender 
statutes have been upheld in every 
case in which they have been ques- 
tioned. There is no need for par- 
ents to terminate an undesired preg- 
nancy by killing the unborn child 
physically, when with less risk to 



themselves its legal death can so 
easily be procured. 

It is our conclusion that Section 
2901.16 Ohio Rev. Code is a valid 
and proper exercise of the power 
of the state. 

The plaintiffs' contention that the 
abortion statute is in violation of 
the equal protection clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment requires 
little consideration. This statute, 
§2901.16 Ohio Rev. Code is clearly 
nondiscriminatory upon its face. 
There is nothing in the evidence be- 
fore the Court to show any official 
discrimination to the application of 
the statute, or in commencing prose- 
cutions under it. 

Assuming, arguendo, that the con- 
tentions of the plaintiffs that 
wealthy persons can shop for more 
complaisant physicians, or can travel 
to remote places where abortion is 
legal, while poor people cannot, have 
a sound basis in fact, the situation 
is not inherent in the language of 
the statute. Neither is it caused, 
not could it be cured, by either ac- 
tion or inaction on the part of the 
government, either state or national. 
The equal protection clause is not 
designed to prevent that inequality 
which is often found in life and in 
nature, nor could any law be framed 
to do so. So far as this case is con- 
cerned, on the evidence adduced, the 
social and economic conditions al- 
leged by plaintiffs as a basis for 
their equal protection argument do 
not affect any of the actual parties, 
and hence the classes they represent. 
In seeking a temporary restraining 
order the plaintiffs appeared to con- 
tend that only the force of the law 



160 



stood in the way of plaintiff Mary 
Doe undergoing the abortion she 
' vd, and the other plaintiffs de- 
i her, to have. It was not 
claimed that her economic or social 
situation would prevent her from 
getting an abortion. 

We do not find that §2901.16 Ohio 
Rev. Code is in any way violative of 
the equal protection clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment. 

The contention that the Ohio abor- 
tion statute contravenes the Eighth 
Amendment proscription of cruel 
and unusual punishment is unworthy 
of serious consideration. It may 
seem cruel to a hedonist society that 
"those who dance must pay the 
piper," but it is hardly unusual, and 
the language of the amendment is in 
the conjunctive, not the disjunctive. 
In the complexities of human life it 
is not always possible to foretell 
with exactitude the entire conse- 
quences of even the simplest or 
most innocent action. But if it is 
known generally that an act has pos- 
sible consequences that the actor 
does not desire to incur, he has al- 
- the choice between refraining 
from the act, or taking his chance 
of incurring the undesirable con- 
sequences. There are no other al- 
ternatives. This is peculiarly true 
with respect to the bearing of chil- 
dren. If one gambles and loses, it is 



neither statute nor constitution that 
determines the price, or how it shall 
be paid. The result is not punish- 
ment, but merely the quid pro quo. 

The controversial problems of the 
plaintiffs should be addressed to the 
state's legislature and not the courts 
for solution. The courts ought not 
to be expected to provide a remedy 
for all of the ailments afflicting so- 
ciety. 

For the foregoing reasons, the 
plaintiffs are not entitled to a decla- 
ratory judgment invalidating Ohio's 
abortion statute, Section 2901.16 
Ohio Rev. Code. 

This opinion is adopted as findings 
of fact and conclusions of law. 
Judgment will be entered in favor 
of the defendants dismissing the 
amended complaint. O 



FOOTNOTE 
(1) Ohio's abortion statute provides: 

No person shall prescribe or administer 
a medicine, drug, or substance, or use an 
instrument or other means with intent to 
procure the miscarriage of a woman, un- 
less such miscarriage is necessary to pre- 
serve her life, or is advised by two physi- 
cians to be necessary for that purpose. 

Whoever violates this section, if the 
woman either miscarries or dies in con- 
sequence thereof, shall be imprisoned not 
less than one nor more than seven years. 

This statute or one very similar to it has 
been in effect since at least 1834. Section 1 of 
the Act of February 7, 1834, S & C Stat. 440. 
Wilson v. State, 2 Ohio St. 319 (1853). There 
have been many prosecutions under it but 
until the present case, so far as we have been 
able to ascertain, no one has ever challenged 
its constitutionality. 



Steinberg, et ah, v. Rhodes and Schroeder, No. C 70-S89, U.S. Dist. Ct., 
No. Diet. Ohio, West. Div., Dec. 18, 1970 



161 

[From the Uncertified Human, vol. 2, No. 2, July 1974] 
Michael Litchfield Discovebs 

A few years ago, the Lane Committee was appointed by the British govern- 
ment to study the effects of abortion on demand in Britain. 

The final report of the Committee appeared, even to a usually pro-abortion 
press, hardly adequate as reform. 

For one, the Committee, like the polite bureaucracy that it is, always issued 
"notice" to the nortorious British abortion factories before paying them a 
visit — which is a bit like giving "notice" to the Mafia before making a bust. 

Consequently, it took a gutsy independent journalist, Michael Litchfield, to 
show up the appalling situations at some of these enterprises where, indeed, 
one doctor is negotiating with cosmetic firms to have the "really fat babies" 
he aborts made into cosmetic soap. 

Mr. Litchfield was awarded the Pulitzer prize in 1967 for exposing the 
Mafia in the Bahamas. 

Litchfield avoided giving the abortion mills adequate notice during his 
investigation. What he uncovered is so horrendous as to be unbelievable, were 
it not for the fact that every bit of it is on tape. 

Litchfield's findings were listed in two News of the World articles. We are 
quoting some of them here from the text of his address at the April 28 pro 
life rally sponsored by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. 

"The Lane Committee took three years to look into the workings of the 
Abortion Act in Britain. . . . Their brief was to investigate the workings of 
the Abortion Act. 

"Investigate ! 

"They could not have uncovered the gravy in a steak and kidney pie. 

"They took three years to say that every thing in the garden is rosy. 

"I, with another journalist, took three months to prove beyond doubt that 
everything in the abortion backyard is overrun with corruption. We two jour- 
nalists, trained to investigate, began with utterly open minds ... no precon- 
ceived notions . . . not prejudices. And, our tape-recordings are imperishable 
testimonies to the organized corruption and prostitution of the medical pro- 
fession, from the very top to the very bottom of the abortion trade. 

"To hell with the Lane Committee. As investigators, they are a bunch of 
amateurs. They gave everyone . . . advance notice of their impending arrival 
when they were to visit them. 

"I told no one of my activities in advance. Whom do you believe discovered 
the truth? 

"The lunatic fringe has tried to label anti-abortionists as fascists. However, 
let me tell you about two Harley Street surgeons. They are not small fry. They 
are very big fish. Big cars, big cigars, big abortion clinics and big bank balances. 
Both these gentlemen confided to me: 'The great thing about the Abortion 
Act is that it has given us the opportunity to perpetuate Hitler's progressive 
thinking.' I have that on tape. 

"Which side sounds fascist? 

"If I had heard some of the things that I am going to tell you a few months 
back I would have thought they were scare stories put about by hysterics. 
But the fact is that they were said to me : they were said to me in all serious- 
ness and I have them on tape. 

"One surgeon, who owns his own abortion clinics, is trying to sell the bodies 
of aborted babies to factories for use in making cosmetic soap. 

"'Animal fat is a very valuable commodity,' he said. 'I get some really fat 
babies. It seems a shame to drop them into an incinerator when they could be 
out to such good use, and also make me an extra bob or two on the side. 

"All that is tape-recorded. 

"The Lane Committee recommends that the time limit for an abortion should 
be reduced from 28 to 24 weeks. What a bunch of jokers they are ! They could 
reduce the time limit to two weeks and there would still be the same number 
of abortions. One woman— the head of a pregnancy advisory service— told us : 
'It doesn't matter about how far gone a girl is— we can just fiddle the dates. 
Who's to dispute the figures once the child is in the incinerator.' That, too, is 
all tape-recorded. 

"Mr Michael Grylls MP has threatened us with an amending bill in the 
'light of recommendations put forward by the Lane Committee'— so we can 
all imagine how much use that would be. His great contribution to British 



162 

law would be to License abortion agencies (the so-called pregnancy advisory 
services), thus outlawing taxi-touts. How much good does Mr Grylls in his 
think thai would do-especially since licensing private clinics has 
. nothing to curb their brutal trade. In fact, it would be more truthful for 
him to legalize the taxi-touts and to outlaw the pregnancy advisory services 
because at hast the British public and panic stricken girls would know what 
h, tact the abortion treadmill was one of the most frighten- 
!,iv cut in- investigation. Girls are literally cornered into abortion. 
ie n1 they arc declared pregnant by the testing centre or the clinic, 
then tor them. They are pushed from one person to another in 

ildennent, more or less told that there is no alternative, and come 
nut the other end of the sausage machine without their babies, without any- 
thing onfusion. 

ntless women I spoke to had gone to clinics for advice on their preg- 
nancies The rcsulf- They had been told by the clinics that because they were 
unmarried they would be social outcasts and the only honourable solution was 
to have an abortion. . , 

rtions were fixed and performed within three hours. The girls were 
er allowed to go away to think about it. They were whisked from one doctor 
not her, and then escorted to their Irflnk to draw out enough cash for the 
operation, and back to the clinic and into the operating theatre. 

clinic even boasted that they had a "Roman Catholic priest" who tells 
Roman Catholic girls that abortion is within the concept of their faith. 

en pregnancy testing centres and clinics even found ME pregnant. My 
urine was sent by an independent doctor to the clinics and the results were 
positive. 

•That shows just how well the Abortion Act is working. And that shows, 
too. just how badly the Lane Committee did their work." 

In conjunction with the rally the Society for the Protection of Unborn Chil- 
•nt a letter the same day to the Prime Minister which said, in part: 
Abortion Act means that this country is in clear contravention of the 
ON Declaration of the Rights of the Child, passed at a time when the effects 
ty of the diminution of respect for life could be more clearly remem- 
bered. The Declaration states: "The child, by reason of his physical and mental 
Immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal pro- 
ri, before birth, as well as after birth." 
"Because of the Abortion Act, the plight of deprived women has intensified. 
Now, the onus is on a woman to fight often unbeatable social manipulation 
in order that she might keep her unborn baby. There is considerable evidence 
that the Abortion Act is being used as a palliative for bad housing conditions — 
and certainly the illegitimate, the unmarried mother and the physically and 
mentally handicapped have suffered as a result of its cruel innuendos. 

•For these reasons, we pledge that we will not be fobbed off with spurious 
legislation based on the "findings" of the Lane Committee. We pointed out from 
the first that the committee (from which anyone who had spoken against 
abortion was automatically excluded) was ill-constituted. Objectivity cannot 
lie achieved when a committee whose work, in part at least, must investigate 
the activities and attitudes of a particular government department, is estab- 
lished by that same department . . ." 

While it may be too early to tell, it is possible that the fat is in the fire 
for the Abortion Act in Britain. 

Feminists for Life, Inc., 
Columbus, Ohio, August 30, J 974. 

'iTl nn, 
tr, 

hington, D.r. 

BATH. In turn. I would like to thank you for giving me the 

opportunity to come before you to testify. I wish all the other members of the 

mittee were as conscientious about the matter as you are. Please thank 

i ong for being there, even though he left before my testimony, and 

• • unknown person on your right. 

I omitted two items from my testimony which I meant to include. The first 

f with what was to be entered into the record as part of my 

mony. From our newsletter, on the first page of which was a 



163 



letter in support of the Equal Rights Amendment, we meant to include only 
the untitled article by George Steven Swan, JD, with its footnotes, which gives 
a concise feminist viewpoint on the question of euthanasia. Please pardon 
me for the omission. 

The second omission was a comment I intended to make relative to the 
comment by Dr. Mildred Jefferson that she has never been pregnant. I intended 
to mention that I have been pregnant twice, and have participated in child- 
birth twice, and it is my considered opinion, having also interviewed numerous 
women about their experiences, that except in the case of some abnormality 
in pregnancy (about 5% of the total cases) any discomfort which occurs be- 
cause of pregnancy or childbirth is 90% caused by our culture ! Those women 
who managed to shake the brainwashing about reproduction that our culture 
teaches us from very early on, experience no appreciable discomfort, either 
during the nine months, or during the birth. I have never experienced morning 
sickness, and the only pain I experienced during childbirth stemmed from 
interference by attending personnel. I was fully awake and participating through- 
out. 1 During my pregnancies I led a normal active life, which, during my second 
pregnancy, included attending school half time (I was out for 3 days for child- 
birth), graduating a year and a half later, confounding Feminists for Life, 
playing judo and swimming up to within 5 days of childbirth and taking up 
less than three weeks after, which included a distance swim two weeks prior 
to childbirth of 2% miles. Please note that as a child I was considered frail. 
It is my considered opinion that one of the primary causes of the current pres- 
sure for abortion stems from the negative aura surrounding pregnancy and 
childbirth, and that it is our duty as feminists to work to educate the public 
about the true nature of woman's reproduction as an integral and natural part 
of her sexuality, and to see to it that no discrimination is practiced against 
women who are reproducing. Cordially, 

Pat Goltz. 

Senator Bath. We have just been informed that President Ford 
is going to address a session of the Senate here in about an hour or 
so. 

I will tell yon, if I have questions that I cannot resolve, I will ask 
you to submit answers in writing if I may. 

Ms. Goltz. That is fine. You also may have the resources of our 
organization for additional information if you want it. 

Senator Bath. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Warren A. Schaller. president and executive director of the 
American Citizens Concerned For Life. 

STATEMENT OF WARREN A. SCHALLER, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
AMERICAN CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR LIFE, INC. 

Mr. Schaller. Senator Bayh and members of the subcommittee on 
constitutional amendments, my name is Warren Schaller. I am an 
Episcopalian minister. I have been active in local. State, and Na- 
tional pro-life groups for several years. Today I am addressing you 
as the president and executive director of American Citizens Con- 
cerned for Life, Inc. My testimony is a statement on issues which 
are relevant to the pro-life community of America. 

ACCL is committed to work toward an America in which abortion 
is not practiced because of respect for the life of the unborn child, 
and abortion is not needed to solve the social, emotional, medical. 
or personal problems of American women. The only exception to this 
position is an abortion to save the life of the mother when no other 

1 1 had no anesthetic prior to birth. Both births lasted four hours each ; they were not 
induced. 



164 

method of medical treatment offers a reasonable promise of protect- 
ing the lives of both the mother and the child. 

A unique human individual comes into being at conception. In 
order to protect this new life, ACCL supports the enactment of the 
ible amendment to the Federal Constitution. We under- 
R an amendment must contradict the Supreme Court de- 
January 22, 1973, at several basic points: (1) The amend- 
ment should prohibit the actions of private individuals which would 
, v the Life of the unborn child; (2) the amendment should 
the legal personhood of the child in the womb from the be- 
ginning of its biological development; (3) the amendment must 
allow the exceptional ease of abortion to prevent the death of the 
motl 

\( ( I. also commits itself to work toward a society where abortion 
is not needed. We accept National, State, and local political leaders 
as our partners in this effort. We believe they recognize, as we do, 
that it should not be necessary to sacrifice the rights of the unborn 
ler to alleviate poverty or to impose conditions in urban ghettos. 
We do not accept as final a view of America which says that children 
must grow up homeless or unwanted or abused if they are not 
aborted. We do not believe that young women must lose their oppor- 
tunities for education or employment because they have become preg- 
nant. Therefore, we ask the Members of Congress to both protect 
and enhance all human lives, and to join with us in developing the 
following alternatives for dealing with the social and personal prob- 
of women who are pregnant and distressed. 
In the area of family life and childbirth education, both men and 
women must understand the development of the newly conceived 
life in the womb of a mother, and understand the woman's own 
physiological, psychological, and interpersonal response to it, so they 
can accept the fact of the new life and assume responsibility for it. 
We encourage childbirth and family life education programs which 
for both men and women, acceptance of their own bodies and 
their own sexuality. These educational programs should be based on 
jtandards of the communities in which they are taught, and 
should involve the parents of students who are minors in the plan- 
ning of the courses and selection of materials. The goals of such 
tould be to develop positive standards of responsible sex- 
uality and responsible parenthood. We look forward to the results 
search which is designed to identify those factors which are 
tial in a healthy family environment and designed to develop 
improving the quality of American family life, 
of family planning, women should be able to control 
own reproductive functions and couples should be able to de- 
termine the size of their family, so long as the means thev employ 
t roy a newly conceived life or deny that new life its proper 
We encourage research in reproductive biology to fur- 
velop a varietv of family planning methods which are ap- 
to people of different backgrounds and different beliefs, 
30 '"' newly developed techniques are not intended or 

abortifacients. Public family planning programs 
8hould '" an integral part of comprehensive medical care, 



165 



and they should avoid indoctrination of the recipients into specific 
contraceptive techniques which are preferred by certain agencies or 
organizations. We object to any programs which involve penalties 
or incentives that oblige social workers or health care personnel to 
disseminate information which may not be desired by recipients of 
public benefits, or that oblige these recipients to practice contracep- 
tion. 

In the area of birth defects, being different is no reason for not 
being, and we reject eugenic feticide, that is, killing of the unborn, 
or infanticide, that is killing of the newly born. We do approve and 
encourage research into the causes of birth defects, if the purpose 
of the research is to benefit both the individual involved and future 
generations. Genetic counseling is accepted if the purpose is to enable 
high-risk parents to responsibly choose not to have a family. We 
encourage the elimination of disease rather than the elimination of 
diseased individuals, and point to programs to eliminate potential 
birth defects through rubella vaccination and through veneral dis- 
ease treatment and prevention as just two examples. Detection and 
monitoring of high-risk pregnancies is appropriate to enable prompt 
pre- and post-natal treatment and rehabilitation. We encourage Fed- 
eral agencies to carefully screen potentially teratogenic, that means 
defect-causing, drugs. And we look forward to the development of 
insurance programs which would defray catastrophic medical ex- 
penses by paying benefits to the parents of children diagnosed as 
having medical problems of a major degree. Such benefits should be 
payable when the medical problems are diagnosed, whether during 
the prenatal period or at any time after the birth of the child. We 
support tax deductions for all adoptive parents, and incentives for 
the adoption of exceptional children. We also encourage the develop- 
ment of special educational programs for exceptional children, equal 
work and social opportunities for them, consideration for them in the 
designing of buildings and civic projects, and so on. 

In the area of fetal experimentation, proper concern for the rights 
of the unborn child need not bring medical research to a halt. New 
therapeutic techniques can be used with the hope of proving them 
superior to traditional methods of treatment, after adequate theo- 
retical work and animal experimentation has been carried out. Par- 
ents can give consent for experimental therapeutic treatment of the 
unborn if there is a valid reason to believe that such treatment is in 
the best interests of the child. In addition, organs may be trans- 
planted from the dead fetus, and tissue cultures may be developed 
from fetuses which are clinically judged to be dead according to the 
same criteria which would be used for a born child or adult. We 
recommend careful retrospective clinical and statistical study of de- 
fective babies for identification of teratogenic drugs. However, this 
is not the same thing as purposefully introducing known or suspected 
harmful substances for research purposes into the live unborn child 
or into his mother, which substances could cross the placental bar- 
rier. Systematic benefit should not be derived from systematic in- 
duced abortion. We do not approve of experiments which would be 
judged cruel or senseless by the average sensitive layman. And par- 
ents cannot consent to nontherapeutic research on unborn children 
who are being purposely aborted. 



166 

In the area of euthanasia, by referring to personhood in the whole 

nd the capability of meaningful life, we believe that the Su- 

eme Court on January 22, 1973 opened the door to unfortunate 

future decisions in the area of euthanasia. Therefore, we would like 

to clarify, for the guidance of members of Congress, what we under- 

,1 to be the important principles involved in the euthanasia 

debate. 

No. 1 : If properly understood, we take no exception to the idea 
of a dignified death. By this, we mean allowing a terminal patient 
die a truly humane death — to free the dying from the loneliness 
ami alienation which may accompany the application of extraordi- 
nary treatment where there is no hope of cure, no hope of restoration, 
or continuation of life. However, this euthanasia does not involve 
gleet of the dying patient, for he, like any other human being, is 
entitled to medical care which is reasonable and prudent under the 
circumstances involved. 

No. 2: We oppose mercy killing, which is the intentional use of 
medical technology to cause or to hasten death. Mercy killing can 
include abandonment of a patient or withdrawal of ordinary — by 
that we mean prudent — medical care, as for instance when mongo- 
loid children are denied ordinary treatment for pneumonia. 

\o. :; : We see a dangerous trend developing toward death selec- 
tion. This death selection is killing as a medical management option. 
It might be called managerial euthanasia, and involves defining cer- 
tain classes of human beings as incapable of meaningful life and not 
persons in the whole sense. Classes of individuals who may be subject 
to such definitions are the habitual criminal, the aged, the seriously 
mentally ill. the retarded, and so on. 

Additional Programs: We favor mandatory maternity insurance 

benefits for all women regardless of marital status. Needy mothers 

iuld be eligible for AFDC payments for their unborn child as soon 

as pregnancy is diagnosed and' continuing for the full duration of 

pregnancy. The classification of illegitimate should be removed from 

birth certificates. Low-cost housing should be made available to 

parent families. Day care facilities should be available when 

mothers must work to provide for themselves and their children. 

! acilities should be widely available and controlled by the 

community standards and administered by the citizens of the areas 

in which they are located. Equal educational opportunities should 

be available for pregnant women both during and following the 

pregnancy, which education should include, in addition to the reg- 

irriculum, training in parenting skills, education and job train- 

md marriage counseling. 

The preceding is meant to be a suggestive rather than an ex- 

! programs we would like to encourage. 

Bayh, you know what an extraordinary undertaking it is 

ittempt to amend the Constitution on any subject, let alone on 

ibortion. Tt will take an enormous organiza- 

il effort and educational campaign to accomplish this task. We 

- to amend the Constitution. Senator Bavh, because we are 

to make the effort involved. Tn the process of bringing about 

i revolution, we accept responsibilitv for helping to change the 



167 



conditions of life for women who are pregnant under unfortunate 
circumstances, so that they need not resort to the choice of abortion. 
We invite you and other members of the Judiciary Committee to join 
with us in developing a suitable amendment to the Constitution to 
protect the life of the unborn child, and to work with us for its 
passage by two-thirds of the Senate. We likewise pledge to you our 
support in passing legislation which will ameliorate the conditions 
of disadvantaged and vulnerable pregnant women, children who need 
special care and protection, and families who face exceptional prob- 
lems in attempting to care for and raise their children. The pro- 
life movement will be the partners and supporters of elected leaders 
who are working for the protection and enhancement of all human 
lives, and we will champion legislation to bring about these goals. 
Thank you. 

Senator Bayh. Thank you, Mr. Schaller. I noticed your presence 
very continuously as we have studied this matter. I do not want to 
open a Pandora's box but to try to help the committee and par- 
ticularly the chairman, am I right in saying that you were previously 
employed by or a part of the National Right to Life Committee? 
Mr. Schaller. That is right. 

Senator Bath. Would it be helpful in our study to quickly define 
the differences that exist or would it not be helpful or necessary? 

Mr. Schaller. I would be glad to make available to you in the 
near future some program outlines of ACCL and to help you under- 
stand the differences in the two organizations. 

As you have all here observed there are several organizations in 
the pro-life movement. Each organization has its own highest pri- 
ority goals, although we certainly all share the same ultimate goal, 
and that is to pass an amendment to protect the unborn child and 
other defenseless human beings. 

It is sometimes necessary for a division of effort in order to meet 
several different kinds of goals or priorities of a short -term nature, 
so people who are involved with me in ACCL are most concerned 
right now to concentrate on organizational development across the 
country. We also are concerned, as this testimony I think illustrates, 
to develop a legislative program both on a national scale and for 
the use of State legislators, which will illustrate in very specific 
terms the concern of the Right to Life movement, not only for pro- 
tection of the unborn and prohibition of the act of abortion but also 
concern for the women and the families involved. We support im- 
provements of society which we feel go hand-in-hand with protection. 
That is a very short statement. 

Senator Bath. I certainly appreciate those differences and if you 
care to give us further details, I would be glad to incorporate them 
in the record or read them for my own edification, whichevor you 
prefer. 

Mr. Schaller. I would like to stress, though, that I do not believe 
this can be seen as an event which will weaken or fracture the Right 
to Life movement. I do not think you can find anything much more 
cohesive or militant than the Right to Life movement. You may have 
noticed that. 

Senator Bath. Well, at least the concern described as militancy, 
if you care to, certainly is rather evident. I noted that you empha- 



168 

size the intensity of the feelings here in your closing remarks by 
suggesting that this is a controversial amendment. I think beyond 
that 11 is a rery complicated one. I know of no other amendment 
that involves the scientific, legal, technical ramifications that this 

<IIir ''' 

I certainly hope you appreciate that fact as well. 

Mr. Schalleb. I certainly do. 

Senator Bath. 1 will be in touch with you in the future. 

Mr. Schalleb. I appreciate that very much, sir; thank you. 

Senator Bath. The committee is now recessed, subject to the call 
of the Chair. 

| Whereupon, at 1 :40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene 
subject to the call of the Chair.] 



169 



ABORTION 



THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments 

of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman 
of the subcommittee), presiding. 

Present: Senators Bayh (presiding), and Fong. 

Also present: J. William Heckman, chief counsel; Abby Brezina, 
chief clerk ; and Teddie Phillips, assistant clerk. 

Senator Bayh. We will reconvene our hearings. 

Apologies to our witnesses for my tardy arrival. I got nailed be- 
fore I could get out of the office. I am sorry for the inconvenience it 
may have caused you. 

The first witness today, forming a panel, speaking for the Na- 
tional Abortion Rights Action League, Ms. Pamela Lowry, executive 
committee member of NARAL and director of constitutional defense 
project, Massachusetts ; Dr. Jane Shoup, a member of the Coalition 
for Freedom of Choice, the State of Indiana, Mrs. Dorothy Roude- 
bush, chairperson, Committee for Legal Abortions, of Missouri. 

I appreciate the fact that you will join us this morning. 

Who wants to start. 

STATEMENTS OF MS. PAMELA LOWRY, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 
MEMBER OF NARAL AND DIRECTOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
DEFENSE PROJECT, MASSACHUSETTS; DR. JANE SHOUP, MEMBER 
OF COALITION FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE, INDIANA; DOROTHY 
ROUDEBUSH, CHAIRPERSON, COMMITTEE FOR LEGAL ABOR- 
TIONS, MISSOURI 

Ms. Lowry. I think that I have been picked by straw vote to begin. 

My name is Pam Lowry 

Senator Bayh. Is that a two to one vote? 

Ms. Lowry. I was stomped on this morning. 

I think that was partly because I have been a veteran of testifying 
before the Massachusetts Legislature and people felt anyone who had 
braved the Massachusetts Legislature could start out this morning. 

Senator Bayh. They say the same thing about Indiana. 

Ms. Lowry. I am here representing the National Abortion Rights 
Action League started in 1968. It is a group that is dedicated to pro- 
tecting the right of choice for all women in the question of the bear- 
ing of children. It is a broad coalition group. 

(169) 



170 

I think too ofteD this issue is set up so people assume there are 

only two sides and both are extremist. But I think there are a large 

number of people who, while they are not particularly comfortable 

with abortion and noi proabortion, are very strongly prochoice and 

fore represent a very strong middle segment of society. 

RAL used to be ("ailed the National Association to Repeal 

irtion Laws, [ts purpose was to repeal restrictive laws across the 

tttry. Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it seemed very 

ir that the name should be changed, that it was no longer neces- 

i it any effort in legislative arenas concerning the right 

3e ; but we were very obviously wrong, and I think that is 

what brings us all here today. 

1 have been involved in this field, family planning, sex education, 
abortion, for about a decade. I started with the Planned Parent 
gue of Massachusetts. I can remember on the first official day 
that I spent there as a staff member, August 1, 1965, the executive 
director went over and watched the Massachusetts general court de- 
feat a bill which for the first time would have legalized contracep- 
. The legislature voted to make it illegal for a physician to fit 
a diaphragm or prescribe pills or even give contraceptive advice to 
a 1". year-old mother. This was the way things were in that time. 
Senator Bath. When was that? 

Ms. Li 'wry. This was 1965. Just after the Griswald decision. 
The legislature chose to ignore it, not because they as individuals 
opposed birth control. We could count the numbers of senators and 
representatives who voted against birth control whose wives we knew 
re on the pill. It was very clear this was a vote giving in to a very 
well organized, very vociferous religious lobby existing in Massachu- 
. and known to exist there still. 
Planned Parenthood concentrated on changing the contraceptive 
laws. What was incredible was, at that time, the fact was that it was 
i a legal abortion in Massachusetts than contraception. 
Abortion was permitted under a restrictive the life of the mother 
being imperiled. Yet her doctor could go to jail if he prescribed 
contraception for her. Our concentration was making birth control 
legal and available by changing the laws. Gradually change they did. 
pie began to be less embarrassed to come forward to legal legiti- 
mate sources of information and medical help, and things began to 
open up. 

I think it was inevitable that with this increased honesty and open- 
somebody should eventually feel this might apply one step 
further. 

i young woman— T think she was about 27 vears old — she 

B in uiied. with one very young child, walked into the Planned 

Parenthood office and sat down and explained that, for her, it was 

too late for contraception. Thev had used a method, it had failed 

was pregnant. She knew that Planned Parenthood dealt 

ith contraception, but could we help her, give her information, tell 

ier where to go to gel an abortion? Well, this threw the staff into a 

luandary. We did some research and within a week that 

on a plane going to Japan. The onlv legal options open 

physically healthy person were to either go behind the 

< artam or t,, travel half wav around the world. 



171 

After this incident we informed our medical advisory committee. 
They all lifted eyebrows, spoke with concern and felt that because 
this was an issue of great controversy, we should go very, very 
slowly on it. As soon as they got back to the offices, however, they 
went through patient registers and started referring people to us 
for trips to Japan. 

I can appreciate the dilemma on the one hand feeling that it was 
something nice people weren't involved in, and on the other hand, 
feeling it was a great relief to have an out — for the patient. 

So Planned Parenthood, much against its wishes, found itself in- 
volved in referring cases for abortion out of the country and around 
the world. 

In 1968 the British changed their laws. They passed a fairly sweep- 
ing reform act. It was a very, very liberal law. The cost of going to 
London for an abortion was half that of going to Japan. For $800 
you could get on the plane and go and get legal medical care. This 
opened up a tremendous — a flood gate of people who felt that they 
could somehow manage $800 and who came to Planned Parenthood 
for help and information. 

I can remember some of the cases that came in. Most of them are 
generally a blur, and I am not sure how valuable it is to start talk- 
ing about individual case histories. I am sure this committee has been 
hit with everybody's life story. There are a few who stand out. I 
don't know if you know Boston, but there was one woman from 
South Boston who came in. She had five children and was married, 
and she had never been outside the limits of Metropolitan Boston. 
The farthest she had gone was on the MTA up to Revere Beach. She 
had a morbid fear of flying. That woman got together her life sav- 
ings and put her five children in the care of her sister and flew off to 
London. It was an incredible thing to watch this happen. It was an 
incredible thing to watch these people come in the door and see how 
they had to pull their lives together and deal with this situation, and 
on top of it deal with restrictive laws at home. Even more frus- 
trating, the ones who, when you said $800, sat there in utter silence 
and bewilderment, with tears in their eyes because there was nothing 
they could do. These were the people who went back out of that 
office and started the hunt for classic illegal abortions. 

I will be honest, There were some half way decent, half way com- 
petent illegal practitioners around at that time. There was a licensed 
physician who was a surgeon and he worked out of Boston about 10 
blocks away from a major Catholic maternity hospital. He charged 
$650. If you wanted an anesthetic it was an additional $100. 

There was a man in Newton who I once saw who was also a lic- 
ensed physician. He was an alcoholic and he drank during procedures 
in order to steady his hand; and so it went, down the rung of the 
people who weren't physicians and so on. It was a terrible kind of 
thing to witness. 

People like me who had to sit and counsel them, and people across 
the country who came in contact with situations like this really felt 
moved to clo something. You either had to get out of it completely 
and isolate yourself from the reality or do something to change it. 
This is how groups like NAARL got started with men and women 



57-782 O - 76 - 12 



172 

across the country, with somebody who was trapped by the discrim- 
inatory laws who' felt, "we have to change this, it ]ust isnt fair. 

( foe of the things we did in Boston was to get together a coalition 
of clergymen, social workers, psychiatrists, family, planning experts 
and physicians and set up a group called Pregnancy Counseling 
Service which opened its doors the first month in 1970. This was 6 
months before the New York law changed. In those months that 
Pregnancy Counseling Service operated, primarily as an information 
and referral center, it saw. before the New York law changed, 2,000 
women. This was a fledgling operation, a fledgling organization, yet 
in the first 6 months, we saw 2,000 women from all across Massachu- 
setts; women also came down from Maine, from Vermont, from 
( Jonnecticut. Forty percent of those women in the pre-New York era 
went t.» London and had abortions there. Ten percent decided to con- 
tinue with their pregnancy or had no option but to continue with 
their pregnancy. Ten percent got abortions under therapeutic laws 
that were beginning to loosen up in Massachusetts, California and 
Washington, b.C, although it cost more to go to California than it 
did to rlv to London. Forty percent of that caseload went illegally 
or, as people say euphemistically, extra legally. With the advent 
of the New York law, it was extraordinary what a difference it made. 
Within 1 month there was not one more illegal case that came 
through the office. There was not one more trip to London. It was 
like. well, today's picture of the stock market. Certain referral cate- 
gories went straight down. There were no more referrals to London, 
no more illegal cases at all. Suddenly we were able to say, "no, you 
don't have to leave the country; yoii only have to drive 200 miles." 
It meant for the first time we were able to offer legal operations and 
provide decent medical care for women who, in the past, had had no 
options at all — unless you consider going to the pharmacist in Rox- 
bury and getting little black pills as an option, or going to that hair 
dresser in Quincy who used to do quite a job with a lye douche. 

You get bombarded with statistics all the time, so I won't quote 
the numbers, but I really think the change that we witnessed was 
our that is just very hard to put into words. The statistical tables 
that are released by the Center for Disease Control and things that 
come out of U.S. Public Health Service say it, I think, in figures and 
in numbers. What we saw was the human side of it, and that was 
just extraordinary. 

With the Supreme Court riding we made yet another dramatic 
leap. People who were involved in health care, welfare services, social 
ices, counseling, and medicine all across the country breathed a 
tremendous sigh of relief when that ruling came down. We had seen 
a lot of problems in referring women to resources that were 200 miles 
'v or, since I am just speaking for Massachusetts, for many peo- 
]>'>■ who were literally thousands of miles away. You don't get quality 
medical 'ate when you have to go that far to be placed under a doc- 
tor*- advice. I think all of us were greatly relieved and we sat back 
and -aid. "thank heavens. We tio longer have to do battle, we can 
on with the business of providing just basic, decent health care." 

