Population Growth And The American Future (extremist Prolife Propaganda)



Preview only show first 6 pages with water mark for full document please download


A PRO-LIFE REPORT on Population Growth and the American Future

by Randy Engel

Randy Engel is
Demographic Advisor for

Columnist for


Executive Director

Member of MAP

Member of P A A

The Population Ass oc iation of Am eric a

©Randy Engel, 1972 2nd edition

For behold, days are coming in which men will say "Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and breasts that never nursed
LUKE 23:29

INTRODUCTION The Purpose and Content of this Study

On July 18, 1969, President Richard Nixon, in a presidential message on population, proposed the creation by Congress of a Commission on Population Growth and the American Future to study, sponsor research, and formulate recommendations "regarding a broad range of problems associated with population growth and their implications for America's future." On March 16, 1970, by an act of Congress, the Commission was officially established and its mandate clearly set forth in the following specific areas: First, the probable course of population growth, internal migration and related demographic developments between now and the year 2000. Secondly, the resources in the public sector of the economy that will be required to deal with the anticipated growth in population. Thirdly, ways in which population growth may affect the activities of Federal, state and local government. and Finally, a full hearing on the moral and ethical values related to any population control policies.* *Amendment by House Government Operations Committee.


The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, headed by John Rockefeller III, will soon submit its report to the President, to each House of Congress and to the American people, containing a comprehensive description of its activities and any recommendations it proposes as a result of such activities. In anticipation of the Commission's final report and recommendations, Women Concerned for the Unborn Child and Pennsylvanians for Human Life have invited me to prepare a pro-life summary of demographic trends in the United States and an in-depth analysis of the Commission itself, and its projected findings and recommendations relating to future American population policies. This report is based upon an original paper, entitled Population Control-The Human Dimension, submitted to the Commission on February 18, 1972. With the aid of a wide segment of the pro-life movement, I have expanded and clarified many areas of the original text and have added materials which I hope will be of particular interest to the reader. This report has a three-fold purpose—first, to provide a sounding board for the pro-life movement in the United States in the area of population control and those anti-life activities to which it is inextricably bound; second, to provide sufficient background information on the Commission in order to enhance the opportunities for examining and evaluating its findings and recommendations on America's population growth and future; and, finally, to bring to the forefront of