Well, obviously, we spoke too soon. Very quickly there arose sev- 
groups particularly a great alliance between extremely con- 



173 

servative organizations and authoritarian religious groups — which 
joined forces to try to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. I 
think the really sad thing is that the focus of these groups who may 
be very sincerely and thoughtfully opposed to abortion has been on 
people like you, has been on the legislature, has been in the form 
of filing bills and attaching riders and trying to amend the U.S. 
Constitution, because the reality is that an antiabortion victory, if 
you want to call it that, that comes out of oppressive legislation is a 
very hollow one. It serves only those who are truly vindictive, be- 
cause a legislative change isn't going to stop abortions. There are 
very few people who could honestly come before you and suggest 
that making abortion illegal is really going to make a significant 
difference. 

Senator Bath. Let me deal with that question. One of you or all 
three of you. 

We have had figures printed that show there has been an increase. 
How significant an increase depends on whose figures one relies on, 
but at least the number of abortions that we know about have gone 
up significantly. It is, of course, always difficult to nail down the 
number of illegal abortions. 

Is it your opinion that there would be no difference in the num- 
bers, that there might not be a good number of women who didn't 
have the $800 when forced to look at that test of doing something 
illegal or dangerous, might decide to have the child; do you have any 
data? 

Ms. Lowry. Well, I think we have probably seen the same studies. 
I would agree with what you say. I think there has been an indication 
that legally situation has made a difference and that certain groups 
have gotten abortions that would not in the past have gotten abor- 
tions. 

Senator Bath. Perhaps I should ask you too — it might be more 
helpful and easier on you to confine your answer to that question to 
the statistical area that you are familiar with. What about Massachu- 
setts? What data do you have about illegal abortions before? and 
the number of abortions that are performed now? 

Ms. Lowry. I have one piece that covers really New York rather 
than Massachusetts and one — I will have to say undocumented im- 
pression from our own group in Massachusetts. A significant study 
was done by Dr. Tietze in New York that indicated that certain 
groups, the very young and older women were getting abortions that 
would not have in the past. We, of course, saw this in the Pregnancy 
Counseling Service in Boston. 

The people under restrictive laws who did not get abortions, yet 
who wanted them were usually the 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds 
who didn't come to the office until they were literally 19 and 20 weeks 
extraordinary situations where the parents didn't know that the 
girl was pregnant, even though to anybody else looking at her, she 
was obviously pregnant. The very young teenager who was terrified 
to tell anybody, who reallv just hoped it would go away, and really 
didn't say anything until it was too late. For this kind of person, at 
19 weeks', to go to an illegal abortionist is to invite death right there. 
An illegal abortionist just wouldn't touch a pregnancy that far 



174 

along To have a hospital-based, second trimester abortion is not, I 
can't say, the worlds simplest procedure, but it is done and in fact 
the second trimester procedures tend to be on the very young, so I 
think it would be fair to say there has been a transition— that before 
the laws changed that particular segment did not get abortions. 

The trouble is. if we turned back, what would happen? We have 
thousands oi physicians who have dealt with abortion as a medical 
rather than a legal issue. They have seen it as an integral part of 
medical 'are. Could you plunge that whole group back into the Dark 
Aires I I think that 'one could probably say that in an area where 
hoi was unavailable and you suddenly legalized alcohol you 
might see an increase in consumption. Where it was generally avail- 
able and you banned it. given the people who knew how to make 
bathtub gin, I wonder. I wonder, looking at prohibition particularly, 
whether one would go back 

Senator Bath. I am not too sure, although some of that bathtub 
gin was powerful stuff and had a powerful impact on people, I am 
not too sure the impact on people of drinking a little illegal booze 
was the same thing as a person having an illegal abortion. 

Ms. Lowry. Xot at all, but I draw on this image as a parellel in 
terms of human nature. The fact is, from our experience, women who 
want to have an abortion will have an abortion come hell or high 
water. What really happens is, if you make a law restrictive you 
don't change that fact. You certainly effect the circumstances. You 
can set up a very punitive system so that people who get abortions 
will have them under the worst possible circumstances, but they will 
have them. That is a subjective statement and I realize you are bom- 
barded with subjective statements. 

I feel there is a better way for people who are concerned about 
abortions and don't like abortions or are sensitive to the difficult 
moral questions that abortions present to attack this. I think that 
there are lots of ways that we can really fight abortions. 

Senator Bayh. How? 

Ms. Lowry. Well, starting with the field that I am most interested 
in. family planning and sex education should receive the widest pos- 
sible support. T know some people have trouble with their religious 
backgrounds and birth control. So there are other approaches as 
well. 

Senator Bayh. Wo are dealing here with an area that — take poli- 
out of it. if it is possible for somebody who is running for re- 
election to do so. After the election there will be no question about 
my ability to do that. But try as I have to look at it objectively, I 
have never fared anything that has even approximated this issue 
in combining a deep moral fervor, and on both sides. Those who are 
talking about the right to choose in this country and the people who 
b ■«•! thai that is taking life feel very strongly about it. I can certainly 
understand that from my own personal standpoint. 

The scientific medical-legal question is very complex. So here we 

asked to get the Government involved in trving to sort this out, 

whhh ie a very, very difficult thing to do. I ask this question only 

because the Government is being asked bv some to sort this out, not 



175 

that I feel that the Government has any position to sort out the 
question I am about to address to you. 

First of all, let me say I don't believe the Government has a role 
in trying to determine bedroom practices dealing with the differences 
that some people have about the morality or immoralities of certain 
types of birth control methods, short of abortion. 

Have you noticed any change in the attitudes that prevailed earlier 
relative to the immorality of using certain kinds of birth control? 
Has there been a movement toward feeling maybe we can bend a 
little bit and accept certain types of birth control as being better 
than the abortions? 

Ms. Lowrt. Oh, yes. I think there is no question but that birth 
control is now used by members of religious groups that have tra- 
ditionally opposed contraception. While the hierarchy may still stand 
in that position, the hierarchy isn't going to deal with the results 
of the problem. Certainly most young people with education are 
strongly in favor of contraception and birth control, and that usage 
by certain religious groups which have a traditional posture against 
it is actually identical to use by groups that don't have that religious 
background. I think that is very significant. 

I think another thing, in addition to the changing values and 
attitudes on contraception, is that the women's movement of the sup- 
port by the general populace of the improvement of women and their 
image of themselves and their options has been every bit as good a 
contraceptive and contraceptive motivator as have birth control pills. 
I think motivation is a key thing here. If you are going to fight abor- 
tion you have got to look at why people get pregnant if they don't 
want to get pregnant, and, too. why people who get pregnant feel 
compelled to terminate it because of external circumstances. We have 
a classic image of who this person is, who is pregnant, and who is 
seeking an abortion, and we settle on an 18-year-old college student, 
but the reality is that this is not the typical case. Our society is not 
very tolerant of the 35-year-old mother who has four children who 
is pregnant and wants to go through with this pregnancy and give 
the baby up for adoption. Our society is very, very punitive to that 
person. She is a "bad" mother. She is a "terrible" mother. She doesn't 
like her child enough to keep it. What kind of dreadful person must 
she be. So this woman is faced not with the choice of continuing the 
pregnancy and giving up for adoption, or continuing and keeping, 
and terminating. She is faced with the question "can she live in her 
neighborhood or not," and if she personally feels she cannot handle 
a fourth child she doesn't have the option of giving it up for adop- 
tion, not because of the law but because of the attitude. I think avo 
can work to change these broad punitive attitudes — anything. It is 
the whole gambit; it is better education; better welfare rights: bettor 
health care, all of these things that make people feel they can't have 
one more child. I think that is something everybody should bo able 
to work for. That is the direction we have to go in. Wo cannot go 
back to the days where a woman in Portland, Maine, had to get up 
at 2 a.m. to go to a clinic in New York for a 10:30 appointment and 
then to turn around and get back on that bus and ride for 7 hours 
to get back to her home town after an abortion procedure. We just 



176 



can't go back to that We can't go back to the time before that, when 
women who could raise $800 or $1,500, traveled to London or Japan 
and the women would couldn't get that kind of money went under- 
ground and went down the back alleys. We can't go back that way 

again. , 

I hope we never go back to the way it was 10 years ago, when, 
with sisT in my pocket. I walked down the lower end of Massachu- 
setts Ave., the seedy side of the town, the seedy side of the tracks— 
1 won't go into all of the details, but it ended up in a chiropractors 
office and it is the kind of experience which changes your life. It 
changed mine. It made me feel very strongly that whatever energies 
1 had, whatever education I had, what skills I had, had to be put 
toward making sure that no other woman would ever have to do it 
the way I did it: prevention, wherever possible, in all ways possible, 
but there had to be options for people like me. 

1 realize this is a politically sensitive issue. I realize you must be 
under pressure, but I really hope that what comes through from 
these hearings, from the letters that come in to you and even from 
a sense of what people are thinking, what the majority of people 
think, that you can perceive there are good arguments on both sides 
and can respect those arguments and particularly can support a U.S. 
Supreme Court riding which echoed that respect and which was not 
proabortion, but prochoice — which set down as the law of the land a 
ruling which said that each and every individual should be free to 
follow Ids or her most sincere conscience and religious beliefs in that 
matter free from coercion or interference by the U.S. Government. 

That is all 1 have to say. 

\I-. Km mm si i. Thank you, Senator Bayh, for permitting me to 
speak with you about this serious matter in an atmosphere that is 
deliberative and trustful. I commend you for the many hearings you 
have held relative to these proposed amendments and the spirit of 
fairness and honest inquiry with which they have been conducted. 

1 am Mrs. George Roudebush of St. Louis, Mo., president of the 
committee for legal abortion in Missouri. Our citizens' group was 
formed in 1969, at first to establish in Missouri the legal right of any 
woman to secure a safe abortion; and to protect that right, after 
the Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1973, affirmed it. Our 
committee is affiliated with the National Abortion Rights Action 
League, of which 1 am a director. 

My interest in many aspects of family planning and maternal 
health extends over many years and has led me into many activities. 
I am currently on the board of directors of the Planned Parenthood 
ociation <>i' St. Louis, and on its Speakers' Bureau. In the sixties 
I headed a citizens' committee to initiate birth control services in 
public health institution of the city and county. Subsequently I 
chaired a coalition task force bringing together agencies in the field 
which has now developed into the St. Louis Metropolitan Area 
Council for Voluntary Family Planning, Inc. These activities all 
M from my abiding belief that women are entitled to know how to 
manage their reproductive life, for their good, for the good of their 
children, for the well-being of society. My concern tells further that 
they must have access to the best possible medical services and re- 



177 

liable information within their financial reach to plan their child- 
bearing — always on a voluntary basis. While my activities in the 
field of family planning have been exclusively as a volunteer, I am 
professionally trained as a counselor, having received the M.A. de- 
gree in that specialty from Washington University as recently as 
1968. Let me anticipate your possible questions and add that : I am 
married to a lawyer, we are the parents of three grown children, and 
the grandparents of three. I am a lay reader in the Episcopal Church. 

Obviously, with this background and experience, I speak not as an 
expert — you have heard from many in many fields — but as an active 
citizen. I intend to limit my remarks to the question before the com- 
mittee which is, I understand: Shall the Federal Constitution be 
amended to deny women the right to choose whether to continue 
pregnancy, a right upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 
January of 1973. I hope to focus on the moral issue surrounding the 
right of privacy and freedom of conscience for the individual woman. 

Our committee supports the decision of the court and continues 
to believe that it represents a compromise in that it leaves open and 
available the option of abortion, yet imposes it on no woman. The 
court recognized that a woman is more than a reproductive unit — to 
use a label applied by one of our opponents whom you have heard 
here, that she is a person of dignity, competent to make decisions 
about the most intimate aspect of her life. The court opinion frees 
her to act according to her best judgment — and she will aways choose 
the greater good as she see it. Her childbearing is not to be dictated 
by the State ; before the court ruled, legislatures could hold that a 
woman must bear that child, once pregnant. For compulsion by legis- 
latures, the Supreme Court decision substitutes the judgment of the 
individual woman ; she is given the privilege to choose according to 
her own reason and moral sense. Surely this is the way we have 
traditionally dealt with moral choices in our free society — with high 
regard for a wide diversity of views. There is nothing in the Supreme 
Court decision that prohibits a woman from acting in according with 
the moral teachings of her church, nor from seeking counsel with 
any other source of help that she respects. The moral and ethical 
teachings she received will be factors in her decision, of course. The 
kind of teaching that will reduce the need for abortion might be a 
more constructive program for those against abortion rights than 
attacking the U.S. Supreme Court. I am speaking of early instruc- 
tion in sexuality and values of family planning in the schools, in- 
volving parents ideally. The goal of such courses should be to "de- 
velop positive standards of responsible sexuality and responsible 
parenthood"— to quote from the Keverend Warren Schaller whom 
you heard for the opposition on August 21. 

Our position that the abortion decision is rightfully the woman s 
is far from advocating abortion. And it is a long way from giving the 
States the power to compel a woman to go through with an undesired 
pregnancy; or the power to compel a woman to terminate it. This 
fear of government control is very real to our opponents. Yet ex- 
perience in other countries does not justify that fear. For example. 
Sweden and Denmark legalized abortion in the 1930's, Japan in 194S. 
Nothing like imposed euthanasia, or compulsory sterilization, or gov- 



178 



eminent dictation of family size has occurred. The enormity of 
Hitlei idal programs is often cited. Yet the fact is that under 

Hitler. Germany passed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in 
v. making even the act of assisting in an abortion a penal 
offen . . 

ther objection that is made to the Supreme Court decision is 
that it has reduced the powers of the State to legislate. I do not 
understand this argument. In the first place, a State reasonably regu- 
late the abortion procedure for the protection of maternal health 
after the firsl trimester — during which the decision must be left to 
the woman and her doctor. Second, the State's power to prohibit 
abortion after viability is upheld, provided that continuation of the 
pregnancy docs not threaten the life or health of the woman. What 
more restrictive provision can there be that does not abridge the right 
of the individual woman? T n holding as it did, the Court was not 
usurping the authority of the legislatures. It simply pointed out the 
limits of the constitutional rights of the pregnant woman, and thus 
of the States authority to legislate. 

The States have shown down the years a legitimate interest in the 
health of women through enactment of medical practice statutes, 
through penalties for the illicit practice of medicine, through guide- 
developed by the appropriate professional agencies. It is not 
clear to us that additional legislation at any level is needed. We pre- 
fer that the law remain silent on the subject. A statement from the 
late Father .John Courtney Murray, one of the principal architects 
of the Second Vatican Council on Religious Freedom, seems pertinent 

here : 

Laws should seek to maintain only that minimum of actualized morality that 
Is necessary for the healthy functioning of the social order. Is is prudent to 
undertake the enforcement of this or that ban ... in view of the possible harm- 
ful effects in other areas of social life? Is the instrumentality of coercive law 
us for the eradication of this or that social vice? 

This statement of principle relates directly, I believe, to the divisive 

which con fionts ns. Dissatisfaction with the Court's decision has 

precipitated a controversy marked by a rancor and fanaticism that 

are regrettable at a time in the Nation's history when we need to 

draw closer together. These destructive feelings will surely intensify 

and a disastrous cleavage result if the proposed amendments pass the 

nd go to the States for ratification. It is saddening to think 

h a cruel eventuality. Of all aspects of a woman's life that 

should be supportively surrounded with compassion and sensitivity 

n is her childbearing. In this man's world— for so it still is — we turn 

I for that kind of understanding. We ask you to turn down the 

constitutional measures before you. 

reproductive discretion is our objective— and this is well 

I in the Supreme Court decision— we do not believe that we need 

tion on other issues with which our adversaries would like 

te us. However, there are two points that I feel obliged to 

ii rebuttal to arguments 1 know you have heard here. The first 

9 thai we advocate abortion as a method of contraception. As I have 

said, we are not advocating abortion, but a woman's right to choose. 

I- urthermore, abortion is by definition not a contraceptive method; it 

r conception has occurred. We do not regard it as a sub- 



179 

stitute for the practice of contraception, but as a remedy for failed 
contraception or a lack of prudence or simply innocence of human 
biology. In the perfect world, there will be no need for abortion, for 
we will have a fail-proof contraceptive universally employed and 
every pregnancy will be planned. Hasten the day. The other criticism 
directed at us which I would like to answer is that we are depriving 
adoptive parents of children to adopt. At least that is the way I read 
our adversaries' bumper stickers. In the first place, it seems to me that 
adoption was devised originally to provide homes for children who 
had none. Have we not switched things around so that unwilling 
women must be compelled by the State to deliver children for adults 
who cannot have their own? What a diabolical use of a woman. 
Perhaps this is the function the speaker had in mind in referring to 
women as "a reproductive unit"! Furthermore, to require by law 
that a woman go through with an unwanted pregnancy and then 
compound her misery by offering as a solution the relinquishing of 
the child seems to me utterly heartless. As to the supply of children 
available for adoption, I should like to quote from a release from the 
Children's Bureau of the Department of Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare dated April 19, 1974 ; headed "Statistics Pertaining to Children 
in Need of Abortion" : 

Although there are no firm statistics as to the number available, it is known 
that the vast majority of children for whom adoption might be suitable are 
over 6 years of age, are physically, mentally, or emotionally handicapped, or 
are in large family groups where the children should not be separated. 

Recent estimates of the number of children who could profit by adoption indi- 
cate that there might be about 100,000, most of whom are currently in foster 
care. 

This information seems to me to speak against the argument that 
women should be compelled to go through with unwanted pregnancies 
to supply children for adoption. 

Reproductive freedom is our objective. It is abridged without ac- 
cess to abortion, a right upheld by the Supreme Court decision. 
Women do have problem pregnancies. 

I have here included the report of two cases that have recently 
come to my attention. 

One, a 40-year-old mother of four planned children, another a 17- 
year-old college freshman. I think in the interest of time I will not 
read those, since you have heard numerous cases recited here by Pam 
Lowry. 

Senator Bath. We will in the record. Yes, they are in your text. 

Ms. Rouderbtjsh. Let me tell you about two cases that have recently 
eome to my attention. 

A 40-year-old mother of four planned children finds herself preg- 
nant, despite the practice of contraception. Her husband has been 
handicapped in such a way that he can no longer work. She lias taken 
a job to supplement his' meager compensation and help meet the 
mounting expense of education for her children. This is possible for 
her now that the youngest child is in school most of the day. The 
prospect of going' through a potentially dangerous, late pregnancy 
to deliver an unwanted infant is devastating to her. Added to which 
is the insoluble problem of family finances if she quits work to bring 
up a child. Should she not have tlie right to choose to have a medically 



180 

safe abortion? Or does society feel it can make a judgment for her 
and condemn her and the child to a dismal future? By what author- 
ity can we make that judgment? 

Or another case. A 17-year-old college freshman on a scholarship, 
overwhelmed by her new liberties, has too much beer at her first all- 
night party, and finds three weeks later that she is pregnant. She 
comes from a family where sex was not discussed, from a school with 
taboos against any kind of instruction in family planning, froma 
community just getting underway with birth control clinics that will 
treat minors. What now are her' alternatives? Society afforded poor 
ones before the Supreme Court decision legalized abortion. Let's look 
at them. There is marriage — if she could be sure which boy was 
responsible and coerce him. Percentage of success for those marriages 
is very low. She might go to another city, have the child and put 
it out for adoption. This would mean giving up her scholarship, 
giving up college, maybe forever. Giving up an infant. She might keep 
the child and raise it alone. Would her mother be overjoyed to take 
<are of that out-of-wedlock child while the teenager went out to work 
to support it? Then there are the desperate alternatives — like at- 
tempting brutal self-abortion, or even suicide. How can a humane 
society take away from this young woman the option of safe, legal 
abortion available now under the Supreme Court decision? How 
would a return to the days of the back-alley operator serve this 
woman -or the common good? We need to ask ourselves whether it 
i- not lather our vindicative craving to punish that would be served. 

In Missouri safe, legal abortion is available— subject to recently 
imposed restrictions which we deplore and which are not being chal- 
lenged in court cases. Women who choose this solution to a problem 
pregnancy can he treated at clinics in the St. Louis area, at Columbia, 
and in the Kansas City area. Some 7,300 women chose this solution 
in 1973, according to figures released by the Missouri Center for 
Health Statistics — although some of them had to go out of the State 
for treatment. There is no reliable way of comparing this figure with 
the number of illegal abortions done prior to January 22, 1973. Be- 
cause they were outside the law they were not recorded, for the 
protection of the woman, her family. "her physician. Deaths related 
to criminal abortion were ascribed to septicemia or hemorrhage, for 
the same reason. The view that the option of safe, legal abortion must 
remain available as made possible by the Court's decision is gaining 
adherents in Missouri. Our membership grows daily, as do financial 
donations. Support among the professional groups is evidenced in 
our letterhead: We have advisory groups of medical specialists — in- 
cluding the chief of the department of obstetrics and gvnecologv at 
Washington University in St. Louis— and of clergymen — including 
'lie bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri. A dozen or more 
influential organizations, several with statewide memberships, have 
I us in support of liberalized abortion laws and of the Supreme 
( '"'I it decision. Von have a list attached to your script, T believe. 

Let me say, however, that even if there were not such general sup- 
port tor the Court, even if we are to he in the minority, our rights 
I would deserve the protection of the Constitution. We resist the 
>!itv that a crusade mounted primarily by a religious group 
seeking implementation in the civil law of their sectarian belief 



181 

could deprive us of our constitutional rights. We therefore ask that, 
as you deliberate, you put first the rights of women and assure us 
that you value our capacity to make wise judgments in this most 
personal decision, where individual conscience must govern. 

I like the way Bishop George Cadigan expressed his views some 3 
years ago : 

Proposed legalization of abortion in the State of Missouri has precipitated 
violent debate which has focused disproportionately on the acceptability or un- 
acceptability of this means of solving an undesired pregnancy. Regard for the 
sancitity of life has been repeatedly invoked, as if only some of us valued, or 
appreciated, the true worth of human life * * * 

The "Tightness" or "wrongness" of abortion * * * is not the critical issue 
here. The issue is the larger ethical one : Can any one of us stand in the role 
of judge for the personal decisions of others? What robes shall we wear? 
Greater than the debatable immorality of terminating an undesired pregnancy 
is the immorality of refusing a woman access to medical help when she has 
determined that she needs it. A law that compels a woman to continue an 
undesired pregnancy is evil — as evil as a law that would compel her to have 
an abortion. 

If there is any single thought that I would like to leave with you 
it is : that pregnancy is a deeply significant event in a woman's life. 
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is equally significant. The 
woman must be trusted to make that decision and have the freedom 
to act upon it without interference by the State. 

That concludes my testimony. 

[The testimony of Mrs. George S. Roudebush follows:] 

Testimony of Mrs. George S. Roudebush, Board of Directors of 
National Abortion Rights Action League 

Senator Bayh and members of the Committee: Thank you very much for 
the opportunity to speak with you about this serious matter in an atmosphere 
that is deliberate and trustful. I commend you for the many hearings you 
have held relative to these proposed amendments and the spirit of fairness 
and honest inquiry with which they have conducted. 

I am Mrs. George Roudebush of St. Louis, Mo., president of the Committee 
for Legal Abortion in Missouri. Our citizens' group was formed in 1969, at 
first to establish in Missouri the legal right of any woman to secure a safe 
abortion ; and to protect that right, after the Supreme Court decision of Jan- 
uary 22, 1973, affirmed it. Our Committee is affiliated with the National Abor- 
tion Rights Action League, of which I am a director. 

My interest in many aspects of family planning and maternal health extends 
over many years and has led me into many activities. I am currently on the 
Board of Directors of the Planned Parenthood Association of St. Louis, and on 
its Speakers' Bureau. In the sixties I headed a citizens' committee to initiate 
birth control services in public health institutions of the city and county. Sub- 
sequentlv I chaired a coalition task force bringing together agencies in the 
field, which has now developed into the St. Louis Metropolitan Area Council 
for voluntary Family Planning, Inc. These activities all stem from my abiding 
belief that women are entitled to know how to manage their reproductive life, 
for their good, for the good of their children, for the well-being of society. My 
concern tells me further that they must have access to the best possible medical 
services and reliable information within their financial reach to plan their 
child-bearing— always on a VOLUNTARY basis. While my activities in the 
field of family planning have been exclusively as a volunteer, I am profession- 
ally trained as a counselor, having received the M.A. degree in that speciality 
from Washington Universitv as recently as 1968. Let me anticipate your 
possible questions and add that : I am married to a lawyer, we are the parents 
of three grown children, and the grandparents of three. I am a lay reader in 
the Episcopal Church. 

With this background and experience, I obviously speak not as an expert— 
you have heard from many in many fields— but as an active citizen. I intend 



182 

to limit inv remarks to the question before the Committee which is, I under- 
stand shall t!i»' Federal ('(institution be amended to deny women the right 
to choose whether to continue pregnancy, a right upheld by the U.S. Supreme 
(Curt decision In .January of 1073. I hope to focus on the moral issue sur- 
rounding the righl of privacy and freedom of conscience for the individual 

woman. „ ... 

Our Committee supports the decision of the Court and continues to believe 
thai it represents a compromise in that it leaves open and available the option 
of abortion, yet Imposes it on no woman. The Court recognized that a woman 
la more than "a reproductive unit"— to use a label applied by one of our op- 
ponents; that Bhe Is a poison of dignity, competent to make decisions about the 
most intimate aspect of her life. The Court opinion frees her to act according 
to BBB best judgment (and she will always choose the greater good as she sees 
: t i Her child-bearing is not to be dictated by the state; before the Court ruled, 
ores held that a woman must bear a child, once pregnant. For compul- 
sion by Legislatures, the Supreme Court decision substitutes the judgment of 
the individual woman; SHE is given the privilege to choose according to her 
own reason and moral sense. Surely this is the way we have traditionally dealt 
with moral choices in our free society— with high regard for our diverse views. 
There is nothing in the Supreme Court decision that prohibits a woman from 
acting in the accord with the moral teaching of her church, nor from seeking 
counsel with any other source of help that she respects. The moral and ethical 
teachings she received will be factors in her decision, inescapably. The kind of 
teaching that will reduce the need for abortion might be a more constructive 
program for those against abortion rights than attacking the Court. I am speak- 
Ing of early instruction in sexuality and values of family planning in the schools, 
Involving parents ideally. The goal of such courses should be to "develop posi- 
tive standards of responsible sexuality and responsible parenthood" — to quote 
from the Rev. Warren Schaller whom you heard for the opposition on August 

L'lst. 

our position that the abortion decision is rightfully the woman's is far from 
advocating abortion. And it is a long way from giving the states the power to 
compel a woman to go through with an undesired pregnancy; or the power to 
compel a woman to terminate it. This fear of government control is very real 
to our opponents. Yet experience in other countries does not justify that fear. 
For example. Sweden and Denmark legalized abortion in the 1930's, Japan in 
1948. Not hint' like imposed euthanasia, or compulsory Sterilization, or govern- 
in. Tit limitation of family size has occurred. The enormity of Hitler's genoeidal 
programs is often cited. Vet the fact is that under Hitler, Germany passed one 
of the most restrictive abortion laws in history, making even the act of assist- 
ing in an abortion a penal offense! 

Another objection that is made to the Supreme Court decision is that it has 
reduced the powers of the state to legislate. I do not understand this argument. 
In the tirst place, a state may reasonably regulate the abortion procedure for 
i he protection of maternal Health after the first trimester (during which the de- 
cision must be left to the woman and her doctor). Secondly, the state's power 
t" prohibit abortion after viability is upheld, provided that continuation of the 
pregnancy does not threaten the life or health of the woman. What more re- 
strictive provision can there be that does not abridge the right of the individual 
woman'.' In holding as it did. the Court was not usurping the authority of the 
legislatures. It simply pointed out the limits of the constitutional rights of the 
pregnant woman, and thus of the states' authority to legislate. 

The states have shown legitimate interest in the health of women through 
enactment of medical practise statutes, through penalties for the illicit practise 
of medicine, througb guidelines developed by the appropriate professional 
agencies, il i- nol clear that additional legislation at any level is needed. We 
prefer that the law be silent on the subject. A statement' from the late Father 
John Courtney Murray, one of the principal architects of the Second Vatican 
Council on Religious Freedom, seems pertinent here: 

Should -eek to maintain only that minimum of actualized morality 
that is necessary for the healthy functioning of the social order. Is it prudent 
to undertake the enforcement of this or that ban ... in view of the possible 
harmful effects in other areas of social life? Is the instrumentality of coercive 
law a good means f«.r the eradication of this or that social vice?" 

This Btatemenl of principle relates directly. I believe, to the devisive issue 
which confronts us. Dissatisfaction with the Court's decision has precipitated 



183 

a controversy marked by a rancor and fanaticism that are regrettable at a time 
in the nation's history when we need to draw closer together. These destructive 
feelings will surely intensify and a disastrous cleavage result if the proposed 
amendments pass the Congress and go to the states for ratification. It is sad- 
dening to think of such a cruel eventuality. Of all aspects of a woman's life 
that should be supportively surrounded with compassion and sensitivity it is 
her childbearing. In this man's world — for so it still is — we turn to you for 
that kind of understanding. We ask you to turn down the constitutional mea- 
sures before you. 

Since reproductive discretion is our objective (and this is well served in the 
Supreme Court decision) we do not believe that we need state a position on 
other issues with which our adversaries would like to associate us. However, 
there are two points that I feel obliged to make in rebuttal to arguments that 
you have heard here. The first is that we advocate abortion as a method of 
contraception. As I have said, we are not advocating abortion, but a woman's 
right to choose abortion. Furthermore, abortion is by definition not a contra- 
ceptive method ; it is used after conception has occurred. We do not regard it 
as a substitute for the practise of contraception, but as a remedy for failed 
contraception or a lack of prudence or innocence of human biology. In the per- 
fect world, there will be no need for abortion, for we will have a fail-proof 
contraceptive universally employed and every pregnancy will be planned. The 
other criticism directd at us which I would like to answer is that we are de- 
priving adoptive parents of children to adopt. At least that is the way I read 
our adversaries' bumper stickers. In the first place, it seems to me that adoption 
was devised originally to provide homes for children who had none. Have we 
now switched things around so that unwilling women must deliver children for 
adults who cannot have their own? What a diabolical use of a woman. Perhaps 
this is the function the speaker had in mind in referring to woman as "a re- 
productive unit" ! Furthermore, to require by law that a woman go through 
with an unwanted pregnancy and then compound her misery by offering as a 
solution the relinquishing of the child seems to me utterly heartless. As to the 
supply of children available for adoption, I should like to quote from a release 
from the Children's Bureau of the Department of Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare dated April 19, 1974 ; headed Statistics Pertaining to Children in Need of 
Adoption: 

"Although there are no firm statistics as to the number available, it is known 
that the vast majority of children for whom adoption might be suitable are 
over 6 years of age, are physically, mentally, or emotionally handicapped, or 
are in large family groups where the children should not be separated. 

"Recent estimates of the number of children who could profit by adoption in- 
dicate that there might be about 100,000, most of whom are currently in foster 
care." 

This information seems to me to speak against the argument that women 
should be encouraged to go through with unwanted pregnancies to supply chil- 
dren for adoption. 

Reproductive freedom is our objective. It is abridged without access to abor- 
tion, a right upheld by the Supreme Court decision. Women do have problem 
pregnancies. Let me tell you about two cases that have recently come to my 
attention. 

A 40-year-old mother of four planned children finds herself pregnant, despite 
the practise of contraception. Her husband has been handicapped in such a way 
that he can no longer work. She has taken a job to supplement his meager com- 
pensation and help meet the mounting expense of education for her children. 
This is possible for her now that the youngest child is in school most of the day. 
The prospect of going through a potentially dangerous, late pregnancy to deliver 
an unwanted infant is devastating to her. Added to which is the insoluble 
problem of family financies if she quits work to bring up a child. Should she 
not have the right to choose to have a medically-safe abortion? Or does society 
feel it can make a judgment for her and condemn her and the child to a dismal 
future? By what authority can we make that judgment? 

Or another case. A 17-year-old college freshman on a scholarship, over- 
whelmed by her new liberties, has too much beer at her first all-night party, 
and finds three weeks later that she is pregnant. She comes from a family whore- 
sex was not discussed, from a school with taboos against any kind of instruc- 
tion in family planning, from a community just getting underway with birth 
control clinics that will treat minors. What now are her alternatives? Society 
afforded poor ones before the Supreme Court decision legalized abortion. Let s 



184 



] ( ,ok at them. There la marriage — if she could be sure which boy was responsible 
and <"tnv him. Percentage of success for those marriages is very low. She 
might go to another city, have the child and put it out for adoption. This would 
in. an giving np her scholarship, giving up college, maybe forever. Giving up an 
infant. She might keep the child and raise it alone. Would her mother be 
overjoyed to take care of that out-of-wedlock child while the teen-ager went 
ont to work to support it? There there are the desperate alternatives — like 
attempting brutal self-abortion, or even suicide. How can a humane society 
take away from this young woman the option of safe, legal abortion available 
now under the Supreme Court decision? How would a return to the days of the 
back-alley operator serve this woman — or the common good? We need to ask 
ourselves whether it is not rather our vindictive craving to punish that would 

lie served. 

In Missouri safe, legal abortion is available — subject to recently imposed re- 
Btrictions which we deplore and, which are now being challenged in court cases. 
Women who choose this solution to a problem pregnancy can be treated at 
clinics in the St. Louis area, at Columbia, and in the Kansas City area. Some 
7300 women chose this solution in 1973, according to figures released by the 
Missouri Center for Health Statistics (although some of them had to go out of 
the state for treatment ). There is no reliable way of comparing this figure with 
the Dumber of Illegal ahortions done prior to January 22, 1973. Because they 
utside the law they were not recorded, for the protection of the woman, 
her family, her physician. Deaths related to criminal abortion were ascribed 
to septicemia or hemorrhage, for the same reason. The view that the option of 
safe. le>, r al abortion must remain available as made possible by the Court's 
decision is gaining adherents in Missouri. Our membership grows daily, as do 
financial donations. Support among the professional groups is evidenced in our 
letterhead: we have advisory groups of medical specialists (including the chief 
of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University in 
St. Louis) and of clergymen (including the Bishop of The Episcopal Diocese 
of Missouri). A dozen or more influential organizations, several with state-wide 
memberships, have joined us in support of liberalized abortion laws and of the 
Supreme Court decision. 

Let me say that even if there were not such general support for the Court, 
even if we are to he in the minority, our rights still would deserve the pro- 
tection of the constitution. We resist the possibility that a crusade mounted 
primarily by a religious group seeking implementation in the civil law of their 
sectarian belief could deprive us of our constitutional rights. We therefore ask 
that, as you deliberate, you put first the rights of women and reassure us that 
you value our capacity to make wise judgments in this most personal decision, 
where individual conscience must govern. 

I like the way Bishop George Cadigan expressed his views some three years 
ago : 

"Proposed legalization of abortion in the state of Missouri has precipitated 
violent debate which has focused disproportionately on the acceptability or 
unaceeptability of this means of solving an undesired pregnancy. Regard for 
the sanctity of life has heen repeatedly invoked, as if only some of us valued, 
or appreciated, the true worth of human life . . . 

•The 'lightness' or 'wrongness' of abortion ... is not the critical issue here. 
The issue is the larger ethical one: can any one of us stand in the role of 
Judge for the personal decisions of others? What robes shall we wear? Greater 
than the debatable immorality of terminating an undesired pregnancy is the 
immorality of refusing a woman access to medical help when she has deter- 
mined that she needs it. A law that compels a woman to continue an undesired 
pregnancy is evil as evil as a law that would compel her to have an abortion." 

If there i^ any single thought that I would like to leave with you it is: that 
pregnancy is a deeply Significant event in a woman's life. The decision to ter- 
minate a pregnancy Is equally significant. The WOMAN must he trusted to make 
that decision and have the freedom to act upon it without interference by the 
state. 



Committee fob Legal Arortion in Missouri 

"I would have heen married to someone T didn't love and who didn't love me 
And there would have been a child that neither of us wanted. It's like I was 
given >!.'ince at life." 



185 

Abortion is generally therapeutic in most cases if a woman truly desires the 
procedure. This is one finding of a recent St. Louis study 1 Interviewing a ran- 
dom sample of 1000 women who contacted a problem pregnancy counseling 
service; follow-up interviews one-two years after abortion were done on two- 
thirds of the group. 

WHO OBTAINS AN ABORTION? 

Average age : 22 yrs. (Age 13-44). 

White : 87%. 

Protestant : 51%. 

Employed : 47%. 

Catholic : 30%. 

Single : 59%. 

Attending School : 33%. 

WHY DID THESE WOMEN FACE AN UNWANTED PEBGNANCY? 

No birth control method used : 52%. 

Unreliable method of birth control (rhythm or withdrawal) : 8%. 

Majority denied any conscious wish to become pregnant. 

Majority said they did not believe pregnancy would occur even though they 
were sexually active. 

Reasons for not using contraceptives ; Needs to deny there had been a con- 
scious decision to have intercourse ; Feelings of guilt about sexual activity. 

Contraceptive failures : Mostly related to lack of knowledge regarding use of 
method, or misinformation regarding reliability of birth control measures. 

AFTER-EFFECTS OF ABORTION 

Immediate. — With few exceptions, the women were functioning well. Al- 
though frequently mentioning desperate feelings while pregnant, the crisis 
ended for them with the abortion. Many reported feeling relief and satisfaction. 
Few experienced depression, remorse or guilt, and for them reactions were 
usually mild and self-limited. 

Delayed. — 1-2 years after abortion. 

Doing well with no psychological after-effects : 90%. 

Moderate to severe emotional discomfort : 4%. 

Satisfaction with their decision and not regret: 94%. 

Regret over decision: These few women felt they had been influenced by 
others regarding abortion. 

Many viewed the experience as a growth producing or maturing process. 

Many reported that abortion allowed them to stay in school, continue enjoy- 
able jobs, or devote more time to families. 

None of the married women reported change in marital status or change in 
relationships with their husbands. 



Statement on Liberalizing of the Abortion Statute, by the Right Reverend 
George Leslie Cadigan, Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Missouri 

Proposed legalization of abortion in the state of Missouri has precipitated 
violent debate which has focused disproportionately on the acceptability or un- 
acceptability of this means of solving an undesired pregnancy. Regard for the 
sanctitv of life has been repeatedly invoked, as if only some of us valued, or 
appreciated the true worth of human life. Opponents of liberalized abortion 
laws argue from the assumption that the unborn child has an absolute right 
to be born— into whatever circumstances— because of its huinanness from the 
moment of conception. Therefore, they reason, that a woman who deliberately 
interrupts a pregnancy is guilty of great moral evil. It follows, for them, that 
the law must prohibit her from choosing this course. She must not be permitted 
to reach an independent decision for the direction of her life at this most se- 
rious juncture, and the option of abortion must be denied her. 

No one knows better than the woman unwillingly pregnant that she faces a 
difficult moral decision. But our respect for her ability to make that decision 

1 Characteristics of Women Who Obtain Abortions, Elizabeth Smith, MSW, Dept. of 
Psychiatry, Washington Univ. School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo. 



186 



In ;i responsible way requires that we, by our laws and by our attitudes, grant 
• Hal freedom. 
When a human life may be said to begin is a profound ethical question, as is 
the question of when protection of a greater good justifies the interruption of 
., natural Phe answers cannot be final or universal. They must be 

Bought every time the questions come, and, in every case, by the individual 
it Intimately concerned. It is at once the glory and the burden of 
each of us that we arc called upon to make such difficult personal decisions ac- 
cording to our own es. When we deny that liberty to any one of our 

e away a part of our own birthright. When, more specifically, 
woman for making an independent judgment according to her 
relating to her reproductive life, we denigrate her personhood. 
"wrongness" of abortion as the solution of a problem preg- 
nanes- is nnt the critical issue here. The issue is the larger ethical one: can 
a ,,v oi and in the role of judge for the personal decisions of others? 

What robes shall we wear? Greater than the debatable immorality of terminat- 
1 pregnancy is the immorality of refusing a woman access to 
; help when she has determined that she needs it. A law that compels, a 
ontinue an undesired pregnancy is evil — as evil as a law that would 
compel her to have an abortion. The present restrictive statute in Missouri con- 
demns the woman who chooses abortion to be furtive, to seek dangerous ways 
..ut of her desperate situation. It can make of her a criminal or the victim of 
barbarous exploitation. 

A society which cannot in common humanity extend a way to such a woman 
r conscience dictates fails her at a time when she most needs sup- 
portive concern. 

If we truly believe in the capacity of each individual to determine the course 
of the future— painful and agonizing as the process may be; if we honor the 
concepl of individual accountability for every member of the human family — 
then, as a society, we can no Longer assign to the state the power to make, for 
a member of that society, a conscientious and most personal decision. 

owing Dumber of organizations and agencies in Missouri have expressed 
their support of the Supreme Court decision establishing a woman's right to 
abortion. 
These include: 
American Association of University Women. Missouri Division. 

erican civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. 
Episcopal Church Women United. 
Missouri Council of Churches. 

National Association of Social Workers, St. Louis Chapter. 
National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section. 
National Organization of Women. 
Planned Parenthood Association of St. Louis. 
Planned Parenthood of Warrensburg. 
Reproduction Health Services, Inc. 

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. 
Women's Political Caucus- .Missouri. 
Young Women's Christian Association. 

Other organizations which have taken a public stand in favor of liberal 
abortion laws are ; 

Bealtb and Welfare Council of Metropolitan St. Louis. 

State Medical Association. 
White House Conference on Children and Youth, Missouri Committee Report, 
1970. 

I »i. Shoup. Mi. ( !hairman, thank you very much for the opportun- 
1 testify as a representative of the National Abortion Rights 
Action League, an organization opposed to the constitutional amend- 
ment.- now under consideration by this subcommittee. I am acting 
head of the Department of Biological Sciences at Purdue University 
Calumet Campus. Hammond, End., where 1 am associate professor, 
i my Ph. I), in Zoology at the University of Chicago. 

'i- Would you permit me one male chauvanistic re- 
mark | 



187 

Dr. Shotjp. Yes. 

Senator Bayh. I don't recall any Purdue faculty meeting your 
description when I was going there. 

Dr. Shoup. Times have changed. 

In a year and a half since the Supreme Court decisions reaffirming 
the right of women to choose pregnancy termination, a highly publi- 
cized, well-financed campaign has been launched by so-called right- 
to-life groups across the country, their purpose being to enact legis- 
lation to limit access to and ultimately ban abortion altogether in the 
United States. Interestingly, these efforts come at a time when abor- 
tions are increasing worldwide. 

In recent months, citizens across the country concerned about the 
far-reaching implications of such restrictive legislation have recog- 
nized the need to organize and present an opposing viewpoint. Some 
of these groups have united their efforts by forming as affiliates of 
XARAL, and one such group is the Indiana Freedom of Choice Coal- 
ition, which has chapters in each of the congressional districts in the 
State of Indiana. Our purpose is to educate and inform the public 
about the importance issues involved and to urge our elected repre- 
sentatives in Congress to support the Supreme Court decision of 
January 22, 1973. 

There are a number of important reasons why abortion must be 
available as an option to women with problem pregnancies. Some 
lawmakers, while opposed to complete liberalization of abortion laws, 
concede that abortion should be available when necessary to preserve 
the life of the woman or in cases of rape or incest. 

I believe that is the position taken by your opponent in Indiana. 

Senator Bayh. I am not too sure what his position is. I am not 
too sure that is of concern for us here. Perhaps that is pertinent to 
you back in Indiana, but not for us here. 

Dr. Shotjp. I would like to discuss three other reasons in some 
detail, with reference to a few statistics for the State of Indiana, 
especially the Calumet Region and the metropolitan Chicago area in 
which I reside. I will then discuss the question of when life begins 
from a biological perspective. 

(1) CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE 

As we all know, perfect contraception — 100 percent safe and 100 
percent effective — is not yet available. The oral contraceptive the most 
efficient method, has a small, but significant failure rate and more- 
over, thousands of women cannot for medical reasons use it safely. 
Other devices are less successful in preventing unwanted pregnancies. 
Added to this are the thousands of pregnancies which result from 
ignorance of biological facts and/or legal or procedural restrictions 
to access to contraceptive devices. A 1970 national fertility study 
found that 26 percent of couples who use contraception fail to delay 
a pregnancy which they do not intend to have at all. More than one- 
third of couples who use birth control because they want no more 
children have a pregnancy within 5 years. 

Similar results are found in an Indiana survey : among 35 women 
interviewed bv Planned Parenthood of Xorthwest Indiana during 
a 3 month period if 1973, 47 percent had become pregnant because 



188 

their methods of contraception has failed or because protection had 
been discontinued on the advice of a physician. 

In sum. unwanted and unplanned pregnancies do occur with 
starting frequency and for a variety of reasons. We must ask, "Is it 
morally defensible to force a woman to bear a child against her will?" 
ould like to insert a personal note. My husband and I are the 
parents <>f two very much loved and wanted children. I became preg- 
nant I 1 .. vears ago with a third as a result of a contraceptive failure. 
We chose an illegal abortion. This was prior to the availability of 
legal abortions in this country. Our reasons were primarily a matter 
of social conscience. We already had two children, as many as we felt 
ue could justifiably to the population. We were concerned with the 
bell-being of society. We felt that any additional children we desired 
we ought to adopt. 

i 2 i BIRTH DEFECTS 

The second item is birth defects. Some 250,000 children with serious 
birth defect- ace born in the United States each year. Serious fetal 
anomalies occur in 15-40 percent of cases in which the pregnant 
woman contracted rubella during the first trimester, which means to 
that individual that her chances of giving birth to a normal, healthy 
baby are significantly diminished. A number of genetic and develop- 
mental defects such as Mongolism, Tay-sachs disease, Hurler's syn- 
drome, and may other crippling or fatal diseases — can now be de- 
tected in utero by the procedure known as amniocentesis, in which a 
sample of amniotic fluid is extracted from the uterus of the pregnant 
woman, usually at about the 16th to 18th week, i.e. during the second 
trimester. With such medical procedures available it is now possible 
to give a woman a choice whether or not to give birth to a child for 
whom life may he an unmitigated misery and for whose family severe 
psychological and economic hardships are inevitable. Which of us 

ild presume to preclude options for a woman who finds herself 
in this tragic situation? The proposed Constitutional amendments 
would deny that woman the right to terminate her pregnancy if she 

I' sired. 

MATERNAL HEALTH 

In previous testimony, you have heard of the public health benefits 

of legal abortion in the States of Xew York and California. I would 

like to share with you information from other parts of the country. 

Prior to L973, < !ook ( !ounty Hospital in Chicago admitted an average 

of mote than 330 women per month for complications resulting from 

illegal abortions. Since abortion has been declared legal, an average 

"I' •'■ women per month are treated for consequences of abortion. 

In the tiist year of the liberalized Xew York abortion law — Julv 

. L970 through dune 30, 1971 -2,800 Indiana women traveled to New 

rk to terminate unwanted pregnancies. An estimated 2,500 legal 

ere carried out in Indiana in 1973. Tn the first 5 months 

°f 1 " ; legal abortions have been reported. In a 6-month 

I - ike ( ounty Indiana women who sought counseling 

problem pregnancies, 71 percent chose abortion; among 54 women 

studied in Porter County. 89 percent opted to terminate their preg- 

nan< 



189 

Statistics show that two-thirds of three-fourths of all legal abor- 
tions are replacements of illegal ones. 

The study of Tietze has been reaffirmed by June Sklar and Beth 
Berkob in a report which came out this week in the September issue 
of Science. 

Clearly, women will terminate pregnancies whether abortion is 
legal or not ; the question is, will all women, regardless of social and 
economic status, have access when needed to medically safe abortions^ 
A human being can scarcely be more desperate than a woman preg- 
nant against her will. To deny her the right to reproductive self- 
determination is to violate her fundamental right to privacy. 

In the context of an over-populated world facing rising costs for 
food, goods, and services, and the grim reality of shortages even in 
our own country, who can seriously propose that more unplanned 
children are needed, especially children for whom adequate provision 
cannot be made ? It is quite clear that we don't satisfactorily care for 
many of the children Ave already have. Limitation of family size is 
often an economic necessity. In more than a few cases, women choose 
abortion in order to provide better opportunities for the practical 
necessities of life for living children. 

Most people support the right to free choice of abortion because 
they love children and are concerned for the welfare of potential 
children and those already born. This concern is a highly moral and 
practical one. Often, if a woman is forced to have a child before she 
is ready to care for it, she may never know the joy of having a wanted 
child. 

For these reasons and others, safe, legal abortion must be available 
as a subsidiary method of birth control. Rather than "How can we 
justify abortion?" We must ask the question, "How can we justify 
compulsory pregnancy?" Because of contraceptive failure, serious 
fetal defects, and for maternal health, abortion must remain a legal 
alternative. We must remember that amendments to the Constitution 
which establish personhood for the fertilized egg deny a woman's 
right to control her reproductive life. Potentially, it can mean com- 
pulsory pregnancy for any woman. 

The controversy surrounding abortion often centers on widely 
divergent response to the question, "When does life begin?" At what 
point in a 9-month pregnancy can we call the fetus a human being, or 
person : at the moment of conception ? at implantation? at the moment 
of birth? With present medical techniques it is impossible even to 
detect conception and implantation; only some days after the con- 
ceptus has embedded itself in the uterine wall can a pregnancy be 
confirmed. From a biological point of view it is impossible to state 
categorically that life begins at any one particular moment. The 
unfertilized egg is just as much "alive" as the fertilized one, in that 
it possesses the properties we recognize as characteristic of life. Yet 
biologically, embryos and fetuses are distinguished from the more 
completely formed stages. As human ecologist Dr. Garrett Hardin 
has pointed out, "An acorn is not an oak tree, an egg is not a hen, 
a human fetus is not a human being or person. Smashing acorns is not 
deforestation, scrambling eggs is not gallicide." 

Most biologists think of life as a continuum, a series of stages or 
events from conception to death. Individual cells are born and die 



190 

throughout this continuum from the earliest prenatal stages to death 
of the organism. To impose arbitrary distinctions as to which moment 
marks the beginning o! life is intellectually dishonest, not justifiable 
on the basis of our current knowledge. What remains of this debate 
are honest differences of opinion among people of good will as to 
the commencement of life, the acquisition of soul or personhood by 
the fetus at some particular stage of development or by the newborn 
baby. This is a judgment or definition made by individuals based on 
religious, moral, and/or philosophical grounds— a perfectly valid ex- 
pression of opinion, but not a scientific fact. 

The proponents of constitutional amendments prohibiting abortion 
by bestowing personhood on the fertilized egg from the moment of 
conception would deny the rights of those whose opinion or definition, 
als.. based upon moral, religious, and/or philosophical convictions 
differs from their own. Because no definitive scientific statement on 
this complex issue is possible, it seems to me inappropriate for the 
government to pass legislation reflecting one narrow religious and/or 
ethical position. Fr. Robert Drinan — D. Mass.— himself morally and 
philosophically opposed to abortion, has reminded us that "* * * the 
Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views. It 
is seldom appropriate for one group within society to seek to insert 
their moral benefits, however profoundly held, into a document de- 
ried for people of fundamentally differing views." 

Freedom of religion and separation of church and state are among 
the most significant rights granted by the Constitution. It is import- 
ant to note that a very large number of religious bodies in the United 
States support the right of the individuals to make decisions con- 
cerning abortions in accordance with their consciences and therefore 
oppose efforts to deny abortion through constitutional amendment, 
for example Division of Social Ministries — American Baptist 
Churches; American Ethical Union; B'nai B'rith Women; Catholics 
for a Free Choice; General Executive Board — Presbyterian Church 
in the U.S. ; Board of Homeland Ministries — United Church of 
Christ; National Council of Jewish Women; Union of American 
Hebrew Congregations; Board of Church and Society — United Meth- 
sl Church; and many others. In fact. 23 Protestant, Jewish, and 
other religious groups are members of a national organization called 
Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights — RCAR. 

In addition to religious groups, various professional associations, 
feminist organizations, groups concerned with civil liberties and 
human rights, and the majority of the people in this country want 
to preserve the option of legal abortion. 
nk you very much. 

Bath. 1 appreciate the contribution you have made. 
: . of course, is whether one group who may feel very 
•lv about the rightness or wrongness of abortions should impose 
that particular standard on the others avIio may disagree. That is a 
big step that I struggled with myself. 

three of you, but particularly Mrs. Roudebush, came down 

Fuly hard on the right of a woman. T have never been a woman, so 

hard for anybody who hasn't, to know how a woman 

looks at this problem. T don't suppose there has been any other mem- 



191 

ber of Congress try to insure women's rights more than I have, but 
that still doesnt change what I said earlier about the inability to 
perhaps fully appreciate it. 

Do you feel that there should be limitations imposed on that right '. 

Mrs. Roudebush. I believe that limitations were imposed by the 
Supreme Court decision and those are the ones that I can accept. In 
the first trimester the woman must have the consultation of the physi- 
cian, and in the second trimester the State may regulate for maternal 
health. In other words, it might be that a State would require her 
after the first trimester to go into the hospital for the procedure. It 
is also within the decision that after viability she does have abortion 
rights if her life is imperiled. This is what leads me to say that I 
consider the decision as a kind of compromise. It is not a wide open 
option through the 9 months of pregnancy. 

Senator Bath. May I ask you to be more definitive as far as your 
own thinking is concerned. Would you be comfortable with a greater 
restriction than the Supreme Court placed on abortion^ Suppose the 
Missouri Legislature were to prohibit any abortion except where the 
mothers life was involved during the third and/or second trimester ; 
how would you feel about that ? 

Mrs. Roudebush. I am not comfortable with that. I would be per- 
fectly comfortable if the Missouri Legislature were to say. in the 
first trimester it must be done by a doctor, in the second, after the 
first trimester, the procedure must be done on an outpatient basis or 
in a hospital or similar facility. I would not be comfortable with an 
absolute prohibition of the procedure in the last trimester unless 
there were exceptions that if the woman's life were in danger or her 
health — good medical judgment decided that — she could have safe 
legal abortion, medically safe abortion. 

Senator Bath. You would be opposed to an outright prohibition? 

Mrs. Roudebush. Even with those exceptions? Well, not with those 
exceptions. If those exceptions were there then I would think that 
the medical judgment could prevail for the woman who 

Senator Bath. The health of the mother. 

Mrs. Roudebush. The health and life of the mother, yes. 

Senator Bath. What about just the life ? 

Mrs. Roudebush. No, not just the life of the mother. I prefer 
health because I know that it has been held to mean mental health 
as well as phvsical and a judgment could be made that her mental 
health would "be impaired in such a way by the continuation of the 
pregnancy that abortion should be justified, even if it is very late m 
the pregnancy when no woman would choose it unless she were 
prettv desperate. 

Senator Bath. One of the major concerns that I have here is com- 
peting rights, the old cliche about the right that yon have to swing 
vour fist until it comes into contact with somebody else's nose And. 
Doctor, you talked about eggs and hens. What is an egg that has a 
baby chicken ? 

Dr. Shoup. It is a fertilized egg, no more, no less. 

Senator Bath. It is not quite the same egg that you would scramble 
for breakfast. 



192 

Dr. Shoup. Many eggs we scramble for breakfast are fertilized 
: there happens to be a rooster in the barn yard they are fer- 
tilized eggs. 

Senator Hath. When we eat them we can't tell that. In a certain 
point in the gestation period you can't. 

The situation of the doctor in Boston, I guess it is, whatever hap- 

• hat ! Is that case in the court? 
Ms, U »wrt. Are you speaking about the Boston City Hospital case? 
Senator Ron. Yes. 

Ms. Lowrt. There are two different cases going on. One was the 
an tiers, and one was a physician who, in 1972, prior to the U.S. 
preme Court ruling, with the authorization of the hospital, per- 
formed a hysterotomy, which is a minicesarean section on a patient 
with medical disability who had been approved under the hospital's 
therapeutic abortion system. The case attracted no attention whatso- 
i until certain groups, who were strongly opposed to abortions 
and who wished to create some publicity surrounding a research proj- 
eet going on at the same time subpoena all the city hospital's rec- 
ords and in the process of going through those records found this one 
particular patient's record. 

nator Bath. Is that Doctor Kenneth Edelin? 
Ms. Lowkt. Right. 

That file was pulled and singled out for special attention. In the 
initial months surrounding the case in the press there was a great 
deal of confusion as to what the nature of the case was. The attorneys 
filed for a bill of particulars which was granted several months later. 
The district attorney said in various press releases that Dr. Edelin 
was going to be charged with smothering a baby boy. The court has 
now granted a bill of particulars and admitted that the baby was 
delivered dead, that the cause of death was anoxia, which means oxy- 
gen supply being unavailable because of the placenta being detached. 
( riven the fact the State did recognize this was a dead birth, the case 
will certainly be dismissed. 

But I think this kind of case sort of brings to a boil all of the 
negative feelings — it is an ugly situation for everybody. I have been 
fighting for abortion rights ever since I became aware of the problem, 
but I personally feel very uncomfortable with the very clear reality 
of the second trimester abortions, and I can understand the reserva- 
tions and the very grave concern that people feel in this kind of a 
ting. I think it must be particularly difficult for legislators who 
not people who are involved day to day, with medicine and hos- 
pitals and the realities of that, to try to puzzle this out. Ones' reac- 
to seeing a second trimester fetus is usually to recoil. It is a 
difficult thing, and I think that most of the focus, for this reason 
of the antiabortion groups is to stress what a second trimester 
lrtl like, with all of the gory pictures. You have probablv 

gotten tons of them. 

Bath. Without all the strategy business, it seems to me 
en have rights, it would seem to me that it is not unreason- 
able to suggest that unborn fetuses also have rights. 

X)WRT. It is not unreasonable and I can respect people who 
feel that. My problem is this: it is such a unique situation that it is 
: to find a parallel that takes it out of an emotional 



193 

Senator Bath. It is relatively easy for me to sort out in my mind 
the one extreme. The question is how you go. You may disagree with 
that. Suppose this had been a live 24- week birth, and the mother 
wanted to have an abortion; she didn't want the child the baby was 
removed, and it was alive. 

Ms. Lowry. My feeling is that if that had been a live birth that 
there would have been an obligation, and is in fact under the law 
an obligation, because an infant that is born is considered legally a 
person — there is a clear obligation in my mind for medical personnel 
to respond in the same way they would any other person. 

Senator Bath. Does that same obligation apply to a baby, to a 
fetus that is at the same age of development in the use of the saline 
position ? 

Ms. Lowry. Well, I will tell you why I don't think so, but this is 
a very hard one. 

The dilemma is the unique relationship between the fetus and the 
woman. We have a traditional leaning in this country toward the 
underdog and toward any innocent party — and clearly the fetus is an 
innocent party. There is just no question about that. We also have a 
lot of respect for individuals and their rights to be free of coercion 
and pressures. The dilemma is this : Can we, much as we are con- 
cerned about the fetus, set a precedent that says that one individual 
may be forced, contrary to their will, for the best of reasons, maybe, 
but still forced, to utilize their body, their blood, their oxygen, their 
nutrition their calcium, to support the life system of another being, 
person, whatever you want to say ? 

Senator Bayh. This is not quite that simple. I mean, I understand 
that strong feeling, but that runs into an equally strong legal prece- 
dent that all of us as human beings, who are in command of our 
mental capacities, have to be responsible for our own actions. 

Ms. Lowry. We are responsible for our own actions, but, for ex- 
ample, there are people who are using kidney machines and without 
these machines they will die. It is possible and certainly has been 
tried in primates to hook up to the urinary system of a healthy per- 
son or primate and by recycling through the healthy individual you 
can clean out the system of the ill person and keep them alive. I iden- 
tify with the patient in a situation like that. I think the person has 
a right to the health care and the machine, but I could not support 
legislation which compelled, against his will, another individual to 
lie down on that table and to act as the human kidney dialysis ma- 
chine. I am not sure I can explain it, but I feel that that sets such a 
dangerous precedent, no matter how much emotion one might feel for 
the patient, no matter how much one might recognize the dilemma, 
and I can see the room dividing with 50 percent going here and 50 
percent going there. 

Senator Bayh. May I suggest that I don't believe there is a direct 
parallel because the person you would force to sit down with the di- 
alysis machine had nothing to do with the creation of the kidney 
machine; whereas the mother who becomes pregnant participated in 
the action which resulted in her pregnancy. 

Ms. Lowry. That is fair, because in challenging it he helps to sort 
out one's feelings. I think a lot of people agree with you that the 
circumstances are slightly different. But I have trouble equating sex- 



194 

u;l l activity with the final result of pregnancy. The person who is 
willingly sexually active is not willing an abortion candidate no more 
than the person who is willingly a smoker is willingly a cancer vic- 
tim. 1 have a Massachusetts drivers license and I take my life in my 
hands whenever 1 go out driving. But that doesn't mean, if an acci- 
dent happens, that -well, as you say, it isn't simple. I think it would 
too facile to say someone who willingly participates in sexual inter- 
course willing accepted the pregnancy. 

Senator Bayh. You are going to get yourself in some very hot 
water because if that is true' of the mother, then it is not also true of 
■I her. Where do von impose a responsibility of the father to care 
for the children? I don't really think you want to get yourself in a 
position where yon suggest two adults who participate in a sexual 
activity don't hear responsibility for that very human, wholesome 
activity. 

Ms. Lowry. I think one can make out a case for responsibility. It 
is interesting in terms of the law where the lines of responsibility 
have been drawn, and they have been based on birth. A father in a 
case where the couple is not married has not ever been held liable for 
the <ost of abortion, for example. I think it is undefined and gray, 
and because it is not simple we will continue to debate this and think 
about it and shift hack and forth, but in a way it would seem to me 
totally inappropriate for the Congress of this Nation to pass legisla- 
tion which attempts to say that it is simple. 

Senator Bath. I would like to hear the views of any of you who 
• are to comment on one of the concerns that has been expressed by 
folks on the other side. In all too many instances abortion has been 
ted as sort of the in-thing. There has been a great pressure 
and movement toward abortion without fully exploring and explain- 
ing alternatives. That has been of particular concern to parents of 
unwed daughters. Should we give more attention to this? What has 
hern the practical experience? 

Ms. Lowry. I would say in one sense they are right. I wouldn't 
I think in any time of movement or change the pendulum 
swings and there are good people and bad people on all fronts. There 
are "crazies" on both sides. I think there are some people w T ho have 
been so wrapped up in making a political point, again on both sides, 
that they have acted in a way which is not in the best interest of other 
individuals who come across their path. I think that is the tragic 
thing of this being a political football. As soon as we get it out of 
the political arena I think that will happen less and less. Some groups 
have been very responsible and good. I think that there are. some 
groups that don't have such a good record: without naming names, 
people who have :i vested political interest in pushing one way or the 
other, or people who have a vested financial interest in pushing one 
way oi- the other. Traditionally there were social workers who would 
tell you there was nothing worse than al>ortions, not because of a 
moral belief, hut because the adoption home where, they worked 
needed revenue; and at the same time there were front groups for 
•""line, vial abortion referrals. Hut I don't think that enacting legis- 
lation of a rigid iiiul particular viewpoint is going to address that. 

rder to !„• here this morning T had to forego an executive com- 
mittee meet in- of the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood League. 



195 

Right now they are working on a statewide watts or 800 line, so they 
can refer callers to every kind of social help, contraceptive care, psy- 
chiatric counseling, adoption services, abortions services; and if all 
of this political business was not going on we could be back home 
working on setting up good systems, positive systems, that I think 
would go a long way toward eliminating the kind of abuse that the 
right-to-lifers are very wisely concerned about. 

Mrs. Roudebush. Could I add something to that? 

We are very attentive in our State to the counseling association 
with abortion procedures in the clinics that are existing in the State. 
I believe that options are discussed with any potential abortion pa- 
tient. I know particularly about one clinic which gives the patient 
the opportunity to explore all means of solving her pregnancy. I 
would say that it is more likely that the other side is offering only 
one way to go and I do believe that counseling should be an integral 
part of a good abortion service. 

Senator Bath. Well, I appreciate very much your taking your time 
to help on our study, and I appreciate your contributions. 

Thank you very much. 

Our next witness will be Dr. Jane Furlong Cahill. member of 
Catholics for a Free Choice, Georgia, to be introduced by Father 
Joseph O'Rourke of New York. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JANE FURLONG CAHILL, MEMBER OF 
CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE, GEORGIA, ACCOMPANIED BY 
FATHER JOSEPH O'ROURKE, NEW YORK CITY 

Father O'Rourke. I am the Catholic coordinator of the Interfaith 
Center for Corporate Responsibility of the National Council of 
Churches, the national director of Catholics for a Free Choice. I am a 
priest, a Roman Catholic priest recently dismissed from the society 
of Jesuits for baptizing the child of a mother in Marlboro, Mass., 
who stood publically for the Supreme Court decision in favor of le- 
galizing of abortions for reproductive freedom generally. 
~ Senator Bath. Was that the child or the mother? 

Father O'Rourke. The mother. The child was 3 months old. 

Senator Bath. How old? 

Father O'Rourke. Three months. 

The refusal of Boston priests to baptize this child exhibited the 
lengths that a minoritv faction in the Catholic church are ready to 
go to defy individual rights and church community and to preserve 
the present narrow-minded power against the common good in the 
United States. This denial of religious liberty in the church. I sup- 
pose, is to be deplored generally. 

But it does place the hierarchy's good citizenship in question. 1 be- 
lieve, insofar as mv right to minister the Catholic sacraments for 
those who hold the reproductive freedom is threatened and this 
mother's right to speak for reproductive freedom is also crushed and 
discloses the commitment of the Cardinals to coerce conscience against 
the laws of the land in good sense. And for me m my obit raises the 
question of the whole social strategy of the hierarehial of the church. 

The question of whether thev may be backing off from a commit- 
ment of individual liberties of free information to equal medical and 



196 

sonal services to all, landing the all-Catholic identity on this anti- 
abortion stand. If the church is sincerely against abortion, it seems to 
me that it should, for example, reorient all its relief services to re- 
spond to spontaneous abortion in the world by working on malnutri- 
tion and poverty that is the root cause rather than spending so much 
effort lobbving against the rights of American women. 

So todav I stand against the Vatican, two Catholic churches, the 
position of the Jesuits. John Courtney Mury, and Cardinal Gushing, 
the former archbishop of Boston, and the present Supreme Court 
decision that would say that abortion must remain a legal alternative. 

I must say I delight in a sense of freedom in the Catholic com- 
munity and the majority of people in the Catholic poor and in the 
Catholic theological world that stand for leaving abortion a legal 
alternative for their own religious liberty and especially for baptism 
and everlasting life that speaks truth that frees 

Senator Bath. Did I understand you to say that your position is 
a majority position in the Catholic Church? 

Father O'Roukke. That is my understanding. 

Senator Bath. How does one reach that conclusion ? 

Father O'Rotjrke. Well, there have been opinions, sir, that were 
raised, that Catholics in the pews, about 88 percent of them hold 
for abortions under some circumstances — the National Catholic Re- 
porter on November 16, 1973. Certainly in the theological schools 
which I am familiar with it is the position. 

Senator Bath. Is that beyond the life-of-the-mother exception? 

Father O'Roirke. Yes, it depends, of course, but I think it stands 
that under some circumstances reproductive freedom is held. 

Senator Bath. As a Catholic man, did I understand you also in- 
clude Catholic priests in that category? 

Father O'Rotjrke. Not Catholic laymen. 

Senator Bath. A majority of them favoring? 

Father O'Rotjrke. I would say theologians. Every American priest 
T wouldn't speak for, but it is certainly an opinion held by some 
parish priests in the United States; in fact, I would say a lot more 
than is generally known precisely because of our own organization. 
Many Catholics are afraid to join because of fear of excommunication 
or suspensioTi or dismissal, as in my case. 

Senator B.vYir. Well, I think it is a relative question, because we 

riot here testifying the theological points of any religious group 

involved in this issue, and there are many on both sides. But I think 

ii goes to the depth of your feeling to' ask a question: What does 

dismissal mean relative to you as a theologian or as a human being? 

Father O'Rotjrke. Well, I am afraid it means that the sense of 

religious liberty growing in the Catholic communitv is also being 

I. and there is also a general attempt to crush the cries of 

holic conscience enmeshed in serious moral issues. 

snator Bath. What T meant. Father, as far as you and your 

Maker or the hereafter, what does that mean? 

Father O'Rotjrke, Not very much. I am pretty sure my everlasting 
not m jeopardy. One might even raise a counterquestion here. 
Bath. Perhaps we will go on to the next point here. 

1 ather ( >'Rotjrke. I am still a priest, if that's what you are talking 
■ it. and 1 do hope for [('administration of the Jesuit Order, par- 



197 

traditional church process, and I presently appeal to the sacred 
ticularly since the method of dismissal was so much even against 
congregation of Rome and have the support of my community in 
that effort. 

I would like to introduce Dr. Jane Furlong Cahill, member of 
Catholic for a Free Choice, she has labored in ecumenical groups and 
with many Catholics and other religiously concerned persons about 
the serious moral issues of our time. She presently lectures in the 
Center for Continuing Education at the University of Georgia. 

Jane Furlong Cahill. 

Dr. Cahill. I am here as the official representative and also a 
national director of Catholics for a Free Choice. 

I want to thank you and Senator Talmadge who were instrumental 
in allowing me to testify, first of all. I find it is easier to get into 
the U.S. Senate than into some chancery offices in the United States 
where the bishops of the Catholic church preside. 

I must apologize for not giving you copies of my testimony before- 
hand. The reason is that I have been very busy directing a conference 
on women and religion just completed last Sunday. It was the first 
southern conference, funded by the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, on the myths and realities of religious leadership. And 
due to the illness of my parents and my daughter I could not get 
the testimony to you beforehand, but I will see that you get copies 
of it, 

I am an official representative and a national director of Catholics 
for a Free Choice who believe that it is an individual woman's right 
to make decisions regarding abortion and contraception in accordance 
with her conscience without fear of prosecution. We oppose any efforts 
to deny this right of conscience through constitutional amendment 
and/or Federal or State legislation. Any interference by the State 
we believe is a gross and unscionable invasion of personal privacy 
and a direct violation of the female person's human and civil rights 
to responsibly control her own reproductive power. 

To begin, I would like to say we are also a prolife group as I 
believe everyone who has spoken here today is. Catholice for the right 
to life or other right to life groups are not alone in this. But abortion 
is not a black and white issue. There are many gray areas recognized 
in Catholicism as well as other religious communities. 

I wanted to give you some background of the Catholic church's 
opposition to this, so if you will bear with me for a few minutes we 
will establish the background so we may see the church's opposition 
to abortion, sterilization, and contraception in its proper historical 
text. 

"In the tradition of modern Western civilization no two spheres 
stand more sharply opposed than that of religion and that of sex," 
Robert Briffault wrote in an article on "Sex In Religion." "Yet." 
he goes on, "a glance at the various religions of the world outside of 
Christianity, and one or two closely allied systems, a survey of re- 
ligious rites of lower phases of culture, shows that the antithesis 
does not exist. Those religions and those rites, are on the contrary, 
shot through and through with riotous sensuality: the manifestations 
of the sex instinct instead of being accounted incompatible with 



198 

the religious spirit, arc associated with it in the closest manner; and 
religion in those phases, is almost as much concerned with sex as with 
ethics and theology." -"Sex and Civilization". 

did the fear of sex and, therefore, the fear of woman, and 
ibsequenl and almost universal exclusion from man's work, 
i nd his religious rites come about in Christianity and especi- 
ally in Roman Catholicism? We know from the evidence of compara- 
tive religion that all religions began in order to serve the human need 
for reassurance in a hostile world in which injury, disease, and the 
arch enemy death were ever presenting a threat to human life. 

All primitive religions had two practical functions, neither of 
them the philosophical interpretations of existence, or of life, as 
lav think of them. The primary function was to fill the need 
of the individual and of the tribe for food, and to insure their con- 
tinuance by fertility in the women, the crops, and the animals. Imi- 
tative magico-religious rites, including the sexual act itself were thus 
performed to that purpose — the gods being presumed to be sexual 
beings also. 

In this connection, woman, due to her menstrual cycle, was almost 

universally linked with the periodicity of the Moon. The "Moon God" 

was believed to be husband of every woman, the one who first of 

all impregnated her. In view of woman's astonishing power to bleed 

a month and live, not die; to give life — (and sometimes bring 

forth death in the case of a stillborn child) — to nourish that new 

ith food from her own breasts; woman Avas believed to be 

of tnana, a god-like power for good or evil, which therefore 

red her taboo or forbidden. "Woman, like all things possessed 

of mana was simultaneously holy in so far as she was a power for 

good, and unclean or taboo in so far as she was regarded as a power, 

bly harmful to others. 

She was most dangerous especially in those times when she was 

womanlike, id est. during menstruation, pregnancy, and lacta- 

:ill of which taboos are mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures 

or Old Testament— of. Rabbi Jacob Singer, Taboos in the Hebrew 

Scripture. 

.m almost all religions, including Judaism and Christianity, 
some mythical account of the origins of human life in what 
i Eliade- "Birth and Rebirth"— Thiers to as the "dream times" 
or the longforgotten past — or as Genesis puts it "In the beginning 
Through the ritual reenactment of these myths of the origin 
of life early religions attempted to relive communally by imitative 
religious rites, that thus initiate them into a life that is as Eliade 
out. beyond the natural and so. what, was thought to be super- 
natural. The account of the creation of human beings in Genesis 
'< HI- is Mich :l mythical account of the origin of the first humans 
of the fust or original sin. 
In the natural order, of course, the real human mother begets 
dd by natural birth from the womb. In the super natural order, 
'•'he rebirth and the only significant birth according to these 
complished by initiation rites, such as baptisms or 
riginal sin. such as are found in both Judaism 
hnstianity. Such initiations attempt to beget the adolescent 



199 

child — (most often the male child as in Judiasm, although in Christi- 
anity, the female child as well) — or give birth anew by a kind of 
role reversal from death to the old natural life with its mother love, 
to a new and supernatural life with the gods or God. This new birth 
or birth, of course, is usually accomplished by a male mother called 
a priest or shaman, who thus by a reversal of roles attempts to be- 
come a "mother"' and give "birth" again to the child. 

The second function of primitive religion according to Briffault, 
was to avoid the anger of the gods or God, by ascetic practices of 
self-denial and funerary rites — (or rites of the dead) — whose spirits 
were sometimes, like woman, viewed as dangerous to humans. With 
the rise of patriarchy, or the rule of the father — which in almost all 
primitive religions, follows the demise of matriarchy) — the original 
and universally recognized right of the mother over her offspring was 
played down to the advantage of the father. A tighter rein was 
drawn on woman in civil law, and the fertility goddesses in religious 
law, reducing them to second-class status in the state and religion, 
though as an Assyriologist at the University of Pennsylvania pointed 
out recently Goddesses die hard. 

In the creation account in Genesis, Eve, called "the mother of all 
the living" was depicted by the male author as being, incredibly, the 
offspring of Adam — human physiology notwithstanding — through 
the midwifery of God. As a result of the primordial transgression 
following upon the creation of man and woman — despite the fact 
that Genesis specifically blames and punished both — the Judeo-Chris- 
tian traditions passed on the original sin of sexism — as Dr. Rosemary 
Reuther and Dr. Mary Daly have both put it— or the philosophy of 
the natural or divinely ordained supremacy of the male over the 
female. 

Woman became by divine right the property of man. She existed 
solely for man's sexual pleasure, for procreation of man's child — as 
Genesis 3 :16 itself takes note when it says, of the dangers of mother- 
hood undestrainedly multiplied, "I will* greatly multiply thy sorrow 
and thy conception, in soitoav shalt thou give birth to children; all 
they longing shall be for thy husband, even though he shall lord it 
over thee." Fear of and not a little primitive or sophisticated, jealous 
of Avoman's maternal role led man to keep this property of his in the 
ghetto called the home in her case, so as to keep her dangerous powers 
as mother away from his work, and prevent her physical weakness be- 
lieved due to menstruation, from contaminating it. 

Thus the double standard of morality arose; a double standard im- 
posed on the female which regarded her, not as the image of God 
and therefore a person, as Genesis insists, but as primarily the image 
of man, a mere reflection of his ego. and as a seducer of man, the 
one on whom he chose to project the myth of feminine evil. Whereas 
man, as seen by himself and male theologians, was a spiritual and 
intelligent creature, woman, being primarly for sex was viewed as a 
carnal and emotional creature; whereas he was active and inde- 
pendent, she was passive and dependent on him her Lord. Whereas 
his value transcended sexual caste and allowed him a full range oi 
sexual freedom, her value was entirely based on her used or unused 
status in the sexual realm.— Indeed the Catholic Code of Canon Law 



200 

still uses this approbrious term, "the use of woman" to describe the 

. ial acl iii marriage. 

With the suppression of the legal rights and liturgical rites of 
woman and the female deites in the supernatural order, the second 
function of primitive religions, that of appeasing and averting the 
anger of the gods or God by asceticism and rites of the dead took 
precedence over magico-religious rites, including ritual sexual inter- 
course. By avoiding good things of which the gods might be jealous, 
such as food, drink, and above all. sexual relations, in short, things 
that were, like woman, taboo, our primitive forebears in the Semitic 
tradition passed on to Judaism and subsequently to Christianity, 
their more sophisticated heirs, a dubious heritage of which they 
formed an often inexplicable part. 

"Sexism", as Rosemary Radford Reuther put is, "That is, the op- 
pression relationship of the man to the woman, is essentially social 
projection of the self-alienation which transcends certain initial 
biological differences into a power relationship. This relationship in 
turn is totalized in social structures" — such as civil and canon laws 
JFC — "and cultural modes that eliminate woman's autonomous per- 
sonhood, to define her solely in terms of male needs and negations." 
[Sexism and Theology of Liberation] 

This resulted in the unfortunate and for woman, tragic, tradition 
of Christianity and especially Roman Catholicism in the West so 
that, as Briffault put it "no two spheres stand more sharply opposed 
than that of religion and that of sex." The natural manifestations 
sex, and especially of woman-sex, are in the R. Catholic tradition, 
the type of sin. the head-fount of that evil and impurity, with which 
the religious spirit cannot be brought into touch without defilement 
and dissolution. 

The theology of marriage as explained by male Christian theolo- 
gians was really little more than a tribal view of marriage, in which 
the acl of sexual union was viewed as the use of woman, with little 
or no recognition of it as an act of love until the last decade of this 
tury with the Second Council of the Vatican. This belief in the 
myth of feminine evil did not. however, stem from the teaching of 
is who Leonard Swidler pointed out a feminist in his 

own time, but was a carryover from 'the sexual taboos common to all 
primitive religions, including the Semitic, from which Judaism and 
( 'hiistianity ultimately derive. 

overwhelming fear of sex and therefore of woman as a temp- 
. was heightened by the Roman Catholic Church's insistence on 
clerical celibacy. 

That, coupled with the fact that theologians insisted on doing her 

thinking for her in view of her intellectual weakness, is most mani- 

II intelligent people in the official or hierarchical church's in- 

genl stand against artificial contraception, sterilization, and 

Such a stand is designed to leave women at the mercy, not 

I her biological makeup, but also at the mercy of a merciless 

celibate hierarchy, who claimed the right to damn her eternally if she 

I such methods. 



hout medical control over the bodily power of reproduction, 
p'.T' '' the " H '"' v oi a " irr ational fertility which even the 

HlWe '" ( ■ 16 recognized as a curse. The time of rational en- 



201 

soulment, or the time when the fetus becomes specifically human, has 

been and still is a matter of debate in the Catholic tradition as is 
evident from the attached list of authorities ranging from the first 
century to the present day. 

In the very first book of the Bible, the two-facedness of procrea- 
tion as both a blessing from God and a curse from the same God is 
very aptly described. Genesis 1:28 recounts the blessing of man and 
woman by God who told them "to increase and multiply and fill the 
earth and rule over it." The same book of Genesis — 3: 16 — later on 
after the fall from God's favor indicates quite clearly that the bless- 
ing of procreation is now because of its frequency and pain fulness 
covered with a curse for the woman to whom God said, "I will 
greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shall 
bring forth children.'" According to scripture itself then, childbear- 
ing in itself a great blessing, is also because of the possible great 
multiplicity of pregnancies a woman may undergo and because of 
the painfullness associated with pregnancy and birth in many cases. 
the curse of the woman. However, this text has largely been ignored 
by celibate theologians in the Catholic Church, [of. My article "Con- 
traception and Eve".] 

The text of Exodus 21, 22 had a far more powerful influence on 
both Jewish and Christian theologians, however. This passage dealt 
with the abortion that is caused accidentally by a man who struck a 
woman who was pregnant. In "The Septuaguint"— the Greek trans- 
lation of the Hebrew text— the text prescribes the penalty of "life 
for life" if the embryo is "formed." "Formed" here was taken to 
mean by Christian theologians at any rate, what Aristotle meant by 
"formed." For Aristotle a fetus becomes human 40 days after con- 
ception if the fetus is male, and 80 davs after conception, if the 
fetus is female. ["History of Animals," 7, 3.] A similar view seems 
to underlv the old prescription regarding purification. 40 days being 
required "for purification if the child was a boy. SO days if the child 
was a girl. ["Contraception," John T. Noonan, p. 90.1 

This theory of delayed hominization, or ensoulment with a rational 
soul, regarding the fetus was held by some of the greatest theologians 
in the Catholic Church and is still held by a goodly proportion ot 
theologians today. 

I myself consider abortion to be a serious moral problem and while 
I am not for abortion across the board. I nonetheless believe there 
are many serious reasons which could justify taking the life ot the 
fetus. Such reasons, like Dr. Daniel Callahan, 1 would consider, ex- 
treme poverty, mental illness, grave or crippling physical disease. 
rape, incest, the possibilitv of a deformed fetus, grave risk to the 
life of the mother. Another reason 1 did not give hut would like t<> 
include now is the positive unwillingness of the woman to hear the 
child. I can think of nothing more detrimental to a human baby 
than to be born to a mother who hated its very existence. 

The Supreme Court decision which interprets the law every liber- 
ally is in my opinion a wise decision. When the woman feels justified 
in conscience in having it, later abortions sometimes are both moral ly 
and medicallv justified, and should also be allowed. 

I believe though that the law should have a conscience clause which 
would exempt medical and paramedical persons who have moral ob- 



202 

jectiona to abortion from taking part in such operations except when 
the life of the woman is endangered. 

Whether or not the Ictus is, in fact, a human person from the 
moment of conception, or whether it becomes a human person some- 
time afterward during the 9-month period of development is the 
point ;it issue in the abortion dilmma. Bernard Haring, C.S.S.R., the 
tholic moral theologians insists in "The Law of Christ", 
p. 205; "And in fact, if we could assume that the Aristotalian opinion 
were certain, we could not condemn abortion committed before the 
iul,, the spiritual soul as a crime of murder against a fully 

human life." Richard A. McCormick, S. J., in an article in America, 
dune 19, L965, on abortion says: "The theory of retarded or delayed 
animation is unquestionably a tenable ami respectable theory. It is 
still preferred by a notable number of philosophers and theologians. 
The church has very wisely uever decided the matter definitly; in- 
deed, it is perhaps questionable if this is within her competence. 

It Minis to me it is certainly not within the church's competence 
to pronounce one way or the other on a matter that requires an inter- 
pretation of biological fact- on which from ancient times to the 
present, good women and men of all faiths have disagreed. This being 
the it even if it were not — that a doubt of fact regarding the 

human personhood of the fetus exists, the same rules of morality 
must be applied here as in all other cases. 

The most fundamental rule of morality is, as Jesus explained to 
the lawyer, the love of God above all else and the love of our neigh- 
bor whom we are commanded to love as we love ourselves. These two 
commandments are the essence of the New Law of Christ, as St. 
Thomas says, as well as the foundation and first general principles 
of the natural law. [Summa Theologies I-II, Q. 100. B.J We are 
bound, after God, to love ourselves, and then, our neighbors, not 
equally with ourselves, but in a manner patterned on true love of self. 
We should love especially those nearest to us in the natural order, our 
spouses, children, parents, el cetera. The secondary principles of the 
natural law such as the Ten Commandments are simply explications 
of these primary rules. 

The fifth commandment has always been interpreted to mean not 

>lute prohibition of killing a person, but the unjustified taking of 

I it her Haring in the same work mentioned earlier explains it 

way: "The killing of a man. is not an unconditional evil action 

because the bodily life of one's neighbor is not a value which must 

be preserved under all circumstances. Only the unjustified attack on 

the life of one's neighbor is always evil." 

Christian theologians have always permitted the just war, and in 

they have hung medals on those who have participated in war, 

ough war certainly results in the foreseen killing and horrible 

tuning <»t thousands, even hundreds of thousands of innocent 
him utside the womb, including infants, children, women, 

and me,, ,,! all ages. I might point out the American Catholic hier- 

chy never raised a voice -with the exception of perhaps one or two, 
"bout the immorality of the war in Vietnam. 

lead armies to war. Hierarchies have condoned 
hundreds of yvars, as the American hierarchy did the war in Vietnam. 
All this wholesale slaughter of the innocent as well as the enemv, is 



203 

and was justified in Catholic theology on the basis of the principle 
of the double effect. Despite the most atrocious method of killing 
such as bombs, mapalrn, flame-throwers, antipersonnel weapons, the 
American Catholic hierarchy never have raised their voice against 
the immorality of such weapons. Thus when a pilot dropped a bomb, 
knowing that hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be killed 
with the enemy, theologians said he must simply intend the death of 
the enemy, not the death of the innocent, even though he knows for 
certain that many, many innocent people will die as a direct result of 
his actions. The simple fact of the matter is, if the bomber pilot did 
not intend but certainly did not rejoice in, both the death of the 
innocent and the enemy he would not release the bomb from the 
hatch. 

In short, the right to life, even of the innocent, while it is the most 
basic right is not an unconditional right to be preserved at all costs. 
It can only be taken, justly but regrettably, under certain conditions; 
but it most certainly can be and has been taken, and the taking has 
been sanctioned and even lauded by Catholic theologians and the 
hierarchy from the earliest days of Christianity. 

Catholic theologians can and do justify the taking of the life, or 
lives, of the innocent, on the basis of the principle of the double 
effect, in order to preserve some other human rights or values of equal 
or greater worth. Such values can be any of the following: for 
example, according to Catholic moral theology — and this is to be 
found in most theology texts — the preservation of freedom, in self 
defense in order to preserve your own life or another persons life; 
in defense of your personal liberty; in defense of your bodilv in- 
tegritv; for example, a woman as 1 pointed out in a televised debate 
used to teach students in religion at Villanova University, with the 
editor of the Catholic Standard and Times in Philadelphia— if a 
woman was about to be raped and decided she would rather go over 
a cliff than be raped— that justified her committing suicide. 

So a person could, in order to preserve her/his bodily integrity. 
or even her/his own personal property, that is material goods, deemed 
necessarv to life such as food, or even a horse— if that horse or food 
was essential to him/her or the family's well-being could take the 
life of the thief if necessary in order to keep the food and keep the 
horse which were so essential to life. 

In view of these exceptions to the command, "Thou shall not kill , 
it seems to me for the reasons given in my testimony before the Penn- 
sylvania board in Harrisburg, a woman may be justified m seeking 
an abortion from a phvsician. 

Brieflv, the reasons*! hold this are the following. The purposes of 
marriage and the marital act are two fold, the fostering of mutual 
love between the spouses and the procreation and education of any 
children who may issue from the marriage. Of course procreation 
only binds when 'it i^ possible and reasonable. Procreation involves 
not only the physical begetting of a child, but also seeing that it is 
cared for and educated in truly humane fashion. It entails the bring- 
ing of one's children to a state of human perfection. However, 
through contraceptive failure— whether of rhythm or other artificial 
contraception— at this point Catholic women are most of all on the 



204 

firing line. We have five great daughters who are the product of 
rhythm, and very much loved children, whom sometimes we refer to 
"Rhythmaires." Impregnation can occur without its being in- 
tended. Should impregnation occur to a woman who is so extremely 
poor, that neither she nor her husband, nor their existing children, 
ran l)i' supported in truly human fashion, the woman may be obliged 
justice to herself, to her husband and to the potential rationality 
of the fetus to seek an abortion. Here, albeit innocently, the preg- 
nancy constitutes a grave internal threat to the very existence of the 
family. That is, the common good of the family requires this tragic 
but necessary action. 

Mental illness, severe enough to incapacitate the woman for human 
motherhood would also be in my judgment serious reason for term- 
ination of pregnancy. Every fetus by reason of its potential rational- 
ity is in justice entitled to a mother who is rational. Furthermore, the 
loss of tlie ability to use the highest powers she has, the reason and 
will, is a fearful enough loss in itself and pregnancy in addition to 
such a state constitutes a grave and often unbearable threat to the 
woman's total well-being. 

Crippling physical disease would be sufficient reason for termina- 
tion of pregnancy because the disease itself constitutes a grave in- 
ternal threat to her health and life, to which the presence of the 
fetus add- further aggravation. 

In the case of rape and incest, the resulting pregnancy has been 
inflicted unjustly and violently against the woman's or child's will by 
a violation of her right to physical integrity. She, therefore, has the 
right to remove by an abortion the result of this assault, out of love 
for herself. 

The possibility of severe deformity in the fetus is sufficient reason 
to warrant an abortion also. Nature itself tends, as St. Thomas 
pointed out. bodily perfection and of itself, not by direct Divine 
intervention aborts in almost one-third of all pregnancies where the 
fetus is defective. Here we would be imitating the unconscious intel- 
nce of the natural processes, consciously. As the late Dr. Joseph 
'he discoverer of the measles vaccine, a great pediatrician 
from Philadelphia, pointed out, many cases of monogolism with 
its severe mental retardation, and Tay-Sachs disease with its men- 
tal retardation can already be detected early in pregnancy by 
amniocentesis. 

To -inn up. we musl say the pregnant woman is first of all a human 
being, herself, which was a doubtful condition in Christian theology 
-plained by celibate male theologians, with her own set of rights 
flowing from her own human nature. She doesn't lose her human 
t- by becoming pregnant. She should be regarded as the bearer 
(,r another as yel not fully human life, in the early months of preg- 
nancy. A- with every other human being, there "are certain rights 
of which -he is possessed and which she may defend out of charity 
and m justice to herself. Such rights are the" right to life; to health, 
whether physical or mental ; to liberty, whether spiritual or phvsical; 
to physical integrity; to those goods which are deemed essential to 
life. II a woman ha- additional obligations to a husband and exist- 
ing children -he may be strictly obliged in justice to seek an abor- 



205 

tion in order to safeguard not only her life but also the well-being 
of her family, no matter how repugnant and heart rending this 
decision may be. 

I, as an individual and as the representative of the Board of 
Directors for Catholics for a Free Choice, a national organization 
of Catholics, am dedicated to the principle that women have the 
right and duty to follow their conscience in abortion decisions, and 
that the law has a corresponding right and duty to mala' it possible 
for them to implement their choices under medically safe condition-. 
In this respect we are wholeheartedly in favor of the Supreme Court 
decision and commend the Justices for their wisdom. 

However, I would hasten to add that when abortions are per- 
formed, they should be followed by contraceptive counselif 
to provent if at all possible, the need for future abortions. 

We consider abortion to be a serious moral problem and while 
we are not for abortion across the board, we nonetheless believe 
there are many serious reasons that could justify taking the life 
of the fetus. Such reasons we would consider, extreme poverty, men- 
tal illness, grave or crippling physical disease, rape, incest, the pos- 
sibility of a deformed fetus, grave risk to the life of the mother. 
Another reason would be the positive unwillingness of the woman to 
carry the pregnancy to term, for I can think of nothing more detri- 
mental to a human baby than to be born to a mother who hated its 
very existence. 

Catholic women as well as non-Catholic women are driven to abor- 
tion, which is often their only recourse, as a last resort when contra- 
ception is denied them or fails to work effectively, as in the case of 
rhythm, especially. 

Our hierarchy and priests and laity have an obligation in charity 
and justice to at least talk to these troubled women as sisters. With 
very rare and brave exceptions, like Father Joe O'Rourke, they 
haven't been doing it. It would also help matters considerably if 
Catholics would stop the un-Christian name calling and labeling 
everyone who disagrees with them as murderers and abortionists 
and listen to the other side for a change. Right and reason have not 
always been on the Catholic side, as witness the ongoing contracep- 
tion debate in the church. As the National Catholic Reporter stated 
on November 16, 1973, 88 percent of all Roman Catholics favor abor- 
tion when there is a danger to the mother's life or health. 75 percent 
in case of rape, and 77 percent in case of defective fetus. 

So you see that our bishops are not the apolitical creatures they 
present themselves as being. Anyone in Congress or a State legisla- 
ture is always very much aware of the political clout of the Roman 
Catholic hierarchy in which they are using money which is primarily 
donated by Catholic women to destroy the rights of Catholic women 
and other women here and elsewhere. 

I thank you very much. 

Senator Bayii. Thank you. Dr. Cahill. 

T hope you will forgive me if I don't take the time to resume this 
discussion' further. T appreciate the fact that you have testified. 

We will recess these hearing.- now pending the call of the Chair 
for future hearings. 



206 

[Whereupon al L2:45 p.m. the hearings recessed, subject to call 
by the Chair.] 
' [Material for the record follows:] 

[MORI of Db. Jane Fublong-Cahill, Ph.D., Doctor of Religion, National 
H,i:m roB of Catholics fob a Fbee Choice 

l MoNY AMi T VI BOD1 I NON OF DB. JANE CAHIIX, BY REV. JOSEPH O'ROURKE 

Mn name la Father Joseph O'Rouke, Catholic Coordinator of the Interfaith 
a Free Choice I am a priest recently dismissed from the Society of Jesus for 
■ Free Choice I am a priest recently dismissed fro mthe Society of Jesus for 
baptizing a child of a mother who stood publicly for the Supreme Court de- 
cision and for reproductive freedom. t 

The refusal of Boston priests to baptize this child, Nathaniel Ryan Mor- 
reale shows the lengths a minority faction in the Catholic Church are willing 

to deny individual rights and community and church fellowship in order 

rve its power against the common good. This denial of religious 
liberty Is to be deplored in the church and in our society, and I suppose, places 
our bierarchys' good citizenship in question. As my right to minister the 
Catholic sacraments for those who hold for reproductive freedom is threat- 

1 by my dismissal, so also is disclosed the commitment of American Cardi- 
nals to coerce conscience against the laws of the land and good sense. These 

further raise the question of the whole social strategy of the Catholic 
hierarchy, for they indicate a hacking off from a commitment to individual 
liberty, free information and choice, equal medical and social services to all, 
placing the whole Catholic identity on a myopic anti-abortion stand; and 
this when 88$ of the Catholics in the pew favor the choice of abortion under 
some circumstances. 

If the Church was to stand sincerely against abortion, it would re-orient 

- .rial and relief services to stop the 100 spontaneous abortions for every 

200 births in the Third World by attacking the malnutrition, poverty and 

medical ignorance that is the cause of this hidden plague, rather than lobbying 

against the rights of American women. 

nd here again for the religious liberty of the Second Vatican Council, 
for the position of reproductive freedom of .1. C. Murray and Cardinal dish- 
ing, for the Supreme Court decision. I delight in the majority position in the 
Catholic pew and the American Theological Catholic world that says that 
abortion must remain a legal alternative. And 1 re-affirm the religious liberty 
of Catholic women and the right to baptism and everlasting life in Christ 
of those families thai speak the truth that frees. 

Senator P.ayh and members of the Subcommittee, I respectfully introduce 
I»r .lane Furlong-Cahill. 

Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee: As a National Director of 
Catholics for a Free Choice, we welcome this opportunity to testify here 
today before this committee as to the majority of Cathoilcs support for Free 
Choice which is indicated in recent polls such as the NCR Report on data 
collected by the National Opinion Research Centers' General Social Survey, 
Which we respectfully submit to this committee. (See attached.) 

"In the tradition of modern Western civilization no two spheres stand more 
sharply opposed than that of religion and that of sex" Robert Briffault wrote 
in an article on "Sex iii Religion". "Yet," he goes on, "a glance at the various 
religions of the world outside of Christianity, and one or two closely allied 
urvey of religious rites of lower phases of culture, shows that 
the antithesis floes not exist. Those religions and those rites, are on the con- 
trary, --hot through and through with riotous sensuality; the manifestations 
of the sex instinct instead of being accounted incompatible with the religious 
OCiated with it in the closest manner; and the religions in those 
almosl as much concerned with sex as with ethics and theology." 
ation Havelock Ellis, Ed. 1929. 
did the fear of m.\ and. therefore, the fear of woman, and her sub- 
llmost universal exclusion from "man's work", "his" wars and 
rites come about in Christianity and especially in Roman 
Catholicism? We know from the evidence of comparative religion that all 



207 

religions began in order to serve the human need for reassurance In a hos- 
tile world in which injury, disease and the archenemy death, pre- 
senting a threat to human life. 

All primitive religions had two practical functions, neither of them the 
philosophical interpretations of existence or of life, as we today think of 
them. The primary function was to till the need of the individual and of 
the tribe for food, and to insure their continuance by fertility in the woman, 
the corps and the animals. Imitative magico-religious rites, including tin- 
sexual act itself were thus performed to that purpose. 

In this connection, woman, due to her menstrual cycle, was almost uni- 
versally linked with t lie periodicity of the moon. The moon-god was believed 
to be husband to every woman, the one who first of all impregnated her. In 
view of woman's astonishing power to bleed once a month and live, ool die; 
to give life (and sometimes bring forth death in the case of a stillborn 
child); to nourish that new life with food from her own breasts;- woman 
was consequently believed to be possessed of mana, a godlike power for | 
or evil, which therefore rendered her taboo or forbidden, especially in I 
times when she was most womanlike, i.e., during menstruation, pregnancy 
and lactation, all of which taboos are mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, 
(cf. Rabbi Jacob Singer, Taboos in the Hebrew Scriptures). Again, almost 
all religions (including Judaism and Christianity) have some mythical ac- 
count of the origins of human life in what Mircea Eliade, Birth and Rebirth, 
refers to as the "dream times" or the long-forgotten past -or. as the Genesis 
puts it "In the beginning . . ." Through these myths of the origins of life 
they attempt to re-live communally by imitative religious rites, that thus 
initiate them into a life that is. as Ediade points out — beyond the natural 
and so what was thought to lie super-natural, such as the account of the 
creation of human beings in Genesis L-III. 

In the natural order, of course, the real human mother begats her child 
by natural birth from the womb. In the 'super-natural" order, however, the 
"re-birth" (and the only significant birth i is accomplished by initiation rites. 
such as baptisms or washings, from sin, such as are found in both .ludiasm 
and Christianity. Such initiations attempt to beget the adolescent child (most 
often, the male-child, although in Christianity, the female child as well), <>r 
"give birth anew" by a kind of "role reversal" from the "death" to the old 
natural life with its mother love, to a "new" and "supernatural" life with 
the gods or God. This "new birth" or rebirth, of course, is usually accomp- 
lished by a male-mother called a priest or shaman. 

The second function of primitive religion according to Briffault. v 
avoid the anger of the gods or God, by ascetic practices of self-denial and 
funerary rites or rites of the dead, whose spirits were sometimes, like woman, 
viewed as dangerous to humans. With the rise of patriarchy, or the ride of 
the father, (which in almost all primitive religions, follows the demist 
matriarchy), the original and universally recognized right of the mother over 
her offspring was played down to the advantage of the father. A tighter rein 
was drawn on woman and the fertility goddesses in civil and religious law, 
reducing them to second-class status in the state and religion, though as 
University of Penna. Assyriologist pointed out, "goddesses die hard." 

As in the creation account in Genesis. Eve. called "the mother of all the 
living" was depicted by the male author as being incredibly, the "offspring" 
of Adam, human physiology not withstanding, through the midwifery of 
As a result of the "primordial transgression" following upon the creation "f 
man and woman, despite the fact that Genesis specifically blames and punishes 
both the woman and the man. the Judaeo-Christian tradition passed "ii the 
"Original Sin of Sexism" (as Dr. Rosemary Ruether and Dr. Mary Daly have 
both put it), or the philosophy of the "natural" or "divinely ordained su- 
premacy" of the male over the female. 

Woman became by "divine right" the property of man — she existed so solely 
for man's sexual pleasure, for procreation of "man's" child—as G< 
16 itself takes note when it says, of the dangers of repeated pregnant 
"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow Shalt thou 
give birth to children ; all thy longing shall be for thy husband, even though 
he shall lord it over thee." Fear and jealousy of woman's maternal role led 
man to keep this "property" of his in the ghetto called the ho 
keep her dangerous powers as mother away from "his" work, and prevent 



208 

her physical •weakness" believed due to menstruation from contaminating it. 
Thus the double standard of morality arose; a double standard imposed on 
females uhnh regarded her nut as the image of God and therefore a person 
hut as primarily the image of man, a mere reflection of 
bis ego the one on whom he chose to project the myth of feminine evil by 
seduction Whereas man as seen by male theologians was a spiritual and 
Intelligent creature, woman, being primarily for sex, was viewed as a carnal 
and emotional creature. Whereas he was active and independent, she was 
passive and dependent on him, her Lord. Whereas his value transcended 
al caste and allowed him a full range of sexual freedom, her value was 
entirely based on her •'used'' or ••unused" status in the sexual realm. (Indeed 
the Code of Canon Law still uses this opprobious term, "the use of woman", 
to describe the sexual act. i 

With the suppression of the legal rights of woman and the rites of the 
female deities in the supernatural order, the second function of primitive 
religions, that of appearing and averting the anger of the gods or God by 
asceticism and rites of the dead, took precedence over the Magico-religious 
rites, which included ritual sexual intercourse. By avoiding good things of 
which the gods might be jealous, such as food, drink, and above all, sexual 
relations, in short, things that were, like woman, taboo, our primitive for- 
bearers in the Semitic tradition passed on to Judiasm and subsequently to 
Christianity, their more sophisticated heirs, a dubious heritage of which they 
formed an often inexplicable part, (cf, Rabbi Singer, Taboos in the Hcbrciv 
Scriptures.) "Sexism", as Rosemary Radford Ruether puts it, "that is, the 
oppressive relationship of the man to the woman, is essentially social pro- 
jection of the self-alienation which transcends certain initial biological dif- 
ferences into a power relationship. This relationship in turn is totalized in 
1 1 structures (such as civil and canon laws) and cultural modes that 
eliminate woman's autonomous personhood, to define her solely in terms of 
male needs and negations." Rosemary Radford Reuther, Sexism and Theology 
of Liberation, Christian Century Magazine, December 12, 1973. 

This resulted in the unfortunate and for woman, tragic, tradition of Chris- 
tianity and especially Roman Catholicism in the West that, as Briffault put 
it "no two spheres stand more sharply opposed than that of religion and that 
of sex." The natural manifestations of sex, and especially of woman-sex, are 
in the Roman Catholic tradition, the type of sin of which "the head-fount 
of that evil and Impurity, with which the religious spirit cannot be brought 
into touch without defilement and dissolution." 

The theology of marriage as explained by male Christian theologians was 
really little more than a tribal view of marriage, in which the act of sexual 
union was viewed as the "use" of woman, with little or no recognition of it as 
an act of love until the last decade of this century with the Second Council 
of the Vatican. This belief in the myth of feminine evil did not, however, stem 
from the teaching of Jesus who was. as Dr. Leonard Swidler pointed out, a 
feminist in his own time, but was a carry-over from the sexual taboos com- 
mon to all primitive religions including the Semitic from which Judaism and 
Christianity ultimately derive, cf Jesus teas a Feminist. 

This overwhelming fear of sex and therefore of woman as a temptress, was 
heightened by the Church's insistence of clerical celibacy. That, coupled with 
the fact that theologians insisted on doing her thinking for her (woman) in 
view of her "intellectual weakness", is most manifest to all intelligent people 
in the official or hierarchical Church's intransigent stand against artificial 
traception, sterilization, and abortion. Such a stand is designed to leave 

u " ; " the mercy, not only of her biological makeup, bid also at the mercy 

i merciless celibate hierarchy, who claimed the right to damn her eternally 
USed such methods. 

With, ml medical control over the bodily power of reproduction, woman is 

bft at the mercy of an irrational fertility which even the Bible in Genesis 3, 

Knized as a curse. The time of rational ensoulment or the time when 

becomes specifically human has been and still is a matter of debate 

Catholic tradition as is evident from the following list of authorities 

ranging from the first century to the present (lay. 

gory MY. in his Bull Sedes \)><>*tniic<i in 1591, revoked the puni- 
eglslation ol Pope Sixtus V saying, "where no homicide or no animated 



209 

fetus is involved," the law ought "not to punish more strictly than the 
sacred canons or civil legislation does." 

The Roman Ritual from 1617 to L625 prescribed baptism be administered 
in danger of death only if either the head or some limbs of the fetus a) 
and only if this limb gives some sign of life, only after "quickening" (Homini- 
zation). Unorganized fetuses are not to be baptized. 

St. Alphonsus IAgouri 1696-1787, a Doctor of the Church, Insisted that the 
fetus is "certainly not animated before it is formed." Moral Theology •'>. Trad 
2. 

Sacred Congregation of studies in Rome offered Thomistic theses as guide- 
lines to Catholic seminaries and universities. The loth thesis states that the 
human soul, which is created by God, "may be infused into a subject thai 
sufficiently disposed." 

H. M. Hering, O.P. 1951, "I)e Tempore Animationis Foetus Humani" An- 
gelicum, 28, 1951, 18-29 says the theory of delayed animation or bominizal 
"counts strong defenders, especially among the philosophers who are wont to 
investigate the matter more profoundly than the moralists and the canonists." 
For the latter part of the 19th century he mentioned as upholders of this 
theory, Liberatore, Zigliara, Cornoldi, Lorenselli, Sanseverino and di Maria. 
More recent authors mentioned were. Cardinal Mercier. V. Reiner, A. D. 
Sertillanges, D. Prummer, A. Farges-d, Barbedette. A. Vermeersch, B. Merkel- 
bach, A. Pirotta, C. Carbone, F. X. Macquart, R. Jolivet, A. Lanza, E. Mes 
senger, R. Lacroix and M. Barbado." 

Others still more contemporary who are today questioning the one-dimen- 
sional nature of Catholic theology regarding abortion are: Rev. Bernard 
Haring, Hans Kung, Teilhard de Chardin. Giles Milhaven. S.J., Joseph Don- 
ceel, S.J., Robert .Springer, Dr. Daniel Callahan. {Abortion: Lair, Choice and 
Morality, who testified before the N.Y. State Abortion commission for a re- 
form of the law). Cornelius Vander Poel, Charles Curran, Dr. Mary Daly, 
Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Dr. Elizabeth Farians and myself. 

In the very first book of the Bible, the two-facedness of procreation as both 
a blessing from God and a curse from the same God is very aptly described. 
Genesis 1,28 recounts the blessing of man and woman by God who told them 
"to increase and multiply and fill the earth and rule over it." The same book 
of Genesis (3, 16) later on after the "Fall" from Cod's favor indicates quite 
clearly that the blessing of procreation is now because of its frequency and 
painfulness covered with a curse for the woman to whom God said. "/ will 
greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shall bring 
forth children." According to Scripture itself then, childbearing, in itself a 
great blessing, is also because of the possible multiplicity of pregnancies a 
woman may undergo and because of the painfullness associated with preg- 
nancy and birth in many cases, the curse of the woman. However, this text 
has largely been ignored by celibate theologians in the Catholic Church, cf 
Contraception and Eve, Dr. Jane Cahill, New Blackfriars Magazine, London, 
June 1966. 

The text of Exodus 21. 1*1* had a far more powerful influence on both Jewish 
and Christian theologians, however. This passage dealt with the abortion that 
is caused accidentally by a man who struck a woman who was pregnant. In 
The Septuaguint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew tost) the text itself 
prescribes the penalty of "life for life" if the embryo is "formed". (■Formed" 
here was taken to mean, by Christian theologians at any rate, what Aristotle 
meant by "formed". According to Aristotle, a fetus becomes human forty days 
after conception if the fetus is male, and eighty days after conception if the 
fetus is female. (History of Animals. 7. 'A. ) A similar view seems to underly 
the old prescription regarding purification, forty days being required for 
purification if the child was a boy. eighty days if the child was a girl. {Contra- 
ception. John T. Noonan, 1'. 90). This theory of delayed hoininization. or 
ensoulment with a rational soul, regarding the fetus was held by some of the 
greatest theologians in the Catholic Church and is still held by a goodly 
proportion of theologians today. Among those who held this theory \\ . 

St. Jerome, the translator of the Bible (Vulgate), who said in bis Epistles 
121, ',. that abortion is not homocide until the elements of the fetus 
their appearance and members". 

St. Augustine, On Exodus, 21, 80, a commentary, says if the embr 
"unformed", the law does not provide that the act (of abortion) pertains to 
homocide. 



210 

m Intelm a medieval theologian, wrote that It is -inadmissible that the 
infant snoind receive a rational soul from the moment of conception 
" v , \lnam. Bishop of Paris, *v,„r Books of Sentences , 2d- 18, 8., The 
son! a created and Infused after the body has already been formed. 

i V m >«*. *»»"<"< r„„r,-« Gentiles 2, 89 held that the .rational 

soul was created by God only after the embryo passed through a kind of vege 
t'lthe and sentient stage In its development. 

,,„,„/ the Council of Trent 1566 clearly held delayed rational en- 
soulmentThen it said -since in the natural order no body can be informed 
1, 1 man soul except after the prescribed space of time." It was here 

discussing the extra-ordinary conception of Jesus whose soul was joined to 
the body at conception, unlike all others. , K „*,,„. 

This is Drecisely the point at issue in the abortion dilemma, i.e., whether 
or not the fetus is in fact, a human person from the moment of conception or 
whether it becomes a human person sometime afterward during the nine- 
month period of development. Bernard Haring, C.S.S.R., the dean of Catholic 
mural theologians, insists in The Law of Christ, page 205, In fact, if we 
could assume thai the Aristotolian opinion were certain, we could not con- 
demn abortion committed before the infusion of the spiritual soul as a crime 
Of murder againsl a fully human life." Richard A. McCormick, S.J., in an 
article in America. June 19, 1965 on Abortion says. "The theory of retarded 
or delaved animation is unquestionably a tenable and respectable theory. It is 
still preferred by a notable number of philosophers and theologians. The 
Church has very wisely never decided the matter definitively; indeed, it is 
perhaps questionable if this is within her competence." 

It seems to me it is certainly not within the Church's competence to pro- 
nounce one way or the other on a matter that requires an interpretation of 
biological facts on which from ancient times to the present, good women and 
men of all faiths have disagreed. This being the case (but even if it were not) 
that a doubt of fait regarding the human personhood of the fetus exists, 
the same rules of morality must be applied here as in all other cases. 

The most fundamental rules underlying all morality as Jesus explained are 
the love of Cod above all else and the love of our neighbor whom we are 
commanded to love as we love ourselves. These two commandments are the 
ace of the New Law of Christ, as St. Thomas says, as well as the founda- 
tion and first general principles of the natural law. (Summa Theologica I. II, 
Q 109). We are bound, after Cod. to love ourselves and love our neighbors, 
not equally with ourselves, but in a manner patterned on true love of self. 
Mil ,Q. 44, a. 7. We should love ('specially those nearest to us in the natural 
order, our spouses, children, parents, etc. The secondary principles of the 
natural law such as the Ten Commandments are simply explieitations of these 
primary rules. 

The Fifth commandment. "Thou shalt not kill" has always been interpreted 
by Jewish and Christian moralists to mean, not an absolute prohibition of 
killing a person, but the unjustified taking of life. Father Haring in the same 
work mentioned earlier (Vol. T, P. 288) explains it this way. "Killing of a 
man. is not an unconditional evil action, because the oodihi life of one's 
neighbor is nut a value which must he preserved muter nil circumstances. Only 
tlie unjustified attack on the life of one's neighbor is always evil." The Law 
>>f Christ. 

Christian theologians have always permitted the so-called "just war", ev^n 
though it certainly results in the foreseen killing and maiming of thousands, 
even hundreds of thousands of innocent human lives, including infants, chil- 
dren, women and men. Popes have led armies to war. hierachys have con- 
•d hundreds of wars, as did the American Catholic hierarchy condone the 
war in Vietnam. All this wholesale slaughter of the innocent as well as the 
"enemy" is and was justified on the basis of the principle of the double effect. 
The most atrocious methods of killing, such as bombs, napalm, flame-throwers, 
of both the "enemy" and the innocent, lie would not oven release the bomb 
i Bite, knowing full well that hundreds of innocent people will be killed 
along with the "enemy" he must intend only the death of the "enemy" not 
'he death .if the innocent, even though he knows for certain that many inno- 
cent people will die as the direct result of his action. But the simple fact of 
'he matter Is, that if he did not intend, but certainly not rejoice in. the death 
of both the "enemy" and the innocent, he would not ever release the bomb 



211 

from its hatch. In short, the right to life, even of the Innocent, while it is the 
most basic right is not an unconditional right to be preserved at all 
It can only be taken, justly but regrettably, under certain conditions; bnl it 
most certainly can be and has been taken and the taking lias been sanctioned 
by Catholic theologians and the hierarchy from the earliest days of Chris- 
tianity. 

Theologians can and do justify the taking of life (or lives) of a fully con- 
scious human being (or beings) on the basis of the principle of the double 
effect, in order to preserve some other human rights or values. Such values 
can be any of the following : 

1. The preservation of freedom, whether physical or spiritual, as in a 
"just war". 

2. The defense of self or another person in order to preserve one's own or 
another's life, personal liberty, bodily integrity, or property, i.e., material 
goods deemed essential to life, such as food, a horse, etc. 

In view of these exceptions to the command "Thou shalt not kill", it seems 
to me, a woman may be justified in seeking an abortion from a physician. 
Correspondingly, the physician may be justified in performing the abortion, 
however distasteful they may both find the task. Briefly, the reasons I hold 
this are the following. The purposes of marriage and the marital act are 
two-fold, the fostering of mutual love between the spouses and the procreation 
and education of any children who may issue from the marriage. The latter 
duty of course only binds when procreation is possible and reasonable. Pro- 
creation involves not merely the physical begetting of the child, hut also 
seeing that it is cared for and educated in truly human fashion. In short, it 
entails the bringing of one's children to the human perfection of knowledge 
and virtue according to St. Thomas. Many times, however, through contra- 
ceptive failure (whether of rhythm or other artificial contraceptives, cf my 
article Contraception and Eve, impregnation can occur without its being in- 
tended, or in the case of rape by forceful violation of bodily integrity. 

Should impregnation occur to a woman who is so extremely poor that neither 
she nor her husband, nor their existing children, if any, can be supported in 
human fashion, the woman may be obliged in justice to herself, her husband 
and her children, and out of justice to the potential rationality of the fetus, 
to seek an abortion. Here, albeit "innocently" the pregnancy constitutes a 
grave internal threat to the very existence of the family. Thus the common 
good of the family requires this tragic but necessary action. Mental illness. 
severe enough to incapacitate the woman for human motherhood would also 
be, in my judgment, serious reason for termination of pregnancy. Every fetns 
by reason of its potential rationality is in justice entitled to a mother who 
is herself rational. Furthermore, the loss of one's ability to use the highest 
powers one has, the reason and will, is a fearful enough loss in itself and 
pregnancy in addition to such a state constitutes a grave and often unbear- 
able threat to the woman's total well-being. 

Crippling physical disease would be sufficient reason for termination of 
pregnancy because the disease itself constitutes a grave enough internal 
threat to her health and life, to which the mere presence of the fetns add 
another "innocent" but nonetheless serious threat. In the case of rape and 
incest, the resulting pregnancy has been inflicted unjustly and violently 
against the woman by a violation of her right to physical integrity. There- 
fore, she has the right to remove by an abortion the result of this assault out 
of true love of self. 

The possibility of severe deformity is sufficient reason to warrant an abor- 
tion. Nature itself intends, as St. Thomas observed, bodily perfection and of 
itself (not by direct Divine intervention) aborts in almost one-third of all 
pregnancies where the fetus is defective. Here we would be imitating the 
unconscious "intelligence" of the natural processes, consciously. As the late 
Dr. Joseph Stokes, the renowned pediatrician pointed out. many cases of 
mongolism with its severe mental retardation can already be detected early 
in pregnancy by amniocentesis. 

In summary, the pregnant woman is first of all a human being, herself, with 
her own set of rights which she does not lose simply by becoming pregnant. 
Thusly. she may be regarded as the bearer of another as yet no fully human 
life, in the early months of pregnancy, (though the very same moral prin- 
ciples hold even if the full humanity of the fetus were certain.) As with some 



212 

rJ -hl to life" to health whether physical or mental, to noeny wneuier 
Bnlritual or physical! to physical integrity; to those goods deemed essential 
to life If a woman 1 as additional obligations to a husband and existing chil- 
« I, ,i I ' iwlv obliged in justice to seek an abortion in order to safe- 
Kuanl no, nnh her own life but also the well-being of her family, no matter 
bow repugnant and heart-rending this decision. 

STATEMENT ON BKIIALF OF CATHOLICS FOK A FREE CHOICE 

I as an Individual, and as the representative of the Board of Directors of 
Catholics *>r il Free Choice, a national organization dedicated to the principle 
th" women have the righl and duty to follow their conscience regarding 
decisions on abortion and contraception and that the law has a corresponding 
rieht and duty to make it possible for them to implement those choices under 
medically safe conditions. In this respect we are wholeheartedly in favor of 
Hi,. Supreme Court decisions and commend the Justices of that court for tDeir 

W However, I would hasten to add that when abortions are performed, they 
should he followed by contraceptive counseling so as to prevent, if at all 
possible, the Deed for future abortions. 

We consider abortion to be a serious moral problem and while we are not 
■for abortion" across the hoard, we nonetheless believe there are many serious 
reasons that could justify taking the life of the fetus. 

Such reasons we would consider are extreme poverty, mental illness, grave 
or crippling physical disease of the mother, rape, incest, the possibility of a 
deformed fetus and grave risk to the life of the mother. Another reason, though 
none less valid, would be the positive unwillingness of the woman to carry the 
pregnancy to term, for we can think of nothing more detrimental to a human 
baby than to be born to a mother who hated its very existence. 

Catholic women as well as non-Catholic women are driven to abortion which 
is often their only recourse, as a last resert when contraception is denied them 
or fails to work effectively. The Catholic Church in prescribing "rythm" as a 
means of birth control is completely unrealistic and is indeed causing more 
abortions by its unrelenting stand on birth control. "Rythm" or "Vatican Rou- 
lette' as I refer to it is absurd; to wit. in my case — I have five lovely daugh- 
ter< whom I refer to as "The Rythmairres". During my last two pregnancies, 
I almost died. I have laid my life on the line for the Catholic Church those 
last two times and do not intend to do it again. 

Our hierarchy and priests ami laity have an obligation in charity and jus- 
tice to at leasl talk to their own Catholic people on this matter. With very 
tare and brave exceptions, like Father Joseph O'Rourke, they haven't been 
doing it. 

It would also help matters considerably if Catholics would stop the un- 
christian nameealling and labelling everyone who disagree with them as 
"murderers" and "abortionists" .and listen to the "other" side for a change. 
Right and reason have not always been on the "Catholic" side, as witness the 
ongoing contraception debate in the Church. 

Mr. Bayh and members of the Committee. I hope I have pointed out to you 
today how the Catholic Church has not held a firm position on the issues of 
abortion and contraception, but has changed through the centuries, depending 
on who was in "office" Our present-day hierarchy seem to have amnesia on this 
subject or have not done their homework and are unaware of their own 
Church history. 

The Catholic hierarchy should follow the teaching of one of the early Doe- 
tors ,,f the Church. Tertullian, who, in the third century spoke to women on 
the subject of abortion ; 

"In this matter. ( abortion i there is no more fitting teacher, judge, witness, 
than on,. ,,f this sei (female). Reply, you mothers, you bearers of children, let 
'< (hierarchy) and masculine be silent, the truth of your nature is 
-oiil'Ii! " It.. Aniina 25.5 

Catholics for a Free Choice and myself thank you for the opportunity to 
speak here before you today. 



ABORTION 



TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974 

U.S. Sex ate, 
Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments 

of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 :10 a.m., in room 
2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman 
of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator Bayh (presiding). 

Also present, J. William Heckman, Jr., chief counsel; Barbara 
Dixon, research assistant; and Teddie Phillips, assistant chief clerk. 

Senator Bayh. We will reconvene our hearings, with an apology 
to our distinguished panelists. I had a vote, so I am sorry to keep 
you waiting. 

Our witnesses today are a very distinguished group of panelists: 
Prof. John T. Xoonan, Jr., professor of law, University of Califor- 
nia, Berkeley; Prof. John Ely, professor of law at Harvard Uni- 
versity; Prof. Laurence H. Tribe, professor of law at Harvard; 
Prof. Philip B. Heyman, professor of law. Harvard University. 

I will let you gentlemen proceed. Did you flip a coin to decide who 
goes first or shall we just proceed with the order that I just read? 

Mr. Noonon. That is fine. 

Senator Bayh. All right, we will do it that way then. Please 
proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN T. NOONAN, JR., PROFESSOR OF LAW, 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 

Mr. Xoonan. You have before you proposals to amend the Con- 
stitution of the United States as it was interpreted by the Supreme 
Court of the United States on January 22, 1973. To resolve by 
constitutional amendment, an impasse created by the Court, or to 
correct gross and substantial error committed by the Court, is neither 
improper nor unprecedented. The 16th amendment became inevitable 
after the Court had decided Pollock v. Fanners Loan and Trust 
Company. The 14th amendment was the necessary answer, after 
bloody war, to Bred Scott v. Sanford. A proper balance between 
the organs of government and the people requires that no determi- 
nation by a governmental body be irreversible and no fundamental 
distortion beyond popular correction. 

Seventy years agso a majority of the Supreme Court held that the 
14th amendment was violated by New York limiting the hours of 

(213) 



214 

bakers to 60 hours a week. Such legislation, the Court said, deprived 
the employers of the bakers and the bakers themselves of a basic 
liberty of contract. In dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., 
wrote : 

The Hih amendmenl does not enacl Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics. 
I think that the word liberty in the 14th amendment is perverted when it is 
held to prevenl the natural outcome <>f a dominant opinion unless it can be 
s ; ,i,l thai a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute 
proposed would Infringe fundamental principles as they have been under- 
d by the traditions of our people and our law. 

The standard set out by Justice Holmes was prophetic. It is ger- 
mane to vour deliberations today. Common law restricting abortion 
; old as the Constitution. The people of all 50 States had statutes 
dating abortion in force on January 22, 1973. By virtue of Roe 
\. Wade and Doe v. Bolton these statutes became constitutionally 
defunct. Would a fair and reasonable man be compelled to admit 
that every one of these statutes had in fact infringed fundamental 
principles as those principles have been understood by our people 
and our law? I invite you to apply Holmes' criterion to what the 
Court decided in the Abortion Cases. 

In the less than '2 years in the lapse since the Abortion Gases 
were decided, the courts have spelled out in detail their implications 
and underlined their ominous significance for American society. 
The principal consequences are three: First, the subversion of the 
structure of the family in that a father now has no protectable legal 
interest in its unborn offspring; second, the mandated public funding 
of abortion so it is unlikely that a national health bill can be 
enacted, which constitutionally excludes abortion from the surgical 
services to he federally financed; and third, and worst of all, the 
unmaking of human beings, the acceptance of the principle that 
the law can say who is not a human being. All of our constitutional 
liberties are nothing if we can be defined out of the human species. 

In I>n (I Scott v. San ford the Supreme Court declared that a 
descendant of African slaves could never be a citizen of the United 
State-. Vet even that mosl dreadful of decisions did not carry so 
far as Roe and Doe. These decisions, as now interpreted by the 
courts, arrogate to the courts the power to decide who is human. 

Hear, for example. Child" Judge Pettine of Providence, ruling on 
a Rhode Island statute enacted after Roe and Doe. which expressly 
declared that in Rhode [sland the person commences to exist at the 
instanl of conception. The State produced witnesses with credentials 
the judge acknowledged to he impressive to testify that the embryo 
was a member of the human species. I quote Judge Pettine: '"I 
neither summarize nor make any findings of fact as to their testi- 
mony. To me the United State- Supreme Court made it unmistakably 
dear that the question of when life begins needed no resolution by 
the judiciary as it was not a question of fact. I find it irreleyant to 
all the issues presented for adjudications." Once the Supreme Court 
had ruled that a fetus was not a person, it was. Judge Pettine held, 
'frivolous ' for a State to try to show the contrary. 

Lawyers air used to dealing with presumptions, with creations 
of law. with fictions. At first appearance the denial of humanity to 
tne fetus m;iv appear as jusl another fiction, not more shocking than 



215 

many other fictions necessary for the working of law. For the pur- 
poses of the 14th amendment, the fetus is not human; for the pur] 
of the Social Security Act, the fetus is human- -distinctions of this 
kind are common in the law. What is shocking, repelling, fatal in 

this distinction, in this fiction is that the courts here assume the power 
to exclude a species of humanity in determining fundamental pro- 
tection under the Constitution and to exclude that specie- beyond 
the power of any legislature to restore. 

If, by constitutional fiction, persons only exist at birth, by another 
constitutional fiction persons may cease to exist at 80. The Supreme 
Court itself hints at such a standard in Roe by referring to a fetus 1 
lack of "meaningful life." If what seven judges view as meaningful 
life is the test of personhood for the Constitution, if facts are irrele- 
vant in determining who is entitled to constitutional protection, the 
judiciary has absolute power to contract the protection of the Consti- 
tution to the healthy or the mentally alert. 

By Holmes' standard, what kind of constitution-making is this? 
Are fundamental principles as understood by the provisions of our 
people and our law infringed if a State calls attention to the facts 
and says, "You are mistaken. The child is human?" 

Proposed regulations of the Department of Health, Education, 
and "Welfare on sex discrimination in federally assisted programs of 
education now read: "For the purpose of this subpart, 'pregnancy' 
means the entire process of pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery there- 
from, and includes false pregnancy, miscarriage, and abortion." 

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength," and of 
government departments the ministry of love is "the really fright- 
ening one." I quote of course from "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by 
George Orwell. Even Orwell did not imagine a world in which 
the ministry of health defines pregnancy to include abortion. Nor 
did he imagine a society in which childbearing capacity is analogized 
to a tumor causing neurological problems, in which a father has no 
protectable legal interest in the life of the child he has begotten, in 
which the State need not pay for childbirth but must pay for 
abortion, and in which biological facts are irrelevant to the definition 
of human life. Yet to that society we have come through our courts 
in the second year after Roe and Doe. 

What is necessary is law setting the country in a different direc- 
tion, the direction of distinguishing between death and life. No 
a law than an amendment to the Constitution can effect this change. 
The States are helpless. All of the efforts of the people have been 
struck down. Only an amendment can now change the law. 

At issue is the balance of power between the Federal judiciary 
and the States. At issue is the structure of the family as the legally 
recognized union of female and male endowed with equal right-. 
At issue is the role of government in sponsoring the taking of life 
through government medical services and health care progra 
Above all, at issue is the law's ability to defend the life of every 
member of the human species. 

An amendment cannot speak on these issues with the precision of 
a criminal code, dotting every i, resolving every contingency. An 
amendment can speak on the" grand lines of the 1st, 5th, or llth 
amendments, educating the country. In the bicentennial of our birth, 



210 

an amendmenl can set out the values on which our policy depends, it 
can correct the perversion of liberty in Roe and Doe, it can restrain 
the State from taking life, it can recognize that the most precious 
liberty is the liberty to live and restore the possibility of protecting 
h\ law a uniquely vulnerable portion of the human species. 
[The prepared statement of John T. Noonan, Jr. follows:] 

Statement of John T. Noonan, Jr., Professor of Law, University of 

California, Berkeley 

My oame is .John T. Noonan, Jr. I am a professor law at the University of 
California, Berkeley, where 1 teach courses in family law, population pro- 
grams, jurisprudence, and legal ethics in the law .school and courses in mar- 
riage and the family iu the Graduate Department of History. I am the author 
ne book on the history of attitudes toward contraception, and I am the 
editor of a second book on the legal and moral issues involved in abortion. I 
come here al litis Commit tec's invitation, at this Committee's expense, and as 
the representative of Q0 organization or group. 

Xou ha\c before you proposals to amend the Constitution as it was inter- 
preted by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 22, 1973. To 
resolve by constitutional amendment an impasse created by the Court, or to 
correct gross and substantial error committed by the Court, is neither im- 
proper nor unprecedented. The 16th amendment became inevitable after the 
Court had derided Pollock V. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company} The 14th 
amendment was the necessary answer, after bloody war, to Drcd Scott v. San- 
ford.* A proper balance between the organs of government and the people re- 
quires that no determination by a governmental body be irreversable and no 
fundamental distortion beyond popular correction. 

Seventy years ago a majority of the Supreme Court held that the 14th 
amendment was violated by New York limiting the hours of bakers to 60 hours 
a week. Such legislation, the Court said, deprived the employers of the bakers 
of a basic liberty.' In dissent Justice Oliver Wendell Holms, Jr. wrote: "The 
1 tth amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics. * * * I 
think that the word liberty in the 14th amendment is perverted when it is 
held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion unless it can be 
said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute 
proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood 
by the traditions of our i>eople and our law."' 

The standard set out by Justice Holmes was prophetic. It is germane to your 
deliberations today. Common law restricting abortion is as old as the Constitu- 
tion. Thse people of all 50 states had statutes regulating abortion in force on 
January 22, 1973.* Would a fair and reasonable man be compelled to admit 
that every one of these statutes had in fact infringed fundamental principles 
principles have been understood by our people and our law? I invite 
you to apply Holmes' criterion to what the Court decided in the Abortion 
Cast 8. 

I. what THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN R0€ V. Wade AND Doe V. Bolton 

•nfnsion lias persisted as to what the Court actually decided in Roc and 

!>.,<. in part because of the inordinate length of the opinions, in part because 

certain wooliness in their composition, and in part because of inaccurate 

rtlng by the media. I have noticed that even ardent opponents of abortion 

sometimes imitate and underestimate the sweep of the Court's holdings 

Hi Court did not decide that at the end of the second trimester the child in 

the womb could, in some fashion, be protected— it expresslv said that viability. 

- of protection could be Riven, was "usually placed at serin 

(emphasis supplied). 7 The Court did not sav that the child after 7 

'-nth. had the rights of a person \t expressly said that "the unborn have 

recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" femnhasis 

supplied, ll„. Court did not hold that after 7 months, the State could pro- 

h i n " •'•""'ion it expressly held in Roe a prohibition even in the last 2 months 

, ,', "''''"'I '" exception in favor of "the life or health of the 

mothor (empha»1« «nppliod>.« The Court went on to say in Dor that "the 

: end "f article. 



217 

medical judgment may he exercised in the light of all factors physical, emo- 
tional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the well-being 
of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." 1 " 

Putting health in terms of •well-being", the Court created a basis for an 
abortion such that no physician could ever be prevented by law from perform- 
ing an abortion that he believed was for the well-being of the woman who 
requested it. In a concurring opinion Chief Justice Burger said "plainly the 
Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on 
demand." 11 But if no barrier can be constitutionally set by law to the doctor's 
discretion to operate, abortion on demand exists as long as there arc doctors 
willing to answer a request for an abortion. 

The Court did decide that somewhere in the Constitution— "we fed". tin- 
Court said, that the location is in the 14th amendment's requirement that 
liberty be restricted only by due process" there was a right of privacy, 
right was not express. The Court discovered it. The right was broad enougb 
to give every woman a right to abortion. On this inference from an inference. 
or implication from an implication, the Court bottomed its reasoning. 

The right to privacy. Chief Justice Burger said elsewhere, has "tenuous 
moorings in the Constitution." 111 Anchored to this tenuously moored right, the 
right to an abortion was ranked by the Court with those personal rights that 
can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."" 
A right directly contrary to what had been the law of the land the Court now 
proclaimed to be basic and necessary to "ordered liberty." 

This new constitutional liberty, the Court found, was subject to the State's 
interest in protecting the mother's health. The State might— the Court ap- 
peared to say — constitutionally require that all abortions be recommended by 
physicians. The State might — the Court clearly said — after the first trimester 
require that abortion be performed in facilities licensed by the state. 1 "' With 
these thin qualifications, the woman's right to an abortion was absolute ex- 
pressly so, in the Court's holdings, before the child's viability, inferential!. 
by the Court's definition of health as well-being and the subjection of the child 
to the mother's well-being in the last two months. In effect, if not in exj 
terms. Roe v. Doc made abortion on demand the law of the land. 1 " 

Nothing in precedent, nothing in our traditions, nothing in history justified 
the majority's interpretation of the term liberty. As constitutional law, its 
action deserves the severe reproach Justice Benjamin R. Curtis made to his 
brethren wdio decided Dred Scott v. Sanford: "Political reasons have not the 
requisite certainty to afford rules of judicial interpretation. They are differ- 
ent in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. 
* * * We are under the government of individual men. who for the time being 
have power to deduce what the Constitution is. according to their own views 
of what it ought to mean." 1T The same rebuke, in different language, was con- 
veyed in Justice Byron White's description of the majority action in I'o< v. 
Doc as an exercise in "raw judicial power." '" 

By Holmes' standard this radical creation of a new liberty in the Constitu- 
tion was justified only if a reasonable and fair man would have been com- 
pelled to agree that the 50 states had been infringing fundamental principles. 
Once the Court had spoken the laws of every state on abortion were constitu- 
tionally defunct. For the first time in the history of our country, the live 
one large portion of the human species were without the protection of law. 

II. THE CONSEQIEXCES OF ROC AND Doc 

In the less than two years that has elapsed since The Abortion Cases were 
decided, the courts have spelled out in detatil their implications and underlined 
their ominous significance for American society. The principal consequences are 

First. The Subversion of the Structure of the Family. 

1. The Supreme Court noted deliberately in Roe that it was not deciding the 
constitutionality of a statute requiring a father's consent for a legal abor- 
tion. 10 The Court set up. however, such an unqualified right in a mother to 
dispose of her offspring while alive within her body that it was almost in- 
evitable that a father's interest would be treated as negligible. A three-judge 
federal court in Florida interpreted Roe and Doe to mean that the State had 
no interest to protect in the young fetus, and that if the State had no inter 



See footnotes at end of article. 



218 

the State could nol create an interest in the father. A Florida statute requir- 
e the »nsent was held unconstitutional. 

in Utah a statue was enacted alter tfoe and L>oc to require that the father 

.■ t .."f«ii that tlii- mother be counselled as to the alternatives to abortion and 

/'judicial hearing be promptly held to ascertain that the consent and 

1 Led g ad been given. A three-judge federal court invalidated the entire 

l v, said Chief Judge Hitter, unconstitutional to subject "exercise of 
Sr*lndivldual right* privacy of the mother" to "the consent of others or to 

"^T^KdwUAons Roe and Doe are seen to stand for a view of a woman's 
dominion over her ofEspring in which the fathers role in the child's procreation 
is ignmcd and the fathers concern for his offspring's welfare is given a zero 
value. The father is simply classified with "others." 

2 The Loortto* r«.*< * were applied in Alabama to affect the action of a local 

1 board setting standards for the conduct of public school teachers. An 
unmarried teacher became pregnant and sought information from a hospital 
about abortion. Word of her condition came to the board of education of 
Covington County, which, after a hearing, fired her for immoral behavior. A 
three-judge federal court held the Alabama statute permitting the discharge of 
teachers for immorality to be unconstitutional as applied to this teacher. The 
court held that the right of privacy created by Roe and Doe had been 
Lnfring , . , , 

hing is as much by conduct as by words. A school system which employs 
pregnant unmarried women teaches a view of marriage more eloquently than 

a hundred textl ks on social ethics. Yet the Supreme Court itself in Roe and 

had made a point of treating the married and the unmarried plaintiffs 

tly alike. The federal court in Alabama only went a slight step further in 

ting the unmarried woman's right to an abortion as superior to any interest 

or the State in teaching that the procreation of children should occur only in 

marriage. 

The family has been under assault by extreme groups in our society and 
under question by others. It remains, in Justice Roger Traynor's words, "the 
basic unit of our society"; and, as he put it, "since the family is the core of 
our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage." 23 Ultra-feminist 
interpretations of the Constitution by the courts strikes at the institution. By 
Holmes' standard is constitutional decisionmaking of this kind justifiable? 
Would a rational and fair man necessarily admit that the Alabama, Florida, 
and Utah statutes infringed fundamental principles as they have been under- 
id by our people and our law? Rather, have not our people and our law 
always treated marriage as the meeting of two persons, equal in their love and 
concern for their children, united in a status privileged and fostered by law? 2 * 
If the Constitution did not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics, neither 
did it enact Ms. Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch. 

"/. The Mandated Public Funding of Abortion. 
ind Doc as interpreted by the federal courts not only treat the 
procreation of children atomistically as if it were the individual activity 
of women, married and unmarried. They require that public funds be spent 
on abortion if public funds are spent on health. They make it highly unlikely, 
for example, that a national health bill can be enacted which constitutionally 
excludes abortion from the services to be federally financed. 

The cases arr these: Nyberg v. City of Virginia, Doe v. Wohlgemuth and 
Aiello V. Eas8( 

iberg, decided by the federal district court in Minnesota, held that a 
municipal hospital must provide abortion services and invalidated the hospital's 
triction of abortion to that necessary to save a mother's life. Judge Neville 
Mid, ! to this court that Roe V. Wade leaves no room for exception or 

for equivocation. Its mandate is clear and explicit." Applying it, he required 
"the hospital administrators to take positive steps within a period of 30 days 
from date hereof to provide abortion services and facilities to licensed phvsi- 

• ••»»■ 

!. Wohlgemuth held unconstitutional a portion of Pennsylvania's medical 

under the Social Security Act. The program compensated 

abortions performed when continuation of pregnancy threatened the 

Itfl or life of the mother, but did not pay for elective abortions. Speaking 

f article. 



219 

for a three-judge federal court, Judge Snyder held that the program "deprived 
the women who choose abortions of the equal protection rights guaranteed by 
the 14th amendment." The state, he said, could not "justify ou the basis 
financial integrity" a regulation excluding a woman who exercised her con- 
stitutional right not to bear a child. 26 

3. Aicllo held unconstitutional a California statute exempting pregnancy- 
related work loss from coverage under the state disability program. Without 
distinguishing between disability due to normal childbirth and disability due 
to an abortion, a three-judge federal court held that the state must pay for all 
pregnancy-related disabilities. No rational distinction, the court held, could be 
drawn between disability due to an abortion and disability due to delivery of a 
child."" 7 On appeal the Supreme Court held that the state need not compensate 
for work loss due to normal childbirth.-' The state of California failed to appeal 
the ruling that it must pay for abortions. 

The general principle of these cases was put in a ease from the First Circuit 
where, after Roe and Doe were decided, the federal court ruled that the City 
of Worcester must provide sterilization services in its municipal hospital. The 
State, Judge Coffin wrote, could not "constitutionally draw the line at medi- 
cally indistinguishable surgical procedures that impinge on fundamental 
rights."™ The city hospital was bound by statute to care for persons "requir- 
ing relief during temporary sickness." The hospital performed surgery on 
"benign tumors which caused subsequent neurological problems." The "appel- 
lant's capacity for childbearing", the court ruled, should be treated similarly 
as a form of sickness. 30 

As long as these interpretations of Roe and Doc are the law, the states and 
the Congress will not, it seems, be able to create health programs which, in 
providing surgical assistance, draw the line at elective abortion. Again, by 
Holmes' standard, is this good constitutional law? Must a reasonable and fair 
man agree that fundamental principles as understood by our people and by our 
law have been infringed when the majority of people of a state act through 
their legislatures to deny government support to abortion? Roe and Doe, as 
interpreted, have read the 14th amendment to create a right to the public 
financing of abortion. 

Third. The Unmaking of Human Beings. 

The worst of the consequences of Roc and Doc is the acceptance of the 
principle that the law can say who is not a human being. All of our con- 
stitutional liberties are nothing if we can be defined out of the human spe- 
cies. In Drcd Scott v. Sanford the Supreme Court declared thai the descend- 
ant of Africans could never be a citizen of the United States. 1 ' 1 but even that 
most dreadful of decisions did not carry so far as Roe and Doc. These de- 
cisions, as now interpreted by the courts, arrogate to the courts the power 
to decide who is human. 

Hear, for example. Chief Judge Pettine in Providence, ruling on a Rhode 
Island statute, enacted after Roc and Doc. which expressly declared that in 
Rhode Island a person "commences to exist at the instant of conception." 1 ' 
The State produced witnesses with credentials the judge acknowledged to 
be impressive to testify that the embryo was a member of the human species. 
"I neither summarize nor make any findings of fact as to their testimony. To 
me the United States Supreme Court made it unmistakably clear that the 
question of when life begins needed no resolution by the judiciary as it was 
not a question of fact. ... I find it irrelevant to all the issues presented for 
adjudications." 33 Once the Supreme Court had ruled that a fetus was not n 
person, it was, Judge Petine held, "frivolous" for a state to try to show the 
contrary. 34 The Rhode Island statute was invalidated. The "First Circuit 
affirmed. The Supreme Court refused to review the ruling that Rhode Island 
had acted so frivolously that a single federal judge could annul its legisla- 
tion. 38 

Lawyers are used to dealing with presumptions with creations of law. with 
fictions. At first appearance the denial of humanity to the fetus may appear 
as just another fiction, not more shocking than many other fictions necessary 
for the working of law. For the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, the 
fetus is not human; for the purpose of the Social Security Act, the fetus i^ 
human 38 — distinctions of this kind are common in the law. What is shocking, 
repelling, fatal in this distinction, in this fiction is that the courts here assume 
the power to exclude a species of humanity in determining fundamental pro- 
See footnotes at end of article. 

See footnotes at end of article. 



220 
ttM , lllU ^er the Constitution and to exclude that species beyond the power 
01 FfSZSS&STEU Persons only exist at jirMj a^ = 

lD S ?£ ;■ i f e^st?SrrfaS W a?e S ESSSfflSiSlff wL^s 

SSSS ^«£lS3£?SS^ the judiciary has absolute power to con- 
tact toe Protection of the Constitution to the Healthy or the menta lly alert. 

Hv Bolmes" standard, what kind of constitution-making u this' By any 

»fWDtable Btandard what kind of constitution-making is this.' Must a rea- 

ffi b SLTS?Sn agree that, when seven members of the Supreme Court 

decide thai the offspring of human persons is not a human person, runua 

e , tal principles as understood by our people and our law are infringed if a 
State calls attention to the facts and says, "You are mistaken. Ihe child is 
bum an." 

III. WHAT MUST BE DONE 

Proposed regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
on sei discrimination in federally assisted programs of education now read: 
•For the purpose of this subpart, •pregnancy' means the entire process of 
pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery therefrom, and includes false pregnancy, 
irriage, and abortion." " 
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength", and of govern- 
ment departments the Ministry of Love is "the really frightening one. I 
quote of course from Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. Even Orwell 
did nol imagine a world in which the Ministry of Health defines pregnancy to 
include abortion. Nor did he imagine a society in which ehildbearing capacity 
nalogized to a tumor causing neurological problems, in which a father has 
no interest in the life of the child he has begotten, in which the State need not 
pay for childbirth but must pay for abortion, and in which biological facts are 
irrelevant to the definition of human life. Yet to that society we have come 
througb our courts in the second year after Roe and Doe. 

c.urts are not omnipotent. They do not act alone. They interact with other 
fan mis in the social stream. But they can give a powerful impetus to par- 
ticular factors. Their decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court, select 
and sanctify certain principles and thereby educate our people. These de- 
cisions have selected and sanctified principles of death. 

What is necessary is law setting the country in the direction of distinguish- 
ing between death and life. No less a law than an Amendment to the Con- 
stitution can effect this change. The states are helpless. Minnesota has seen 
municipal hospitals compelled to provide abortion. 40 California, New York 
and Pennsylvania have seen themselves compelled to fund abortions. 41 Alabama 
lias seen its moral standard for school teachers set aside. 42 Arizona, Con- 

ticut, Florida. Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky. Maryland, Michigan, Montana, 

Rhode Island. South Carolina. Texas. Utah and Wyoming have seen their 
tutes on abortion formally declared unconstitutional. 4 " It has made no 
difference to the courts that large popular votes before Roc and Doe rejected 
change in the statutes, as in Michigan in November 1972. ** It has made no 
difference that the legislatures attempted to act within the openings they 
thought /.''« and Doe had left as did Rhode Island and Utah. 45 The judges 
have not doubted that they knew better what liberty in the Fourteenth 
Amendment requires. All the attempts of the people have been struck down. 
Only an Amendment can now change the law. 

At Issue is the balance of power between the federal judiciary and the 
W issue is the structure of the family as the legally recognized union 
of female and male endowed with equal rights. At issue is the role of gov- 
ernment in sponsoring the taking of life through government medical services 
and health care programs. Ahove all, at issue is the law's ability to defend 
the life of every member of the human species. 

An Amendment cannot speak on these issues with the precision of a crimi- 
nal code, dotting every i. resolving every contingency. An Amendment can 
on the grand lines of the First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments, 



• not.s at end of article. 



221 

educating the country. In the bicentennial of our birth, an Amendment can 
set out the values on which our polity depends, it can correct the pervi 
of liberty, in Roe and Doe, it can restrain the State from taking life, it can 
recognize that the most precious liberty is tbe liberty to live and restore the 
possibility of protecting by law a uniquely vulnerable portion of the human 
species. 



*157 U.S. 429 (1895). 

2 19 How. 393 (1856). 

3 Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). 
* Ibid, at 75 (dissent). 

6 See John T. Noonan, Jr., ed.. The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Per- 
spectives (1970) 223-225. 

» Ibid. 225, 248-250. 

7 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) at 160. 

8 Ibid, at 162. 
»Ibid. at 165. 

10 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) at 1972. 

11 Ibid, at 208 (concurrence) 

12 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 at 153. 

"Eisenstadt v. Baud, 405 U.S. 43S at 472 (dissent) (1972). 

14 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 at 152, quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 0.8 319 
325 (1937). 

is Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 at 163. At 163 the Court says that the States "com- 
pelling interest" in the mothers health begins only at the end of "the first trimest-r 
At 164 the Court says the abortion decision in the first trimester "must be left to 
the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician." 

w For a further analysis, see Noonan, "Raw Judicial Power", National Review 
March 3, 1973 [attached hereto as Appendix A]. 

17 Drcd Scott 17. Sanford, 19 How. 393 at 620 (dissent). 
™Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 at 222 (dissent). 

18 floe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 at 165. 

20 Coe v. Oerstein, Reporter on Human Reproduction and the Law I-C-2 (S.D. Fla., 
August 13, 1973), appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, 42 U.S. Law Week :;•;•; 
(1974). 

^Doe v. Rampton, 366 F. Supp. 189 (D. Utah, September 7, 1973). 

22 Drake V. Covington County Board of Education, 371 F. Supp. 974 (N.D. Ala. 
January 23, 1974). 

^DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 39 Cal.2d 858 at 863, 250 P.2d 598 at 601 (1952). 

24 For a discussion of Roe and Doe in the context of recent Supreme Court decisions 
touching marriage and the family, see Noonan, "The Family and the Supreme Court", 
23 Cath. Univ. L. Rev. 255 (1974) [attached hereto as Appendix B]. 

^Nyberg v. City of Virginia, 361 F. Supp. 932 at 938 (D. Minn. 1973). 

28 Doe v. Wohlgemuth, Reporter on Human Reproduction and the Law I-C-49 (W. 1). 
Penn., May 3, 1974) (Judge Weis dissenting). 

27 Aiello v. Hassen, Reporter on Human Reproduction and the Law I-C-50 (I>. No 
Cal., March 31, 1973) (Judge Williams dissenting) 
^Oedulgig v. Aiello, 94 S. Ct. 2485 (June 17, 1974). 

29 Hathaway v. Worcester City Hospital, 475 F.2d 701 at 706 (1st Clr., March 22. 
1973). 

30 Ibid, at 705. 

™Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393 at 403, 427 (1858). 

32 Rhode Island Criminal Abortion Statute 73-S287, Substitute A, Rhode Island 
General Laws, sec. 11-3-1, set out in Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 193 (D.R.I., May 16, 
1973). 

&Doe v. Israel, 35S F. Supp. 1193 at 1197. 

34 Ibid, at 1199. 

35 42 U.S. Law Week 3632 (May 13. 1974). 

38 E.g. Doe v. Lukhard, 493 F.2d 54 (4th Clr. 1974). 

37 floe r. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 at 163 (1973). 

38 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Education Programs and Aetlv 
ltles Receiving or Benefitting from Federal Financial Assistance", 86.47(c), Federal 
Register, June 20, 1974, p. 22237. 

39 George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) 17-ls. 

40 Nyberg v. City of Virginia, supra n. 25. 

"Klein v. Nassau County Medical Center, 347 F. Supp. 490 (E.I). N.Y. 1973); 
Wohlgemuth v. Doe, supra n. 26. 

42 Drake v. Covington County Board of Education, supra, n. 22. 

"Arizona: Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc., 19 Ariz. App 142, 
505 P.2d 580, 590 (1973); Connecticut: Abcle V. Markle, 369 F. Supp. 807 (D. Conn 
1973) ; Florida : Coe v. Oerstein, Reporter on Human Reproduction ami the Law 
I-C-2 (S.D. Fla. 1973); Georgia: Doe V. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973); Iowa: Do 
Turner, 361 F. Supp. 12SS (S.D. Iowa 1973). Kentucky: Sasaki r. Commonwealth. 491 
S.W.2d 713 (1973); Maryland: State v. Ingel, 1^ Md. App. 514, 308 V-M 223 (197 
Michigan: People v. Bricker, 389 Mich. 524, 208 N.W.2d 173 (1973); Montana: Dot 
v. Woodall, Reporter on Human Reproduction and the Law I-C-30 (D. Mont liiT.'t' 
Rhode Island: Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193 (D.R.I. 197:;). affirmed 4S2 F.2d 156; 
cerr. denied 42 U.S. Law Week 3632 (1974); South Carolina: State v. Lawrence, ins 
S.E.2d (1973); Texas: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Utah: Doe v. Hampton, 
366 F. Supp. 189 (1973); Wyoming: Doe r. Burk, Reporter on Human Reproduction 
and the Law I-C-9 (1973). 

"■Time, November 13, 1972. 

45 Supra, a. 21 and 32. 



222 

Appendix A 

Raw Judcial Power 

(By John T. Noonan, Jr.) 

On January 22, P.)73, the Supreme Court of the United States deciding 
R(H v. Wmli ami !>'„■ v. Bolton announced that a new personal liberty existed 
in tlu- Constitution— the liberty of a woman to procure the termination of 
her pregnancy at any time in its course. The Court was not sure where the 
Constitution had mentioned this right, although the Court was clear that 
the Constitution had not mentioned it explicitly. "We feel," said Justice Black- 
mum for the majority, "that the right is located in the Fourteenth Amend- 
ment s concept of personal liberty," but he thought that it also could be placed 
•in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people" (Wade, pp. 
37-3* i. Vague as to the exact constitutional provision, the Court was sure of 
its power to proclaim an exact constitutional mandate. It propounded a doc- 
trine on human life which had, until then, escaped the notice of the Congress 
of the United .States and the legislators of all fifty states. It set out criteria 
it said were required by the Constitution which made invalid the regulation 
of abortion in every state in the Union, the District of Columbia, the Com- 
monwealth of Puerto Rico, and the City of New York. No one of these bodies 
had read the Constitution right. 

Wherever the liberty came from in the Constitution and however recent 
its discovery was, it was of a very high rank. It deserved to be classified as 
"fundamental" and as "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (Wade, 
p. 37). With these characterizations, the right took its place with such founda- 
tions of* civilized society as the requirement of fair, public trials. Justice 
Blackmum seemed to sense no incongruity in giving so basic a position to a 
demand which had, until his opinion, been consistently and unanimously re- 
ed by the people of the United States. He did not pause to wonder how 
the nation had survived before January 22. 1973 in steadfastly repudiating a 
right implied in the concept of ordered liberty. 

Some of the legislation affected was old. going back to the mid-nineteenth 
century, some was recent, reflecting the wisdom of the American Law Insti- 
tute or containing explicit statements of intent to protect the fetus. Some of 
the legislation had been continued by recent popular referenda, as in Michigan 
and North Dakota; some of the legislation was in the process of repeal, as 
in New York. Old or new, compromise or complete protection from conception, 
passed by nineteenth-century males or confirmed by popular vote of both 
(8, maintained by apathy or reaffirmed in vigorous democratic battle, none 
of the existing legislation on abortion conformed to the Court's criteria. By 
this basic fact alone. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton may stand as the most 
radical decisions ever issued by the Supreme Court. 

That these opinions come from a Court substantially dominated by appointees 
of ., President dedicated to strict construction of the Constitution, that they 
should be drafted by a Justice whose antecedents are Republican, are ironies 
which do not abate the revolutionary character of what the Court has done 
in the exercise of whal Justice White, in dissent, calls "raw judicial power." 
In rhetoric, the style is that of a judicial body. In substance, the opinions 
could have been authored by Paul Ehrlich or Bella Abzug. 

Radicalism marks not only the Court's treatment of the states and its 
preference for the views of an elite to the results of democratic contests. 
Radicalism is also the mark of the Court's results. In October 1963 Glanville 
Williams, the spiritual father of abortion-on-demand, put the proposition to 
the Abortion Law Reform Association that abortion be made a matter between 
woman and physician up to the end of the third month. His proposal was 
voted down by the then most organized advocates of abortion. In less than 
ten yeara the Supreme Court has written into the Constitution a far more 
radical doctrine By virtue of its opinions, human life has less protection in 
the United States today than at any time since the inception of the country. 
By virtue of its opinions, human life has less protection in the United States 
than in any country of the Western world. 

THE COURT'S HOLDINGS 
Did the Court really go so far? Here is what it held: 

Until a human being is "viable" or "capable of meaningful life," a state 
has no compelling interest" which justifies it in restricting in any way in 



223 

favor of the fetus a woman's fundamental personal liberty of abortion ( Hade, 
p. 48). For six months, or "usually" for seven months (the Court's reckoning, 
p. 45), the fetus is denied the protection of law by virtue of either the Ninth 
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. 

2. After viability has been reached, the human being is not a person "in 
the whole sense," so that even after viability he or she is nol protected 
by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that life shall not he taken with- 
out due process of law ( Wade, p. 47). At this point lie or she is, however, 
legally recognizable as "potential life" {Wade, p. 48). 

3. A sate may nonetheless not protect a viable human being by prevent- 
ing an abortion undertaken to preserve the health of the mother ( Wade, p. 
48). Therefore a fetus of seven, eight, or nine months is subordinated by 
the Constitution to the demand for abortion predicated on health. 

4. What the health of a mother requires in any particular case is a medi- 
cal judgment to be "exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emo- 
tional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the well- 
being of the patient" (Bolton, pp. 11-12). 

5. The state may require that all abortions be done by licensed physicians, 
that after the first trimester they be performed in licensed "facilities," anil 
that after viability they be regulated so long as "health" abortions are not 
denied (Trade, p. 49). The state is constitutionally barred, however, from 
requiring review of the abortion decision by a hospital committee or concur- 
rence in the decision by two physicians other than the attending physician 
(Bolton, p. 17, p. 19). The Constitution also prohibits a state from requiring 
that the abortion be in a hospital licensed by the Joint Committee on Ac- 
creditation of Hospitals or indeed that it be in a hospital at all (Bolton, pp. 
14-15). 

With belated misgivings, Chief Justice Burger concludes his breif concur- 
rence in Justice Blackmun's opinion with the sentence: "Plainly, the Court 
today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion-on-demand." 
Here is a desperate effort to recapture in a sentence what the Court has 
given away in its list of criteria mandated by the Constitution. Plainly, there 
cannot be the slightest argument that for the first six to seven months of 
fetal exitence, the Court has made abortion-on-demand a constitutional right. 
Opposed to the mother's "fundamental personal liberty," the embryo or fetus 
is valued at precisely zero. His or her very existence seems to be doubted by 
the Court which refers to the state's interest here not as an interest in actual 
interest in actual lives but as an interest in a "theory of life" {Wade, p. 47). 
The woman's right is treated as an absolute, abridgeable only for her own 
sake by the requierments as to licensed physicians and facilities. 

Abortion-on-demand after the first six or seven months of fetal existence 
has been effected by the Court through its denial of personhood to the viable 
fetus, on the one hand, and through its broad definition of health, on the 
other. Because the seven-month-old fetus is not a person — cannot be a person 
as long as it is a fetus— because it now bears the label "potential life," the 
fetus is not a patient whose interest the physician must consult. In the 
Court's scheme, the physician has one person as patient, the mother. 

When the doctor considers the mother's health, he is to think in terms ol 
the extensive definition of health first popularized by the World Health 
Organization (WHO). According to the WHO declaration, health is "a state 
of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not simply the absence 
of illness and disease." The Supreme Court now affixes a seal of approval 
to this definition, substituting "familial" for "social," but essentially equating 
health with well-being. What physican could now be shown to have per- 
formed an aborton, at any time in the pregnancy, which was not intended 
to be for the well-being of the mother? What person would have difficulty in 
finding a phvsician who, in full compliance with the Court's criteria, could 
advise an abortion if the patient's emotional demand was intense enough? 
Never before in British or American law has a baby in the last stages ol 
pregnancy been so exposed to destruction at the desire of the parent. 

THE COURT'S REASONING 

How did this Supreme Court reach this extraordinary result? In part 
through an inept use of history, in part through a schizophrenic style 01 
judicial interpretation, in part through a conscious response to the needs 
technocracy. 



224 

I ,, as took al the history. Justice Blackmun's opinion in Wade contains a 
copious gob of it. (Wade, pp. 14-36). By and large it is a conscientious if 
Parian review of the relevant literature. But it is a history that >s un- 
digested— better said, it is history that has been untested. It has afforded no 
nourishment to the mind of the judge who set it out. He has not let it 
encage his spirit. He has not felt the pressure of loyalty to the persons of 
the past who have shaped our culture. He has not responded as a person to 

their perceptions. 

rustice Blackinun describes with clarity the reason the American Medical 
•elation led the flght in the nineteenth century for statutory protection of 
the embryo "the popular ignorance of the true character of the crime— a 
belief even among mothers themselves that the fetus is not alive till after 
the period of quickening"; the consequent "unwarrantable destruction of 
human life" before the fifth month. He concludes. "The attitude of the pro- 
fession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent 
abortion legislation during that period" [Wade, pp. 26-27). But the umm- 
peachable facts are apparently forgotten when Justice Blackmun discusses 
the claim that the purpose of American statutory law was not to protect 
the fetus, but to protect the mother from sepsis or other risks attendant on 
abdominal surgery in the unsanitary hospitals of the day. The Justice does 
nut ask why the' statutes then bar abortion by drug, or why this kind of 
surgery alone should have been made subject to the criminal law and cus- 
tomarily classed among "Crime against the Person." 

Tf Justice Blackmum can read the history, cite the American Medical As- 
sociation jeremiads, and trace the development of the law. and yet be un- 
ain as to the law's intent, it must be that he has failed to grasp, failed 
to integrate, the purposes which animated our ancestors in laying down a 
thick wall of protection about the baby in the womb. History for him has not 
the evocation of persons in fidelity to their fundamental purposes. It 
has been a charade which is shuffled off the stage when the display of learn- 
ing i^ completed. 

What of the schizoid style of judicial interpretation favored by the Jus- 
i)n the one hand, he declares the Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 
1868, refers to ;i personal liberty which bad escaped attention for over a 
century a liberty which, as Justice Rehnquist observes in dissent, would, if 
noticed, have invalidated the state stattues on abortion in force in 1868. 
Needless to say. not a single word of history is adduced to show that the 
framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Congress which proposed it and 
the states which passed it. intended to legitimize abortion. In this branch 
of his opinion. Justice Blackmun is an evolutionist. Constitutions must be 
re-interpreted or remade to speak to the times. If liberty means one thing 
in TsiVs and .something entirely different in 1073. it is what one must expect 
of a basic document exposed to a variety of times and conditions. As Justice 
kmun says in an oblique reference to the process which he has followed, 
his holding is consistent "with the demands of the profound problems of the 
Wade, p. ."0). 
On the other hand, in determining the meaning of "person" in the Four- 
teenth Amendment's guarantee, the Justice is curiously wooden. He looks at 
what person meant literally at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. 
He notes what person must have meant in other clauses of the document. He 
rves that fetuses are not enumerated in the census. But he does not ask if 
the new biological data on the fetus compels the Court to be as evolutionary 
in its definition of person as it is in its definition of liberty. He refrains 
looking squarely at the fact of fetal existence. He takes the term person 
f its meaning had been frozen forever. Contrary to the radical substance 
of the rest of his opinion, he is here, uniquely, a strict constructionist. 

ler the use of history nor the method of construing the Constitution 

Why (lie Court reached the result it did: and the Court has been sc 

curiously circumspect about revealing its reasoning that a commentator is 

forced to fall back on hints and to resort to inferences. Four features of the 

opinions are suggestive : 

' •'■ kmun in an excusatory preamble states that he is aware of 

motional nature of the abortion controversy" and concludes 

admonition from Holmes that judges should not' brand a statute 

nitional merely because it embodies opinions which to them are 

■ •] and even shocking" (Wade, pp. 1-2). Would it be rash to support that 



225 

Justice Blackmun saw the appropriateness of this advice, even as be did not 
follow it, when he encountered the opinion that a fetus is a person? To one 
vocal segment of American thought, few things could be so novel or shock- 
ing as the suggestion that a fetus has human right. If Justice Blackmun 
accepted the viewpoint dominant in the media, he could readily have been 
shocked at the postulates underlying the statutes on abortion. 

2. "Population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones" are men- 
tioned by name only on page one of Wade as matters "tending to complicate 
the problem." They then disappear from view only to be embraced in the 
vague but comprehensive self-justification of the Court's holding: It is •con- 
sistent with" the "demands of the profound problems of the present day" 
(Wade, p. 50). Studiously ignored is the recommendation of the Rockefeller 
Commission that abortion be used as a secondary form of population control. 
Studiously ignored is the comment of black leaders like .lesse Jackson that 
what is being prepared by the welfare bureaucrats is a program of genocide 
in the womb. And yet the Court, looking back as it were on its handiwork. 
says its holding responds to profound problems of the present. Whal prob 
lems fall within the Court's solution but the problems id' controlling popula- 
tion growth, the problems of the welfare bureaucracy curtailing welfare rolls'.' 

3. The Court declares that if those trained in medicine, philosophy, and 
theology are unable to arrive at a consensus as to when life begins, then 
"the judiciary is not in a position to speculate as to the answer" ( Wade, p. 
44). Incompetence in the area is avowed. 

Three pages later, Justice Blackmum describes the abortion statute of Texas 
as "adopting one theory of life" and rejects that theory as a ground for regu- 
lating abortion. Is this the judiciary "speculating as to the answer'' or j s it 
not? How can Texas — and the other states with comparable statutes — be 
wrong in protecting fetal life against an arbitrary extinction unless the 
majority of the Court knows better when life begins? The pretense of in- 
competence seems to be humbug. 

Beneath the avowal of incompetence is a commitment to a particular theol- 
ogy or theory of human life. Life is an interest worthy of state protection 
when it acquires the characteristic of "viability" or "the capability of mean- 
ingful life outside the mother's womb." At this point, state protection has 
"both logical and biological justification" (Wade, p. 48). At this point, in 
short, life has characteristics that other humans may recognize. At this point, 
functionally, the Justice says human life begins. 

As both a logical and biological matter, however, viability depends entirely 
on the relation of a human being's capacities to the environment in which 
he or she is placed. As Andre Hellegers has pointed out an adult stripped 
naked and placed on the North Pole suddenly becomes nonviable. Analogously, 
a fetus ripped from his mother's womb suffers a sudden loss of the capability 
to survive. In the environment in which he or she has been existing, however. 
the fetus was as viable as any of us in our houses. 

Neither logic nor biology seems to help in explaining why Justice Blackmum 
chose the point in the continuum he picked for recognition. Hut he has 
thrown out another phrase for our guidance — "capability id" meaningful life.'' 
Here, it may be, lies the heart of the matter. What it is appropriate for 
the state to protect is not a human being, but a human being with the "capabil- 
ity of meaningful life." Human life is defined in terms of this capability. 
Qualitative standards of the life worthy of protection are to prevail, as 
Joseph Fletcher is reported to have joyously greeted the decision. Our old 
way of looking on all human existence as sacred is to be replaced by a new 
ethic more discriminating in choosing who shall live and who shall die. The 
concept of "meaningful life" is at the core of these decisions. 

4. Who shall make the judgment that life has meaning or the capability 
of meaning? On this key point, it is not. perhaps, unfair to suspect Justice 
Blackmum of being an elitist, or, if one prefers, a technocrat. 

The twin opinions breathe an extraordinary respect for the medical pro- 
fession. Their explicit presupposition is that a "conscientious physician'' 
using his best professonal judgment — not "degraded" by having his judgment 
reviewed by colleagues (Bolton, p. 16) — will determine whether the fetus shall 
live or died. Turning the community's protection of human life over to the 
judgment of the technician who will perform the operation. Justice Blackmum 
goes so far as one judge could go to brin* about the technocratic Utopia BO 
wittily and so unsparingly described in Brave New World. 



226 

A largo ironv of the opinions is this. The Fourteenth Amendment, made 
;v by an earlier Supreme Court's attempt to make it legally impos- 
Bible to protect the personal rights of a free hlack, is here made the source of 
holdings which made it legally impossible to protect the personal rights of a 
fetus. Forever denied the status of person "in the whole sense of the term," 
r subordinated to the psychological health of his mother, the baby in 
imb has been deprived of the possibility of protection by state or fed- 
eral law. It would be a waste of valuable energy to exert any effort at amend- 
ing the abortion laws to achieve in the last two or three months of fetal 
life the uncertain protection which the Court does not outalw. 

major irony is that the Court's alternative authority for the right 
to abort is the Ninth Amendment. This Amendment reads: "The enumeration 
in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not lie construed to deny or dis- 
parage otb.rs retained by the people." The people had already spoken on abor- 
tion through the legislatures of fifty states. In Michigan and North Dakota. 
crushing majorities of the people had. as recently as November 1972, re- 
the demand that abortion be allowed on five-month-old fetuses. Who 
would contend that what Justice Blackmum and his six colleagues legislated 
could as law in Congress or in any popular referendum? How could 

the rights of the people be more effectively "disparaged" by an elite than 
veil members of a court to pronounce their efforts at controlling as- 
saults on life to be unconstitutional? 

These ironies suggest that the solution must be drastic. A majority which 
will mock the people with the doctrines of technocratic elitism will not stay 
its hand if confronted with new legislation not conforming to its sovereign 
mandate. The root of the problem must be reached. Two lines of attack are 
possible. They could be pursued concurrently: 

First. The Court could be expanded from nine to 15. This solution could be 
labeled "The Abraham Lincoln Solution." It is the idea he put forward in 
the famous Lincoln- Douglas debates, when Douglas insisted that Dred Scott 
was the law of the land. Douglas, he observed, had been one of five new 
judges added to the Supreme Court of Illinois, "to break down the four old 
ones." Was nut. he implied, a change in membership in the Court a constitu- 
tional way of correcting a bad decision? 

In many minds sensitive to the Court's place in our institutional structure 
there must be reluctance to change the traditional number in response to a 
particular decision. The "court-packing" plan of Franklin D. Rooseve't and 
■i i ir opposition it engendered come to mind. Nonetheless, there is reason 
why an expansion of the Court may he considered at this time as more than 
an ad hoc answer to a decision. A committee appointed by the Chief Justice 
himself (the "Freund Committee") has proposed that the Court be relieved 
of many of its burdens by the creation of a national appellate for adjudication 
by the Supreme Court itself. The plain implication of the proposal is that 
nine justices are far too few to handle the enormous modern increase in the 
Court's business. Expansion of the Court to 15 would meet this problem 
directly without the disadvantage of bifurcating the functions of the highest 
tribunal. Expansion can be rationally justified as a functional necessity at the 
time that it affords a vehicle for restoring the rights of the people. 
Expansion has a practical basis. Its political attractiveness does not need 
underlining. It is, still, however a temporary response. It does not meet the 
moral Issue at it- deepest level, it does not provide constitutional protection 
for human life in the future. 

The second possible course, then, is to follow the approach actually taken 

' I Scott: Amend the Constitution. Under Wade and Bolton the 

in never be a person within the Fourteenth Amendment, the people 

can never vote (,, gi V€ effective protection fo the fetus. Verv well, let the 

I Pie defend the fetus by a new amendment. 

people might go further. They might defend not only humans in the 
but all nonviable humans— all humans threatened with possible classi- 
fication as being lacking the "capability of meaningful life." The infant 
offering from genetic deficiencies, the retarded child, the insane or senile 
potential victims of a "quality of life" mystique could 
be defended by a Human Life Amendment to our Constitution. 



227 

APPENDIX B 

The Family and the Supreme Courtt 



John T. Noonan, Jr.* 



The Court and the Status of Marriage; A Progress in Three Phases 

The Supreme Court's treatment of marriage is conveniently divided into 
three phases — Phase One, in which the Court was the self-proclaimed 
defender of Christian marriage; Phase Two, in winch the Court was the 
creator of partial marriage; and Phase Three, in which the Court became 
the upholder of no marriage. 

Phase One began in the last quarter of the nineteenth century when the 
Court first concerned itself to a substantial degree with marriage. This 
was the era of the Mormon polygamy cases. This was the era when Chief 
Justice Waite sounded precisely like his contemporary, Pope Leo XIII, 
in declaring marriage to be "from its very nature a sacred obligation"; 1 
when Justice Matthews echoed the Book of Common Prayer in saying hus- 
band and wife are united "in the holy estate of matrimony"; 2 when Justice 
Field upheld an Idaho statute against bigamy because "[bjigamy and polyg- 
amy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries"; 3 
and when Justice Bradley sustained the forfeiture of the property of the 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because the organization of a 
community for the practice of polygamy is "contrary to the spirit of Chris- 
tianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the West- 
ern world." 4 The last time these words of Justice Bradley were quoted 

t Originally delivered as the Ninth Annual Pope John XXT1I Lecture, the Catho- 
lic University Law School, October 19, 1973. The Law Review takes pride in publishing 
Professor Noonan's in-depth study of the inferences that may be drawn from the recent 
decisions of the Supreme Court. The author is indebted for comments to Jesse Choper, 
Caleb Footc, and Paul Mishkin. 

* Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley; A.B., 1947 Harvard; M.A., 
1951; Ph.D., 1951 Catholic University of America; LL.B., 1954 Harvard. 

1. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165 (1878); cf. Leo XIII, Arcanum 
divinac sapienfiac, 12 Acta SANCTAr; SEDIS 385-88 (1880). 

2. Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15,45 (1885). 

3. Davis v. Benson, 133 U.S. 333, 341 (1890). 

4. The Laic Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United 
States, 136 U.S. 1, 49 (1890). 



228 
256 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



with approval by the Court was 1946 by Justice Douglas, confirming the 
conviction of certain fundamentalist Mormons as white slavers for marrying 
more than one woman at one time. 5 

Phase Two occurred at the time of World War II and its aftermath when 
the rapid rise in marital breakups put the greatest strain upon the formal 
divorce law of the states. The Court in Williams I r ' upheld a Nevada divorce 
for visitors to Nevada from North Carolina; permitted in Williams IP the 
state of North "Carolina to show that the visitors were, after all, North 
Carolina domiciliaries over whom Nevada had no jurisdiction and whom 
North Carolina might prosecute for bigamy; let Connecticut in Rice v. 
Rice* treat as a widow in Connecticut the former wife of a Connecticut 
resident who had received a divorce valid in Nevada; decided in May v. 
Anderson 9 that a custody decree valid in Wisconsin would not bind one of 
the parents who lived in Ohio; and held in Vanderbill v. Vanderbilt™ that 
a divorce valid in Nevada and New York would not prevent an ex-Vander- 
bilt spouse from obtaining a support order as a wife in New York. 

The result of these decisions was that you could be free to marry in one 
state and be liable in another to personal support of your former spouse, 
stalulory claims on your estate, and prosecution for bigamy. You could 
be entitled to your children in one court system and be denied your children 
in another. You could be a somewhere wife or a somewhere husband. You 
could be a husband who could not be a widower, a widower who could not 
be a husband, a wife who could not be a widow, and a widow who could 
not be a wife. 11 Rice v. Rice prompted Justice Jackson to invoke Macbeth: 
"Confusion now hath made his masterpiece." 12 Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 
decided after fifteen years of wrestling with these issues, made Justice 
Frankfurter exclaim the Court is "turning the constitutional law of marital 
relations topsy-turvy." 13 The Court had created divisible divorce, mobile 
marriage, or, most accurately, partial marriage. 

Phase Three is modern. It began in 1968 with Levy v. Louisiana. 14 
The Court held that a state may not discriminate against those born out of 
wedlock in any action for the tortious death of a mother. In almost the 



5. Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 19 (1946). 

6 Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942). 

7. Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945). 

8. 336 U.S. 674 (1949). 

9. 345 U.S. 528 (1953). 

10. 354 U.S. 416 (1957). 

11. Paraphrasing Justice Jackson in Rice v. Rice, 336 U.S. 674, 680 (1949) (dis- 
senting opinion). 

12. Id. at 676, quoting Macbeth, Act II, scene III, line 65. 

13. Vandcibilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U.S. 416, 425 (dissenting opinion). 

14. 391 U.S. 68 (1968). 






229 
1973] Family and the Court 257 



same breath, the Court held in Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability 
Insurance Co. that a state may not discriminate against the mother in an action 
for the tortious death of a child born out of wedlock. 15 None of the justices in 
the majority or in the minority drew any distinction between discrimination 
against the child and discrimination against the mother. 

Labine v. Vincent,™ decided in 1971, backtracked. The Court held 
that a state might discriminate against a child born out of wedlock. The 
state might deny him the right to inherit from the man who had publicly 
acknowledged him to be his son. Justice Black declared: 

There is no biological difference between a wife and a concubine, 
nor does the Constitution require that there be such a difference 
before the State may assert its power to protect the wife and her 
children against the claims of a concubine and her children. The 
social difference between a wife and a concubine is analogous to 
the difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate child. One 
set of relationships is socially sanctioned, legally recognized, and 
gives rise to various rights and duties. The other set of relation- 
ships is illicit and beyond the recognition of the law. 17 

The state's power to create and sanction discriminations based on marriage 
was thus roundly asserted in terms the ninctecndi century Court would have 
understood. 

A year after Justice Black's opinion, the Court decided Weber v. Aetna 
Casualty & Surety Co. 16 Children adulterously born out of wedlock sought 
compensation under a Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of their 
father. Compensation was decreed, and the state statute barring it was invali- 
dated. For the Court Justice Powell wrote, "The status of illegitimacy has 
expressed through the ages society's condemnation of irresponsible liaisons 
beyond the bonds of marriage. But visiting tJiis condemnation on the head 
of an infant is illogical and unjust .... Obviously, no child is responsible 
for his birth. . . . " 19 

The principle set out was large enough to condemn the discrimination 
just approved in Labine. Conceivably, to avoid fraud, a state could still 
set a high standard of proof of parentage for children born out of wedlock 
when their asserted parent was dead. An absolute rejection of their rights 
was irreconcilable with Weber. At the end of 1972, the Court affirmed 
per curiam Ricliardson v. Davis. 20 The Social Security Administration, by 



15. Glona v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 391 U.S. 73 (1968). 

16. Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532 (1971). 

17. Id. at 538. 

18. 406 U.S. 164 (1972). 

19. Id. at 175. 

20. 409 U.S. 1069 (1972), affg 342 F. Supp. 588 (D. Conn. 1972). 



230 
258 Catfwlic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



incorporating the state's inheritance laws, had put children born out of wed- 
lock in a second class position for receiving social security benefits on tlieir 
falhcr's death. The Court agreed with the District Court that the discrimina- 
tion was unconstitutional. Per curiam the next month, January 1973, 
the Court decided Gomez v. Perez. 21 Texas gave children born in wedlock 
a right to support from their fathers while it did not give children born out 
of wedlock. The state, the Court said sweepingly, "may not invidiously dis- 
criminate against illegitimate children by denying them substantial benefits 
accorded children generally." 22 

The force of the Court's repudiation of injury to the children brought into 
question statutory schemes ostensibly directed at the parents. Already in 
1968, as a construction of the Social Security Act, the Court in King v. 
Smith 23 had invalidated Alabama's "man-in-the-house" rule. Alabama 
and nineteen other states treated a man cohabiting with a child's mother as 
a parent furnishing support. By this device these states denied the child 
the status of a dependent child eligible for social security benefits. The 
rule was found contrary to the federal Act. Congress, said Chief Justice 
Warren, had "determined that immorality and illegitimacy should be dealt 
with through rehabilitative measures rather than measures that punish 
dependent children." 24 

In the wake of Weber and Gomez, the approach taken in King became, 
in May of 1973, a matter of constitutional law. The New Jersey Family 
Assistance Program for the working poor provided that benefits should be 
paid only to married persons with children who were born in wedlock or 
with children who were legally adopted. The purpose of this restriction, 
as found by a three judge federal court, was "to preserve and strengthen 
traditional family life." 26 Testimony showed that "a family structure based 
on ceremonial marriage could provide norms and prevent anomie," 20 said 
Judge Fisher for this court. The strengthening of family life appeared to be 
a legitimate legislative end to Judge Fisher. Withholding benefits to en- 
courage marriage appeared a rational way of achieving the end. 27 In New 
Jersey Welfare Rights Organization v. Cahill 2 * the Supreme Court summarily 
reversed.. Judge Fisher's findings of lawful purpose and rational means 



21. 409 U.S. 535 (1973). 

22. Id. at 538. 

23. 392 U.S. 309 (1968). 

24. Id. at 325. 

New Jersey Welfare Rights Organ, v. Cahill, 349 F. Supp. 491, 496 (D.N.J. 
1972). 

26. Id. 

27. Id. at 497. 

28. 93 S. Ct. 1700 (1973). 



231 

1973] Family and the Court 259 



were treated as irrelevant. Per curiam, the Court said it was the child born 
out of wedlock who was being penalized. Children could not be treated 
unequally by the state. The Court had now extended protection of the child 
to the point of rejection of marriage in the definition of a family. 

Levy, Weber, Richardson, and New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization 
all focused on the rights of children. All were dealt with by the Court un- 
der the rubric of Equal Protection. In Eisensladt v. Daird, 20 at stake were 
the sexual rights of the unmarried pubescent and their unmarried elders. 
Before the Court was a Massachusetts statute on the distribution of contra- 
ceptives, restricting them to the married. Equal Protection was again in- 
voked. 

The "plain purpose" of the statute, Chief Justice Rugg of Massachusetts 
had said of its unamended form in 1917, was "to protect purity, to 
preserve chastity, to encourage continence and self-restraint, to defend the 
sanctity of the home and thus to engender in the state and nation a virile 
and virtuous race of men and women." 30 The purpose of the statute, as 
Justice Reardon of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, had said 
of its amended form in 1970, was to protect morals througli "'regulating 
the private sexual lives of single persons." 31 Sustaining the statute in 
1917, Chief Justice Rugg spoke like Cardinal Mercicr and the bishops of 
Belgium, his contemporaries, giving the reasons for the Catholic ban on 
contraception. Sustaining the statute in 1970, Justice Reardon spoke like 
some contemporary Catholic apologists giving a reason for the same ban. 
Speaking in 1972 for the Court, Justice Brennan saw no validity in these 
purposes. "[Wjhatcver the rights of the individual to access to contracep- 
tives may be," Justice Brennan said "the rights must be the same for the 
unmarried and the married alike." 32 The right of the unmarried to be 
treated like the married in a sexual matter of this character flowed from the 
equal protection clause. Consistent with that clause, Justice Brennan said, 
the state could not "outlaw distribution to unmarried but not to married 
persons." 33 

Eisenstadt also provided occasion for the Court to turn upside down the 
right of privacy it had discovered in the Constitution in Griswold v. Connect- 

29. 405 U.S. 438 (1972). 

30. Commonwealth v. Allison, 227 Mass. 57, 62, 116 N.E. 265, 266 (1917); cf. 
Instructions des Evequcs de Belgique sur I'onanisme, 41 Nouvelle revue theologiqub 
616-22 (1909). 

31. Sturgis v. Attorney General, 358 Mass. 37, 260 N.E.2d 687, 690 (1070); 

cf. A. ZIMMERMAN, CATHOLIC VIEWPOINT ON OVER-POPULATION 148 (1961). 

32. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1965). 

33. Id. at 454. 



232 
260 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



icut. 3 * In GrisM-old a Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of contra- 
ceptives had been found to invade the privacy of married couples. In 
Eisenstadt, Justice Brennan said: "If the right of privacy means anything, 
it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwar- 
ranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a 
person as the decision whether to bear to beget a child." 35 Justice Bren- 
nan went out of his way to deny the legal metaphor, founded on the religious 
metaphor in Genesis, that man and wife are one flesh: ". . . the marital 
couple," he said, "is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its 
own . . . ." 36 Equal, but separate, each person had a constitutional right 
to procrcative privacy. 

In dissent in Eisenstadt, Chief Justice Burger referred to the right to 
privacy's "tenuous moorings to the text of the Constitution." 37 But it was 
the doctrine of Justice Brennan which was followed in the Abortion Cases, 
Roe v. Wade 38 and Doe v. Bolton. 39 The right to an abortion was founded 
on the right to privacy said to be located in the ninth or fourteenth amend- 
ment. No distinction was drawn between the unmarried plaintiff Jane Roe 
and the married plaintiff Mary Doe. 40 

Unarticulated considerations of policy could explain the Court's actions 
so far reviewed. The cases involved either illegitimacy or birth control. 
Illegitimacy has been proportionately higher among non-whites than whites. 41 
Lines drawn on the basis of legitimacy could be viewed as a sophisticated 
form of racial discrimination. The Court could have felt that it realistically 
extended the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in striking 
them down. Restrictions on methods of birth control prevent expeditious 
curtailment of population growth. 42 The Court could have felt that the 
new pressures of population justified the making of new constitutional re- 
quirements. That a policy of restricting population conflicts with a policy 
of not penalizing illegitimacy need not have prevented the Justices from 
riding first one horse and then the other. These factors of policy may ac- 



34. 381 U.S. 479 (1965). 

35. 405 U.S. 438, 453 (italics in original). 

36. Id. 

37. Id. at 472 (dissenting opinion). 

38. 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 

39. 410 U.S. 179 (1973). 

40. See Roc v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, 410 US. 179. 
187(1973). 

41. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 
72. Taihi 66: Illegitimate Live Births By Race and Age of Mothers 1940- 

al 51. Interestingly, the illegitimacy rates for non-whites have been decreasing 
Mncc 1960, while the rate for whites has increased steadily. The non-white rates 
however, remain many times greater because of the initial disproportion 

mission on Population Growth and the American Future, Population 
am. THE Amijucan Iuture 172-73 (paperback cd. 1972) 



233 
1973] Family and the Court 261 



count in part for the Court's approach. They do not explain why the Court 
has gone as far as it has in its two most striking refusals to acknowledge 
marriage as a permissible legal criterion. 

In Stanley v. Illinois, 43 decided in 1972, Peter Stanley had lived inter- 
mittently with Joan for eighteen years and had had by her three children 
whom he did not adopt. When she died, he put the children with foster 
parents. No one was legally responsible for the children. The state moved 
to have a guardian appointed. Stanley contended that he was his children's 
natural guardian and, like a lawful father, could not be supplanted without 
a hearing in which his unfitness to continue had been demonstrated. The 
Court sustained his position. Both Due Process and Equal Protection re- 
quired that he be given a hearing. The state, Justice White wrote, was 
bound to give recognition through a hearing to "[t]hc private interest, 
that of a man in the children he has sired and raised." 44 The state was 
bound not to discriminate between married fathers and unmarried fathers 
in giving a right to a hearing. Chief Justice Burger, in dissent, protested that 
the Constitution was not violated if Illinois recognized the father-child rela- 
tionship only "in the context of family units bound together by legal obliga- 
tions arising from marriage or from adoption proceedings." His dissent un- 
derlined the significance of the Court's holding. In Glona the unmarried moth- 
er had been given the relatively limited rights in tort of a married parent. 
In Stanley, the unmarried father was accorded the essential position of a 
married parent in the retention of his children. 

The most recent of these decisions treating marriage as a constitutionally 
impermissible category is the second Foods Stamps Case, United States De- 
partment of Agriculture v. Moreno. 45 Congress, in 1971, had amended the 
Food Stamp Act to exclude from its benefits unrelated individuals under the 
age of sixty living together as a household. 46 The Conference Committee Re- 
port of the bill said the idea was to prohibit assistance to "communal 'fam- 
ilies' of unrelated individuals." Related individuals, the Committee said de- 
liberately, were married spouses, blood relatives and other legally related 
persons such as adopted children and foster children. 47 

Judge McGowan, speaking for a three-judge court in the District of Col- 
umbia, found the exclusion unconstitutional. The purpose for it advanced 
by the government had been the promotion of morality — the sexual moral- 
ity premised on marriage. "Recent Supreme Court decisions," Judge Mc- 

43. 405 U.S. 645 (1972). 

44. Id. af 651. 

45. 345 F. Supp. 310 (D.D.C. 1972). 

46. Pub. L. No. 91-671, § 2(a) (Jan. 11, 1971) amending 7 U.S.C. 2012(c) (1964). 

47. H.R. 91-1793, 91st Cong., 2nd Sess. (1970). 



234 
262 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



Gowan said, "make it clear that even the states, which possess a general 
police power not granted to Congress, cannot in the name of morality in- 
fringe the rights to privacy and freedom of association in the Jwmc." iS 

Judge McGowan was right in his reading of the recent opinions of the 
Court. Sustaining the decision and adopting much of Judge McGowan's 
language, Justice Brcnnan noted with apparent satisfaction that the govern- 
ment had on appeal abandoned the justification of the statute as promotive 
of sexual morality.' 19 The government was left with the barely credible 
argument that the statute's purpose was to discourage fraud. Justice Bren- 
nan exhibited the same impatience as Judge McGowan with a law which 
made marriage the test of eligibility for a benefit from the state. A heart 
of stone would have been touched by the carefully-selected plaintiffs: a 
56-year old diabetic on welfare sharing a home with another woman and 
her three children; a mother of three who had charitably taken in a 20-year- 
old girl with emotional problems; a mother on welfare with a deaf daughter 
living with another woman in order to be near an institution for the deaf. 
These persons and those similarly situated could have been aided by con- 
struing the statutory exclusion to restrict it to those cohabiting with a sexual 
purpose. For an unexplained reason Judge McGowan and Justice Brennan 
thought sexual cohabitation would have been meant only if Congress had 
spoken of the persons living together as persons of different sexes. Without 
exploration of the statute's rationale, Justice Brennan held that the classifi- 
cation Congress had created was condemned by the Equal Protection 
Clause. The classification was condemned, Justice Brennan said, because 
it was "wholly without any rational basis." 50 The third phase of the Court — 
the phase of the Court obliterating the difference between marriage and 
no marriage — was well advanced. 

Marriage: A Legal Creation With 
Discriminatory Consequences 

If the Court's teaching of the last two terms is reviewed, the following prop- 
ositions emerge: Neither Congress nor the States may deny to children 
born out of wedlock substantial rights which are given to children born in 
wedlock. 61 Neither Congress nor the States may deny to unmarried per- 






4R. Moreno v. U.S. Dcp't of Agriculture, 345 F. Supp. 310, 314 (D.D.C. 1972). 

United Stales Dcp't of Agriculture v. Moreno, 93 S. Q. 2821, 2826, n.7 

50. Id. at 2827. 

5 J. Gomez v Perez, supra note 21; New Jersey Welfare Rights Organ, v. Cahill, 
supra noic 28; Levy v. Louisiana, supra note 14; Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co., 
supra note 18. 



235 
1973] Family and tlie Court 263 



sons living with their children substantial rights which are given to married 
persons and their children." Neither Congress nor the States may deny 
to unmarried men substantial rights in relation to their children which are 
given to married men in relation to their children/' 3 Neither Congress nor 
the States may deny to women, married or unmarried, the right to decide 
whether to conceive or to bear a child." Neither Congress nor the States 
may withhold benefits which are given to the married from the unmarried." 
These are the commands of the fifth, ninth, or fourteenth amendments to 
the Constitution/ 6 

These propositions are taken from the cases. They do not go as far as to 
state the implications of the holdings, such as the inference that if the deci- 
sion to procreate is beyond interference of the state, so must be the deci- 
sion to have sexual intercourse. Marshalled together and baldly stated, 
the propositions have a generality which goes beyond the cases. The opin- 
ions are mired in contexts of facts and particular issues of policy. The 
general propositions helped to resolve the cases, but they may not stand 
apart from them. Logic is often drawn up short by countervailing pressure 
and iong-estabiished compromise. Carl McGowan, it might be said, did 
not mean that the Supreme Court would hold that any statute which based 
benefits on marriage denied freedom of association in the home. Willirm 
Brennan, it might be added, did not mean that all sexual rights of the mar- 
ried were indistinguishable from those of the unmarried. Judge McGowan 
was speaking of food stamps, Justice Brennan of food stamps and contra- 
ceptives. Neither really had grand principles in mind. The customary 
privileges of marriage are anointed by custom so that they are beyond as- 
sault in the name of the Constitution. 

Constitutional law, however, exists only by virtue of general principles 
discernible in the Constitution and, once discerned, not easily restricted to 
special contexts. Having decided cases in such a way that the propositions 



52. New Jersey Welfare Rights Organ, v. Cahill, supra note 28; cf. King v. Smith, 
supra note 23. 

53. Stanley v. Illinois, supra note 43; Glona v. Am. Guar., supra note 15. 

54. Doe v. Bolton, supra note 39; Roe v. Wade, supra note 38. 

55. U.S. Dcp't of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra note 49. 

55. United States Ucp't of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra note 49. 

56. Fifth Amendment: United States Dep't of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra note 49; 
Ninth Amendment: Roe v. Wade, supra note 38 and Doc v. Bolton, supra note 39; 
Fourteenth Amendment: Levy v. Louisiana, supra note 41; Glona v. American Guar, k 
Liab. Ins. Co., supra note 15; Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co., supra note 18; Richardson 
v. Davis, supra note 20; Gomez v. Perez, supra note 21; New Jersey Welfare Rights 
Organ, v. Cahill, supra note 28; Eiscnstadt v. Baird, supra note 32; Roc v. Wade, supra 
note 38; Doe v. Bolton, swprc note 39; Stanley v. Illinois, supra r.ctc <13; United States 
Dep't of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra note 49. 



236 
264 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



may be framed, how would the Court explain the traditional general dis- 
criminations in favor of the married? 

Consider as the most obvious example, section 1 of the Internal Revenue 
Code which taxes every individual "who is not a married individual" dif- 
ferently from "every' married individual." The distinction normally works 
to benefit the married making a joint return. Other sections of the Code 
openly operate in their favor — section 151 giving a personal exemption for 
a spouse and an additional exemption for a blind spouse; section 213 per- 
mitting deductions for a spouse's medical care; section 2056 subtracting a 
spouse's share from a decedent's gross estate; section 2523 substracting a 
spouse's share from a donor's gift; section 215 permitting a husband to 
deduct alimony. 67 If the married and the unmarried must be treated alike 
in the distribution of contraceptives, can Congress rationally distinguish be- 
tween them in the distribution of tax burdens? If to withhold food stamps 
is to interfere with privacy or the constitutional freedom of association in 
the home, why is there not as great an unconstitutional abridgment of free- 
dom in the withholding of tax advantages from the unmarried? When the 
Court in 1916 sustained the distinction between the married and the un- 
married in the income tax law, the difference between these classes was 
apparent on their face — the Court did not bother to discuss the difference; 
it dismissed the distinction in an "etc., etc." r ' 8 In the light of the decisions 
of the last two years, would two etceteras make the difference evident, or 
is differential treatment "wholly without any rational basis"? 

Suppose it be said that, in structuring the income tax, the power of Con- 
gress is practically plenary, and it can make virtually as many distinctions 
as it chooses, the entanglements of common law and general statutes with 
the institution of marriage must still be justified. From property law on 
community property, dower, curtesy, and tenancy by the entirety to the 
testimonial privilege of excluding a spouse's evidence, legal benefits have 
been attached to being married. From the right to support from a spouse 
to the right to alimony from a divorced spouse, special privileges have gone 
with the married state. Must these benefits and rights be extended to 
those who, although unmarried, are realistically in a position comparable 
to spouses, under pain of denying the. unmarried the equal protection of 
the law, the liberty of association, and the right of privacy? 

The law not only discriminates in favor of the married. It creates the 
discriminatory category. Sex, age, race — these arc categories which physi- 
cal characteristics determined before the law responded to them. Being 

57 CODE of 1954, §5 I, 151, 213, 215. 2056, 2523. 

58. Unishnbcr v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 25 (1916). 



237 
1973] Family and the Court 265 



married is a status constituted by the law. In the flux of human behavior 
the law has marked out certain acts and attached certain consequences to 
them. To perform the acts marked out is to become married. To become 
married is to enter a state with legal consequences attached. Can the law 
create the category and attach the consequences without infringing on sex- 
ual privacy, freedom of association in the home, and the equality of indi- 
viduals before the law? 

To ask these questions may appear to call for an answer too obvious to 
argue. As sexual association takes a variety of quasi-permanent forms, so, 
it may be said, should the legal definition of marriage be extended and the 
benefits which once flowed from a ceremonial exchange of consent be- 
tween one man and one woman be those of any pair or any combination of 
persons who elect to share a common life. The unique legal privileges of 
heterosexual monogamy, it may be concluded, are constitutionally obsolete. 

If this obvious answer is correct, it must be given in the name of the Con- 
stitution. It would be good to understand the constitutional basis for it. 

The Mystic-Moral Character of Marriage 

Equal Protection is the rationale chosen by the Court for many of its deci- 
sions — Levy, Glona, Weber, Richardson, Gomez, Eisenstadt, Stanley, New 
Jersey Welfare Rights Organization and the second Food Stamps Case. 
Equal Protection is rightly considered die weakest of constitutional grounds. 50 
Government acts by making distinctions in roles, in benefits, in burdens. 
Unless you suppose you are governed by idiots, you will suppose that there 
is usually a governmental reason for the distinction made. Unless you are 
hostile to the basis for the distinction, you can usually discover what the 
reason is. 

The Court in its third phase has been peculiarly blind to the reasons which 
led Congress or the States to adopt measures whose effect is to benefit the 
married. An extreme example is the second Foods Stamps Case where Jus- 
tice Brennan characterized congressional legislation as "wholly without any 
rational basis," and culled from the Congressional Record a remark of 
Senator Holland about "hippie communes" to explain the Food Stamp 
Act exclusion while overlooking the Conference Committee's clear expres- 
sion of intention to prefer the married. 60 In less extreme form, insensitivily 



59. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 208 (1927); compare the critique of Eisenstadt 
in Gunthcr, The Supreme Court, 1971 Term— Foreword: In Search of Evotvin 

trine on a Chanpjnp Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 HARV. L. REV. 
1, 34-35 and 48 (1972). 

60. U.S. Dcp't of Agriculture v. Nforcno, 93 S. Ct. 2821, 2826, citing 116 Cong. 
Riic. 44439 (1970). 



238 
266 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



to legislative intent pervades Eisenstadt and Stanley. 

The law did not suddenly in 1971 begin to treat the married and the un- 
married unequally. The law had always done so. If the Court now in- 
vokes the Equal Protection Clause, it is because the Court has come to feel 
that the traditional inequality is intolerable. Why that inequality is now 
felt to be intolerable is not be to explained by the Equal Protection Clause. 

Privacy does not offer a better explanation of the Court's position. When 
the constitutional right to privacy was first announced in Griswold in 1965 — 
located in Justice Douglas' expressive phrase, in the "penumbra" of several 
Amendments — it was a right to marital privacy. 61 The state could not pro- 
hibit the use of contraceptives because the state could not invade what were 
described as "the sacred precincts" of the marital bedroom. 62 The right 
of privacy was an offshoot of the holiness of marriage. The opinion of the 
Court, delivered by William O. Douglas, ended with a tribute to the institu- 
tion. "Marriage," he wrote, "is coming together for better or worse, hope- 
fully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred." 63 It was the 
marital association, older than the Bill of Rights he accurately observed, 
with which the state could not tamper. 

How quickly marital privacy became procreative privacy. How re- 
markably a right flowing from the institution of marriage became a barrier 
to the fostering of the institution. With what peculiar intensity William 
Brennan declared that if the right "means anything," it means the right of 
"the individual, married or single," to decide whether to bear or beget a 
child. 64 

The swift seven year evolution of a liberty so recently proclaimed and so 
vaguely located suggests that privacy is not at the heart of the Court's con- 
stitutional progress. Sexual intercourse and its consequences have been per- 
ceived by every earlier generation as social. The imperfect contraceptive 
technology of the present has not made intercourse less social in its effects 
upon the persons engaging in it or upon the persons conceived through it. 
If the Court now sees it as peculiarly private and, therefore, peculiarly ex- 
empt from social control, the reason is not to be found in the category the 
Court imposes on it. Why private? In the answer to this question may he 
the basis for the Justices' new position. 

The answer may he in the mythic-moral character of marriage. By 
mythic I mean ideas, non-demonstrable but not necessarily untrue of the 

61. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483-84 (1965). 

62. Id. at 485. 

63. Id. at 486. 

64. Eist-iisladi v. Baiid, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972). 



239 
1973] Family and the Court 267 



nature of the cosmos in relation to the destiny of man. By moral I mean 
prescriptions for human conduct in terms of a good. In primitive societies, 
Mircea Eliade says, the stories of the sexual life of the gods project the 
societies' view of the cosmos; at the same time they provide paradigms of 
sexual conduct for human beings. 65 In monotheistic Israel, Yahweh was a 
jealous husband who demanded the fidelity in monogamous marriage of 
his chosen bride, Israel. 66 In the Christian community, Christ was the monog- 
amous, faithful husband of his bride, the Church. 67 The paradigm was that 
of male to female, female to male fidelity, in a fruitful union of perduring 
character. Marriage in Europe was given a legal structure corresponding 
to the paradigm. 68 

Until the American Revolution in America, and until still later in Eng- 
land, marriage was created, ruled, and ended in accordance with ecclesiasti- 
cal law. When secular courts adopted this religious institution, the adjust- 
ments were often awkward and inconsistent. The doctrines of recrimination 
and condonation in divorce law are notorious examples. 60 The institu- 
tion survived. Eighteenth century rationalism and nineteenth century ag- 
nosticism did not attack it. Challenges such as the Mormons' polygamy 
were local and squashablc. The consensus was broad. Division of opin- 
ion on divorce appeared to be an exception, but divorce itself was a ca- 
nonical term; the functional dissolubility of marriage was established in the 
Catholic Church before the Reformation. 70 In practice, Protestants permit- 
ted divorce without welcoming it, 71 and Catholics frowned upon it while co- 
operating in it as lawyers and judges. 72 The ideal of husband and wife 
united for life in a fertile union was general. A Connecticut Yankee like 
Chief Justice Morrison Waite could sound like Pope Leo XIII; a Massachu- 
setts Puritan like Chief Justice Charles Rugg could speak like Cardinal Desire 
Mercier and the bishops of Belgium. 



65. M. Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return 23- 
27 (W.R. Trask transl. 1959); cf. M. Eliade, Mephistopheles and the Androgyne: 
Studies in Religious Myth and Symbol 206-07 (J.M. Cohen transl. 1965). 

66. Isaiah 54:5-8. 

67. Ephesians 5:22-32. 

68. See Noonan, Power to Dissolve: Lawyers and Marriages in the Courts 
of the Roman Curia xvii-xviii (1972) [hereinafter cited as Power to Dissolve]. 

69. See Foote, Levy, and Sander, Cases on Family Law 649-57 and 665-70 
(1966). 

70. Power to Dissolve 130-31. 

71. E.g., Holyoke v. Holyoke, 78 Me. 404, 411, 6 A. 827, 828 (1886): Remove 
the allurements of divorce at pleasure, and husbands and wives will the more zealously 
strive to even the burdens and vexations of life, and soften by mutual accommo- 
dation so as to enjoy their marriage relation." 

72. £..1?., Chief Justice Edward D. White, a Catholic, wrote the majority opinion 
in Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906), premised on "the inherent power which 
all governments must possess over the marriage relation, its formation and dissolution 
. . . ." Id. at 569. 



240 
268 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



In the last half century, the consensus weakened and, in the last decade, 
disappeared. Under the combined pressures of the ideologies of popula- 
tion control and women's liberation the orientation of marriage to procrea- 
tion was questioned. Hie marriage contract in a state such as California 
became less than any other contract: terminable, without penalty, at the 
option of either party. 73 A basic rift developed between Catholics, con- 
servative Protestants, Orthodox Jews, on the one hand, and religious liberals 
and secular agnostics, on the other, over family planning and population 
control by means of abortion. 74 The notion that a paradigm based on the 
relationship between Christ and the Church should inform American law 
would now be incomprehensible to most Americans. 

In response to the shattering of the consensus the Court has rejected dis- 
crimination between the married and the unmarried. The decisions of the 
last two terms are another chapter in the history of disestablishment, an- 
other milestone, their champions would say, for religious liberty. They are 
not explicable by the barren formula of Equal Protection. They are not 
dictated by the new and shapeless right to privacy. They are anchored, ac- 
cording to this analysis, in the most enduring of American constitutional 
traditions, the separation between religious orthodoxy and civil government. 
It is no accident that Justice Brennan in Eisenstadt rejects the legal meta- 
phor for the married based on Genesis. The covert religious assumptions 
underlying the old consensus have made civil support for marriage intoler- 
able. The state, it is concluded, must leave the field; each person is to be 
free to make his or her own sexual style as he or she is free to make his or 
her own religion. 75 

Marriage and Family: A Distinction Witfwut Historical Difference 

This explanation of the third phase — the last phase, so it seems — encoun- 
ters one snag: the existence of decisions too recent, too magisterial, and 
too rooted in experience to be regarded as obsolete, and yet entirely con- 
trary to the line of analysis advanced. The words approvingly quoted by 
William Douglas in 1946 in Cleveland on the barbarous un-Christian char- 
acter of polygamy have an atavistic sound. The words of Hugo Black in 
1971 in Labine on the social difference between a concubine and a wife 
have the flavor of the ante-bellum South. 7 " The words of Earl Warren in 

73. The Family Law Act, Cal. Civil Conn, S§ 4506-4507 (West 1970). 

74. Compare the positions in Tun Morality of Abortion, (J. Noonan cd. 1970) 
and AnoHTioN and tup Law, (D.T. Smith ed. 1967). 

75. Compare the analysis of the Abortion Cases in Tribe, The Supreme Court, 1972 
Term— Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law, 87 
Hakv. L. RCV. 1 (!*;73). 

76. Cleveland v. United State, 329 U.S. 14, 19 (1946); Labine v. Vincent, 401 



241 
1973] Family and the Court 269 



Loving v. Virginia 11 and the words of John Harlan in Doddie v. Connecti- 
cut 1 *, however, cannot be so irreverently dismissed. 

In Loving, in 1967, the Court, after avoiding opportunities for a century, 
finally ruled that the statute of a state forbidding a black person to marry a 
white person was unconstitutional. The statute was unconstitutional be- 
cause the racial classifications violated the Equal Protection Clause. 79 The 
statute was also unconstitutional on another ground which Chief Justice War- 
ren put as follows: Marriage is "one- of the 'basic civil rights of man,' funda- 
mental to our very existence and survival. The freedom to marry has long 
been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly 
pursuit of happiness by free men." 80 The right to enter lawful matrimony 
could not be arbitrarily restricted because marriage was among the most 
important of secular liberties. 

In Boddie, in 1971, the Court considered the petition of welfare recip- 
ients who found the $75 set as court fees for a divorce action in Connecticut 
more than they could pay. The Court eliminated the fees for persons in 
their circumstances. Divorce, Justice Harlan wrote, was "the exclusive pre- 
condition to the adjustment of a fundamental human relationship." 81 When 
the means of obtaining it was denied to the poor, due process of law was 
denied. The central assumption of the decision was. as John Harlan ex- 
pressed it, "the basic position of the marriage relationship in this society's 
hierarchy of values .... : ' 82 

Loving-Doddie reflect no doubt in the durability of marriage as specifi- 
cally shaped by law. They take marriage as an institution which is entered 
through the law, which is a privileged status created by the law. No one 
reading these opinions could suspect that Richard and Mildred Loving or 
Gladys Boddie had an alternative they might successfully have pursued — 
to have asked the Court to abolish the invidious denial of Equal Protection 
to the unmarried and to invalidate the stale's recognition of marriage. In 
Doddie, marriage according to law is a fundamental human relationship; 
in Loving, marriage according to law is a vital personal right. 

Loving-Doddie gave cognizance to the hunger for lawful marriage of 
persons denied the possibility of entering it by law. Has that hunger van- 
ished in the six years since Loving or in the two years since Doddie! Are 



U.S. 532, 53S (1971). 

77. 388 U.S. 1 (1967). 

78. 401 U.S. 371 (1971). 

79. 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). 

80. Id., quoting from Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). 

81. 401 U.S. 371, 383 (1971). 

82. Id. at 374. 



242 

270 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



not the cxlcnsivc use of poverty lawyers to obtain divorces and the increase 
of divorce itself paradoxical proof of the American determination to find 
happy stable centers for personal existence in lawful marriage? 83 Do 
not Roger Traynor's words in DeBurgh v. DeBurgh** a California divorce 
case decided in 1957, still i effect this society's experience: 

The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the per- 
sonal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels 
biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; 
it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environ- 
ment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it 
nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a 
free people. 85 

It may be objected that the words apply to the family, not marriage. The 
two institutions may be distinguished. Justice White in Stanley v. Illinois 
makes that distinction. Equating married and unmarried fathers, he in- 
sists on the Court's continuing solicitude for the family. He declares the 
Court's respect for "the integrity of the family unit." He sees no inconsis- 
tency in enlarging this respect to "those family relationships unlegitimated 
by a marriage ceremony." 80 In Stanley the family constituted by law and 
the family constituted by biology are treated together. The family is viewed 
as a legal institution distinct from marriage. 

Such a view incorporates a profound misreading of the history of our 
society. We do not know the family except as formed by marriage or as 
formed in incomplete imitation of the form shaped by law. Without mar- 
riage, created by law, acknowledged by law, privileged by law, the family 
is a formless biological blob. Roger Traynor ends his description of the 
basic social unit: "Since the family is the core of our society, the law 
seeks to foster and preserve marriage." 87 He spoke from American ex- 
perience. Appealing to an older and wider experience, Pope John XXIII 
spoke similarly in 1960: Marriage is "the greatest and most precious 
good of social life." 88 

What is the value of such testimony to the place of marriage from Pope 
John or Chief Justice Traynor or Justice Harlan or Chief Justice Warren? I 
do not invoke their words in this context as religious or judicial authority, 



83. Cf. T. Linz, Tin: Person at 389 (196S). 

84. 39 Cal. 2d 858, 250 l\2d 598 (1952). 

.1. 2d S5S, 863-64, 250 P.2d 598, 601 (1952). 
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972). 

87. 39 Cal. 2d 858, 864, 250 P.2d 598, 601 (1957). 

88. John XXIII, The Holiness of Marriage and the Christian Family, Allocution 
m the Auditors of the Sacred Roman Rota, October 25, I960, 52 Acta Apostolicae 



243 
1973] Family and the Court 271 



nor do I cite them for their originality of insight or depth of research. Public 
statements by public men run the risk of derision as platitudes. Yet made 
by thoughtful persons with broad experience, addressed precisely to the 
subject before them, stating perceptions they know arc shared by their 
audience, public utterances may be better guides to social experience than 
the fragile hypotheses of sociological investigators. Such is the case with 
these statements on marriage of Warren, Harlan, Traynor, and Roncalli. 
Unselfconsciously they state what they know to be true in their experience, 
in their observation, in their interpretation of human interactions. They 
state it knowing that the men and women to whom they speak will acknowl- 
edge it as true from their own experience. 

The human experience assumed and compressed in these evaluations of 
marriage cannot be disqualified — thrown, as it were, out of court — by show- 
ing that marriage in America was the reflection of an ecclesiastical para- 
digm, the offshot of an ecclesiastical system. The survival of Sunday clos- 
ing hours provides a tame analogy — that the command to worship without 
working is one of the Ten Commandments, that the seventh day has a basis 
in Genesis, that Sunday has a relation to the Resurrection have not im- 
paired the laws' secular validity; Justice Douglas to the contrary, the evi- 
dent religious parentage of the laws has not made them unconstitutional. 89 
More fundamentally, the authority of the courts as oracles of justice, the 
sovereignty of government as a power ordained by God, the sanctity of the 
human person as created in the image of God— all these vital presupposi- 
tions of our system of law — have religious roots, all express mythic-moral 
perceptions. To suppose that they have constitutional validity, while 
marriage does not, because they have been and are beyond controversy, 
would be to show little knowledge of contemporary pessimism and less 
knowledge of the deepest cleavage in the American past. 00 

Constitutional Judgments In Family Law: 
An Unsettled Realm 

Recent as the most radical decisions are, they are scarcely the work of "the 
Burger Court," if by that term one means a Court shaped by its Chief Jus- 
tice. The authorship of the decisions has cut across conventional politi- 
cal and ideological lines— Justice Douglas delivering the opinion in Glona, 
Justice White in Stanley, Justice Brennan in Eisenstadt and the Food 



89. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961); Braunfcld v. Drown, 366 U.S. 
599 (1961) In dissent in McGowan, Justice Douglas observed that "the parental 
of these laws is the Fourth Commandment; and they serve and satisfy the religious 
predispositions of our Christian communities." Id. at 572-73 (dissenting opinion) 

90 Sec Died Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 403 and 576 (1857). 



244 
272 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



Stamps Case, Justice Blackmun in Roe and Doe. In Eisemtadt, Stanley, 
and Ihe Food Stamps Case the Chief Justice was in open dissent. In the 
Abortion Cases his concurrence was directed to moderating the sweep of 
the Court's opinion. 111 The absence of unanimity in the Court, the failure of 
Hie opinion writers to convince the Chief, the contradiction between the 
generalizations in the recent opinions and GrisM'old, Labine, Loving, and 
Boddic all suggest that a definitive rationale for constitutional judgments in 
the realm of family law has not been setUed. 

The decisions invalidating discrimination against children may be ex- 
plained widiout resort to Equal Protection, the right of privacy, or the rele- 
gation of marriage to the status of a suspect mythic-moral category. They 
rest on a simple principle of generality. The principle is that A may not be 
punished for the act of B without denying A due process of law. This de- 
mand of elementary justice is part of the meaning of the fifth and fourteenth 
amendments. 

Notions of family solidarity and the corporate clan obscured the principle 
for centuries in relation to children. The Old Testament view that the 
father's sins are rightly visited on the sons and the New Testament 
view that sin is inherited made Western minds complacent with the injus- 
tice. 02 The more basic notions in Jewish-Hellenic Cluistianity of per- 
sonal salvation and personal responsibility worked against this coalescence 
of children with their parents. King Lear is not a celebration of the nobil- 
ity of those born out of wedlock, but when Edgar asks: "Why bastard? 
Wherefore base, When my dimensions are as well compact, My mind as 
generous, and my shape as true, As honest madam's issue?" 93 Who in our 
culture has not been on his side? The gradual evisceration of the old bas- 
tardy discriminations testified to the triumph of the ideal of personal respon- 
sibility. The legal principle outlawing all injuries to the innocent child has 
now been comprehensively stated by Lewis Powell. 04 The principle that 
the child is not accountable for the parents' act will explain Levy, Weber, 
Richardson, Gomez, and, on the Court's reading of the facts, New 
Jersey Welfare Rights Organization. With Edgar we may rejoice: "Now, 
gods, stand up for bastards." 05 The Court has done so. 90 



91. Roc v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165. 

92. Exodus 21:5; Rowans 5:10-21. 

93. King Lear, Act I. scene II, lines 6-9. 

94. Weber v. Aetna C as. & Stir. Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972). 

95. Kitif! I^rar, Act I, scene II, line 22. 

96. Since the delivery of Ihe Pope John XXIII lecture, the United States Court of 
Appeals, 5lh Circuit, decided Weinberger v. Bcty, 478 F.'2d 300 (1973), Certiorari 

I which extended Social Security disability benefits to il- 
legitimate children without pioof that the wage earner actually supported the children. 



245 

1973] Fcunily and the Court 273 



Glona, Stanley, Eisenstadt, the second Food Stamps Case, Roe, and Doe 
are not justified by a principle of elementary justice. They arc not ex- 
plicable by the invocation of Equal Protection or the right of privacy. 
They cannot be explained by viewing marriage as an impermissible religious 
category, when marriage has social purpose in our society. They are, then, 
wrong — wrong in using the Equal Protection Clause on behalf of the un- 
married parent and the unmarried spouse, wrong in extending the right of 
procreative privacy to the unmarried person. They are wrong in subvert- 
ing the privileged status of marriage, contrary to the teaching of Loving v. 
Virginia and Boddie v. Connecticut, contrary to the place of marriage in 
American experience. The vital personal right recognized by Loving v. 
Virginia is not the right to a piece of paper issued by a city clerk. It is 
not the right to exchange magical words before an agent authorized by the 
state. It is the right to be immune to the legal disabilities of the unmarried 
and to acquire the legal benefits accorded to the married. Lawful marriage 
in the society's hierarchy of values recognized by Boddie v. Connecticut 
and in the host of laws yet unchallenged — the tax law, the common law of 
property, the law of evidence — is a constellation of these immunities and 
privileges. To say that legal immunities and legal benefits may not de- 
pend upon marriage is to deny the vital right. To say that Equal Protection 
requires the equal treatment of the married and the unmarried in all re- 
spects is to deny the hierarchy of values of our society. 

The nation and the institution of marriage survived Phases One and 
Two of the Court's exposition of the Constitution and its requirements in 
the law of domestic relations. Social patterns of sexual behavior are 
determined by more than court decrees. Marriage as a religious institution, 
voluntarily entered, is not ended by any court's decree that the married and 
the unmarried must be treated alike. But the law, while far from omnipo- 
tent, has a pedagogic role in the shaping of society which cannot be dis- 
missed. In a secular age, as ecclesiastical authority diminishes, the specific 
importance of the Supreme Court as the expositor of moral doctrine in- 
creases. 

The nation and the institution survived Phase One and Phase Two, but 
the costs of the Court's mistakes were -far from negligible. Who can read 
of the persecution of the Mormons by the federal government without aware- 
ness of the cruelty of the Court's conclusions in Phase One? 07 Who can 



The court finds no rational basis for a distinction where such proof is not rcquncd of 
legitimate children. 

97. See Freeman, A Remonstrance for Conscience, 106 U. Pa. L. Rev. 806, 825 
(1958). 



246 
274 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 23:255 



look at the consequences to husbands, wives, and children of the masterful 
confusion, the topsy-turvy constitutional law of divorce, support, and 
custody, without a sense of the Court's incompetence in Phase Two? 08 
Who can contemplate the implications of the cases on the rights of the un- 
married without a suspicion that the Court has enunciated principles incon- 
sistent with the preservation of the most precious of social goods? 

A paper on the family may appropriately end with a children's fable — 
"The Gingerbread Man." The Gingerbread Man, you may remember, was 
an exceptionally well-made work of human artifice. After outrunning many 
dangers he was taken on the tail of an old fox. The fox moved him from 
his tail to his back, from his back to his nose, and then threw him, topsy- 
turvey, in the air and on his descent began to eat him. 

"I'm a quarter gone," cried the Gingerbread Man. Then, "I'm half gone," 
he cried. Then, "I'm three-quarters gone." And then there was silence. 

If marriage had a tongue like the Gingerbread Man, what would it cry 
out now? 



98. See Hnzard, May v. Anderson: Preamble to Family Law Chaos, 45 Va. L. Rev. 
379 (1959); Note, Divisible Divorce, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 1233 (1963). 



247 

Appendix C 
Biographical Data of John T. Noonan, Jr. 

Born: Boston, Mass., October 24, 1926, the son of John T. and Marie Shea 
Noonan. 

Married: Mary Lee Bennett of Weston, Mass., December 27, 1967. 

Children: John Kenneth, January 5, 19G9 ; Rebecca Lee, October it, 1970; 
and Susanna Bain, January 5, 1972. 

Present Position: Professor of Law, University of California Law School 
Berkeley, 19G6 to date. 

Education — 

BA, suruma cum laude, Harvard College, 1946 (class of 1947). 

Studies in English Literature at Cambridge University, 1946-1947. 

MA, 1949, and Ph.D. in Philosophy, 1951, The Catholic University of Amer- 
ica. 

LLB, Harvard Law School, 1954. 

LLD (Hon.) University of Santa Clara, 1974. 

Admission to Bar — 

Massachusetts, 1954. 

Supreme Court of the United States, 1971. 

Past Positions — 

Associate, Herrick Smith, Donald Farley and Ketchum, Boston, Mass. 
1955-1966. 

Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School, 1961- 
1963 ; Professor of Law, 1963-1966. 

Government Service — 

Member, Special Staff of the National Security Council, 1954-1955. serving 
as assistant to Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to President Eisenhower. 

Member, Chairman, Brookline (Mass.) Redevelopment Authority, 1958- 
1962. 

Expert, Presidential Commission on Population and the American Future. 
1971. 

Public Service — 

Treasurer, Massachusetts Citizens for Eisenhower, 1956. 

Vice-President, American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, 1962- 
1964. 

Trustee, Population Council, 1969 to date. 

Trustee, Graduate Theological Union, 1970 to 1973. 

Director, Secretary and Treasurer, Institute for Research and Study in 
Medieval Canon Law, 1970 to date. 

Consultant. Ford Foundation. Indonesian Legal Fellowships Program. 1969. 

Consultant, National Institutes of Health, 1973 (on the protection of chil- 
dren in experiments). 

Consultant, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1973 and 1974 (on 
legal education and on law and the humanities). 

Final Judge. Ford Foundation— Rockefeller Foundation Competition for 
Studies in Population Policy. 1971. 

Member, Yale Council Committee on Theological Education, Yale T Diver- 
sity, 1972 to date. 

Senator, Phi Beta Kappa. 1970 to date. 

Trustee. Phi Beta Kappa Foundation. 1970 to date. 

President, Alpha of California, Phi Beta Kappa, 1972-1973. 

C/Jitivcli St C VX> i cc~~~~ 

Consultant, Papal Commission on Problems of the Family. 1965-1966. 

Governor, Canon Law Society of America. 1970-1972. 

Member, Committee on Due Process. Canon Law Society of America. 1WB». 

Member, Catholic Commission on Intellectual and Cultural Affairs, since 
1965; Executive Committee, since 1972. 

Trustee. University of San Francisco, 1970 to date. 

Chairman, Program in Religious Studies, University of California. Berkeley 

1069—1972 
1 Chairman. Committee on the Robbins Law Library Addition. 1970 to date 
Member, Admission Committee, Law School of the University of Cali- 
fornia, Berkeley, 1972. 



248 

Editorships — 

Editor, natural Law Forum, 1961-1969. 

Editor American Journal of Jurisprudence, I960 to date. 

Member, Editorial Board of Harvard Law Review, 1953-1954: Book Review 
Editor, 1954. 

Fellowships — 

Guggenheim Fellowship. 1 {(65-1966. 

Fellow, Center (or Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, 1973-1974. 

Lectureships — 

World Medical Congress, .Manila, 1966. 

Visiting Professor Law, Southern Methodist University Law School, 
January, 1966. 

Canon Law Society of America, Annual Meeting, 1969. 

Visiting Professor of Law, Stanford University Law School .Spring, 1970. 

Law in a Free Society Lecturer, University of Texas Law School, 1971. 

Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. Lecturer, Harvard Law 7 School, 1972. 

Catholic Theological Society, Annual Meeting, 1972. 

Pope John XXIII Lecture, Catholic University of America Law School, 1973. 

St. Robert Bellarmine Lecture, St. Louis University, 1973. 

National Television — 

Today, February 2, 1967. 

Firing Line, November 5, 1972. 

Firing Line, July 14, 1973. 

Prizes — 

Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard College, 1945. 

John Gilmary Shea Prize of the American Catholic Historical Society, 1965. 

Alumni Achievement Award, The Catholic University of America, 1971. 

John Gilmary Shea Prize of the American Catholic Historical Society, 1972. 

St. Thomas More Award, St. Thomas More Society of San Francisco (1974). 

Law School Courses — 

Functions of the American Lawyer. 

( Jontemporary Jurisprudence. 

Legal Problems in Genetics. 

Population Problems and the Law. 

Family Law. 

Discriminations and Distinctions Based on Age 

Slavery As An American Legal Institution. 

Canon Law in a Legal System. 

Business Interests — Chairman, Games Research, Inc., (Boston, Mass.) since 
1960. 

Publications — 

Books 

Th( scholastic Analysis of Usury, (Harvard University Press) 1957. 

Contraception: .1 History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and 
canonists (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press) 1!)65 ; translated into 
French, Spanish and German; paperback edition. New American Librarv, 
1967. 

Power to Dissolve: Lawyers and Marriages in the Courts of the Roman 
Curia (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press) 11(72. 

Editor, The Morality of Abortion, (Harvard University Press) 1970. 

Articles 

Law: "The Astronomer and the Gondolas", Harvard Alumni Bulletin, Sep- 
tember 28, 1957, reprinted in Selected Materials Prepared for the Committee 
on Government operations of the United States Senate and Its Sub-committee 
on National Policy Machinery, 86 Congress Second Session, 1960. 

'Inferences from the Invocation of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimina- 
tion", Virginia Law Review, XXXXI (1955). 

"Value References in the Teaching of Negligence", Journal of Legal Educa- 
tion. VIII i 1955). 

"Allocation of Administrative Responsibility", Antitrust Law and American 
Business Vbroad by Kingman Brewster, Jr. (McGraw-Hill, 1958). 

"The Purposes of Advocacy and the Limits of Confidentiality", Michigan 
Lair /,'. , U /'. LXIV i L966). 



249 

"Academic Freedom and Tenure: St. John's University (XV. i" l w /■ 
Bulletin, LII, March, 1966. 

"From Social Engineering to Creative Charity", Knowledgt and the Futun 
\ of Man: An International Symposium, edited by Walter .1. Ong, S.J. (Holt, 
Rinehart and Winston, 1968). 

"Az Abortusz-Kerdes Tortenete", Merlez (January, 1969). 

"Amendment of the Abortion Law: Relevant Data and Judicial Opinion'', 
fhe Catholic Lawyer, XV (1969). 

"The Constitutionality of the Regulation of Abortion", The Hastings Late 
Journal XXI (1969). 

"Population Problems and Abortion", California Monthly, LXXX (1969). 

"Freedom to Reproduce: Cautionary History. Present Invasions, Future 
Assurance", Proceedings of the American Civil Liberties Union Biennial '''in- 
ference (1970). 

"Canon Law in the United States: A Time of Ferment," in Legal Thought 
in the United States Under Contemporary Pressures (ed. J. N. Hazard and 
W. J. Wagner, 1970). 

"Human Rights and Canon Law*' in Rene Cassin Amieorum Discipulorumque 
Liber IV (1972). 

"Raw Judicial Power", National Review, March 2, 1973. 

"The Family and the Supreme Court", Catholic University <>f America Law 
Review 23 (Winter, 1972). 

Contraception 

"Tokos and Atokion : An Examination of Natural Law Reasoning Against 
Usury and Against Contraception", Natural J, air Forum, X (1965). 

"Catholics and Contraception", Act, July, 1965. 

"Contraception and the Council" from Commonweal LXXXIII March 11. 
1966 reprinted in The Catholic Case for Contraception edited by Daniel Calla- 
han (Macmillan. 1969) translated as "Das Konzil und die Empfangnisver- 
hutung", Schweizer Rundschau LXL (1966). 

"Authority on Usury and on Contraception", Tijdschrift Voor Theologic 
1966, republished in Crosscurrents Winter 1966 and in the Wiseman Review 
Summer 1966, and digested in Theology Digest March, 1967. 

"Birth Control: The Shaping of the Catholic Doctrine". The Perkins School 
of Theology Journal, XXI (1967). reprinted in St Joseph Magazine (July. 

"Contraception and the Pope's Conscience", Commonweal, LXXXIV March. 

19 67 - „ r, M Hi 

"La Dottrina della chiesa sull'iisura e la contraccezione , Crescente e Moth- 
plicatevi Sempre e Communque (Jaca Book, 1968). 

"Intellectual and Demographic History", Daedalus (Spring, 1968). 
"The Catholic Church and Abortion", Natural Law Forum, XII (1967). 

Marriage 

"Freedom, Experimentation and Permanence in the Canon Law of Mar- 
riage", Law for Liberty, edited by James E. Biechler (HeUcon, 1967). 

"Marital Affection in the Canonists", Studio GraUana XII: Collectanea 
Stephan Kuttner (1967). . r . ., , 

"History and the Values of Christian Marriage . Marriage in the Fight of 
Vatican II, edited by James T. McHugh (Family Life Bureau, 1!H *>- 

"Novel 22", The Bond of Marriage, edited by William W. Basset (Univer- 
sity of Notre Dame Press, 1968). 

"Indissolubility of Marriage and Natural Law". American Journal of Jurts- 

^"PapS Dilohmofof Marriage: Fiction and Function". Proceedings of thi 
Canon Late Society of America (1969). .. 

"The Steady Man: Process and Policy in the Courts of the Roman < una. 
58 California Law Review 628 (1970). Catholic 

"USRA's Case" in Wrenn, ed. Divorce and Remarriage in Ih, CathotU 

Church. 

"Power to Choose", Viator (1973). 



250 

Theology 

"Renan's Life of Jesus: A Ee-Bxamination", The Catholic Biblical Quar- 
terly, XI I 1948 

"Hegel and Strauss: The Dialectic and the (Jospels", The Catholic Biblical 
Quarterly, XII I 1950). 

"The Layman, Institutions, and the Church", Trinity College Alumni Jour- 
nal. XXXIX (Winter, 1966). 

"Celibacy in the Fathers of the Church", The Problematic and Some Prob- 
lems". Celibacy: The Necessary Option, edited by George H. Frein (Herder 
and Herder, 1968). „ n 

"The Amendment of Papal Teaching by Theologians , Contraception: Au- 
thority anil Dissent, edited by Charles E. Curran (Herder and Herder. 1969). 

"Making one's own Act Another's," The Catholic Theological Society. 
Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Convention (1972). 

"Responding to Persons", Theology Digest (Winter. 1973). 

Philosophy 

"The Existentialism of Etienne Gibson". The New Scholasticism, XX, (1950). 

"The Protestant Philosophy Of John Locke" Philosophical Studies In Honor 
of the Very Reverend Ignatius smith, O.P., edited by John K. Ryan (The New- 
man Press, 1952 ). 

"Introduction to Volume VIII", Natural Law Forum, VIII (1963). 

"Deciding Who Is Human". Natural Laic Forum XIII (1968). 

•The Case of the Talented Bakers". Harvard Medical Alumni Bulletin (Win- 
ter 1971' i . 

"Konventionen und Konstruktionen der Naturrechts", in Bochle and Boehen- 
forde. ed., Saturn ctit in der h'ritik (1973). 

•Responding to Persons: Methods of Moral Argument in the Debate over 
Abortion," Theology Digest 24 (Winter, 1973). 

Senator Bath. Thank you, Professor Noonan. 
Professor Ely? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ELY, PROFESSOR OF LAW, HARVARD 

UNIVERSITY 

Mr. Ely. Shortly after the derision in Roe was rendered I analyzed 
it in some detail and criticized it strongly in an article appearing at 
82 Vale Law Journal 920. So 1 will only briefly summarize my con- 
clusions respecting the opinion, and then go on in the time I have 
remaining to talk for a few moments about the process of constitu- 
tional amendment. 

The opinion in Roe raises many problems, some peripheral and 
some central. Ajnong the peripheral ones that I would mention are 
two conclusions thai 1 think do not flow even from the court's 
premises. I have specific reference; 

First : To the holding that during the first trimester of pregnancy 
no health regulation whatsoever, except for the fact that an abortion 
performed by a doctor, is permissible. 

And second: I refer to its holding, which seems clear — although 
it is undefended- -that during the third trimester, at which point 
even the Supreme Court is prepared to grant that the fetus is a 
person, the States are obligated constitutionally to prefer the health 
of the mother over the life of the fetus at that point. Given the broad 
definition that health has, and rightly lias, I think, been given in 
these contexts, thai conclusion, which I repeat was undefended, 
is particularly frightening. 



251 

I have equal problems with the central points of the opinion, how- 
ever, and the problems fall generally into two categories. First, the 
Court never adequately explains why a desire on the pari of a State 
to permit a fetus to proceed to life is not a goal sufficiently important 
to support the legislative efforts in this area. All it says on thai 
score are two things: First, that legal doctrine, generally, d<>e< not 
regard fetuses as persons; and second, that the various constitu- 
tional clauses that use the word "person" do not seem to have been 
drafted with fetuses in mind. Neither demonstration is at all con- 
vincing in my vieAv, but beyond that it seems to me the conclusion is 
irrelevant to the constitutional question because it has never been 
held or even asserted, as far as I am aware, that the State interest 
that is needed to justify forcing a person to refrain from an activity, 
whether or not the activity is constitutionally protected, must impli- 
cate the life of another person. 

To take another example, dogs, of course, are not persons but 
that has never mant that the State cannot prohibit the killing of 
dogs. It does not even mean the State cannot prohibit the killing of 
dogs in what you assert to be the exercise of your First Amend- 
ment rights. 

So on that score, that the State interest is insufficient, it seems 
to me that the opinion fails. 

It seems to me it fails equally with respect to the other half of 
its inference, and that is the proposition that the right to an abortion 
is a constitutional right entitled to special constitutional protection. 
In other words, it never adequately gets to the point of calling for a 
compelling State interest. Nothing in the Constitution's text, nothing 
in the Constitution's history suggests any right to an abortion. The 
court does say that there is something called a right to privacy dis- 
coverable in the interstices of the Constitution. And so I believe one 
can argue there is, so long as one pays attention to the dimensions 
of the right that can be inferred. Several amendments certainly 
relate to privacy in the sense of permitting us, under some circum- 
stances, to keep things from the government, keep secret- from the 
Government that w^e would rather it did not have. That meaning of 
privacy is intelligible and also can be inferred from the Constitution. 
However, obviously, the right to an abortion has nothing to do with 
that sort of right and the court does not suggest that it does. 

I would be the last to suggest that the Constitution prohibits only 
the things that the farmers had in mind: inferences from the value 
structure that is there set forth is the proper stuff of constitutional 
adjudication. 

The trouble is that the Court suggests no such inference in this 
case 

Even that may not be an end to the matter. Tn a famous footnote 
in the Carolene Products case. Chief Justice Stone suggested that it 
was a proper role of the Court to extend protection to what he 
termed "discrete and insular minorities." unable to adequately pro- 
tect themselves in the legislative arena. 

There are some difficulties in giving principle content to this ap- 
proach but one thing about it always seemed clear to me, and that 
was that it made sense only as regards the protection of the inter 



252 

- of what are minorities as compared with the interests to which 
they have hem subordinated. Thus, in this case we could say that 
women may be a discrete and insular minority as compared with 
men : indeed I have so argued. But as between the interests of women 
and the interests of fetuses, it is very difficult to conclude that as 
between those two groups women are a discrete and insular minority 
and cannot gel a fair hearing in the political arena. 

That is a brief summary of what is in my article and it can be 
read at greater length. 

I did want to add some remarks on constitutional amendment, It 

i mi — well, first, somebody who thinks that the Roe decision 

was had constitutional law but nevertheless arrived at a pleasing and 

acceptable political result, is not in an entirely obvious position, but 

seems to me that such a person probably should leave well enough 
alone. The Constitution has. in every functional sense, been amended 
to now read as the person thinks it ought to read and it seems to me 
in view of the widespread criticism of the Roe decision it is unlikely 
that leaving Roe on the books will encourage further and similar 
excursions in constitutional judgment. 

Somebody, however, who thinks not only that Roe is bad consti- 
tutional law but also that it does not reach a desirable, political and 
moral result should. I would think, although the question is not al- 
together obvious, support a constitutional amendment calculated to 
reverse it. That is not always true. One might disagree with a cer- 
tain decision and still hesitate to tamper with it for fear of upsetting 
an entire fabric of constitutional doctrine. 

For example. I would think that one would quite reasonably hesi- 
tate to decide to amend the first amendment in response to a court's 
decision because there would be an obvious danger there of upsetting 
an entile body of doctrine in unforeseeable ways. I do not see this 
issue that way. Roe v. Wade seems to me a rather isolated esipode — 
indeed, the only clear example of substantive due process thinking 
by the Court we have witnessed since the thirties — and it seems to 
me that it could be reversed by one so minded without great danger 
of upsetting; an entire body of doctrine. 

Turning just briefly to the resolutions before you, numbers 119 
and 130, it seems to me they have some problems as respects what I 
take to be their intendment, and that is to reverse the decision in 
Roe. It seems to me it is not entirely clear that a court would hold 
them to have done so for two reasons: First, there is what is known 
i -i.ite action problem. By extending equal protection and due 
process protection to fetuses there still remains the problem that the 
Roe case, in theory at any rate, delegated the decision to have an 
abortion to the pregnant woman and to her doctor. It could be 
ted, therefore, that they are the persons who are depriving the 
fetus of life and that therefore a command that the state not deny 
(he fetus of life without due process and equal protection is not 
violated. The argument would be that the state is not the bodv that 
I doing the violating. Second, it is not entirely clear to me that di- 
rectly extending equal protection and due process safeguards, even 
- the Mate art ion problem, will reverse Roe. Those two clauses, 



253 

the due process and equal protection clauses, generally only require 
that there be a reasonable basis for the state's action. And obviously, 
the Supreme Court thinks there is a reasonable basis for doing that ; 
indeed, it found the arguments for permitting the abortion of pre- 

viable fetuses not only reasonable but indeed, compelling. So t ; 
amendments, in referring to equal protection and due pi eave 

the Court the option of reading them in light of the constitutional 
ri<rht which it purported to discover in Roe against Wade. 

That leads to my final objection and it is a fundamental one to the 
amendments, and that is that they share with the Supreme Court an 
assumption that I find very questionable and indeed. I reject, and 
that is the assumption that the problem of abortion, however il 
resolved, is one appropriate to a uniform Federal solution. I under- 
stand that they leave some room for local variation, but unless I 
misunderstand them, the idea is that generally abortions arc not to 
be permitted. 

Thus. Ave have a Supreme Court holding that abortions are to be 
permitted. These amendments suggest generally they arc not to be 
permitted. But it seems to me that there is some question as to why 
this is a problem that ought to be uniformly solved by the central 
government in the first place. Tt does not strike me as a peculiarly 
Federal issue. It strikes me, in addition, as an extremely difficult 
moral issue on which compassionate people and compassionate State 
legislatures can take contrasting views and therefore. I would argue, 
if there is a disposition to react to Roe by way of a constitutional 
amendment, it should be one calculated to return to the situation 
before Roe — that is, an amendment that would leave a good deal of 
discretion to the State legislatures to resolve this excruciatingly diffi- 
cult problem as they see fit. 

Senator Bath. Thank you. Professor. "We will put that journal 
article of yours in the record, without objection. Tt is extensive and 
I think it adds to our study. 

[The prepared statement of John Ely follows :] 

Statement of John Hart Ely 
i. roe v. WADE 

I have analyzed (and strongly criticized) the Court's opinion at seme length 
in The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Vale I.mw 
Journal 920 (May 1973). and shall only briefly summarize my observations 
here. The opinion is reckless around the edges. Special reference, might !"■ 
made to two points in this regard. First, the Court holds that no health 
regulation at all. except that the abortion be performed by a doctor, Is 
permissible during the first trimester. This is thought to follow from the 
Court's assertion, controversial in itself, that during that period ;i 1»< >rt i- .n i< 
safer than proceeding to childbirth. Rut of course it does not follow: the 
empirical observation argues, at most, for allowing abortion and not for a 
ban on all measures designed to make abortions safer. Second, the Court 
quite plainly states that even during the third trimester (at which poinl the 
Court is prepared to regard the fetus as a person i the Constitution requires 
that the fetus's life give way to the life or health of the mother. Given the 
broad definition that courts have (quite properly) given "health" in t! 
contexts, the Court's conclusion here — completely undefended, by the way 
is a most frightening one. 

I find the opinion equally unacceptable, however, as regards its central 
propositions. It never adequately explains why a desire to permit the fetus 



254 

U, proceed to We la not a goal sufficiently important to support the state's 
'„„, eiforts in this area. All it says that is even arguably relevant to 
me point la that legal doctrine generally does not regard fetuses as persons 
una that the various constitutional clauses that refer to persons do not seem 
to have fetuses in mind. .Neither demonstration is convincing, but beyond that, 
iiclusiou that fetuses are not persons is irrelevant . 
- has never been held or even asserted that the state interest needed 
to Justify forcing a person to refrain from an activity, whether or not that 
activity is constitutionally protected, must implicate either the hfe or the con- 
stitutional rights of another person. Dogs are not "persons in the whole sense 
nor have they constitutional rights, but that does not mean the state cannot 
prohibit killing them: It does not even mean the state cannot prohibit killing 
them in the exercise of the First Amendment right of political protest. Come 
to think of it, draft cards aren't persons either. 

Second, the opinion never adequately defends— in fact it never defends— 
the propositi. .n that the right to an abortion is a constitutional right entitled 
to special constitutional protection that would even call for the "compelling 
state interest" the Court ( unconvincingly ) finds wanting. Nothing in the Con- 
stitution's text or history suggests any such right. The Court says there is 
a "right t.» privacy" discoverable in its interstices, and so indeed there may 
I.e. If one has reference to a right under some conditions to keep from the 
government Information he would rather it did not have. But whatever else 
abortion may involve, it does not involve a right of that contour. I would be 
the last to suggest thai the Constitution prohibits only the very things the 
trainers had in mind : inferences from the value structure the document em- 
bodies are the very stuff of constitutional judgment. The point is the Court 
suggests none. 

I am of course aware that the Constitution contains some clauses so open- 
ended as to suggest thai their content was meant to be worked out over time. 
Bui surely they are not carte blanche for courts, or we might as well stop 
pretending we are in any significant respect a democracy. The question, there 
fore, is how the Court should give them content. It might respond by reading 
the vaguer charters to incorporate conventional morality, or as Professor 
Heymann puts it. •deeply prized and widely shared" societal values. I am not 
at all sure that Roe comes out his way under this test, but more importantly 
is to me a test most inappropriate for judicial application. I doubt 
that we can ever confidently discover the "true moral principles of the 
people, but I am clear that legislatures are more likely to reflect them than 
courts. The more appropriate general approach, it seems to me, is to assign 
I., the courts a role lawyers are specially trained to fulfill, that of ensuring 
purity of process. There are some interests that are unlikely to be adequately 
represented in elected bodies, namely the interests of what Chief Justice 
ailed "discrete and insular minorities." and it is at least arguable that 
the Court should assume a special role in protecting them. There are diffi- 
culties in this approach, to be sure, having mainly to do with expressing it in 
adequately principled terms. But however expressed, it seems inappropriate 
to the abortion situation. Compared with men, women may he a discrete and 
insular "minority." But as between the interests of women and the interests 
of fetuses, it is difficult to conclude that the former cannot get a fair hear- 
ing in the political arena. 

Professor Tribe defends Rnr in somewhat different terms. I have no diffi- 
culty in rephrasing the question, as he does, as one of "role allocation": all 
constitutional questions are that. (The first amendment, for example, doesn't 
tell you what to say or what not to say. hut rather leaves you the decision 
free from government interference.) T simply do not find that if helps sup- 
port Justice HlacKinun's conclusion. Professor Tribe argues that the eoal of 
ling the "life" of a nonviable fetus cannot he invoked in defense of 
anti-abortion legislation, since the question whether a fetus is alive is one 
■ with religious overtones. T am troubled by the argument: to disallow 
ps embraced bv sizeable religious grouus — or what is its functional 
equivalent, to rHsillnw legislation when such defenses are rife — sppms to re- 
nnire n sort of secularization at war with the spirit of the fre^ exercise 
The religious clauses, read together, counsel neutrality with respect 



255 

to religion: to remove a subject from public debate because religiously 
inspired views are found to be competing with others does nol strike me 
neutrality. But passing that, there is another defense of anti-abortion legisla- 
tion to contend with, one geared not to the proposition that the ictus is alive 
but rather to the proposition, and it is undeniable, that whether or m 
nonviable fetus is alive, it will likely become so unless it is aborted. And 
that, I would argue, is enough to permit the state to protect it. Professor 
Tribe grants that this is not an inherently religious defense, but dismisses it 
as "hardly compelling." (87 Harvard Law Review at 26.) The first question 
is why the defense has to be "compelling" in the first place: it is. admittedly, 
a religiously neutral defense, and Professor Tribe quite wisely does qoI join 
Justice Blackmun's claim that the right of an abortion is somehow enshrined 
by the Constitution. The second question ,<>f course, is why the "potential 
life" defense isn't compelling, a question that is further focused by Profe 
Tribe's later assertion that the protection of a viable (third trimester) fetus 
is a compellin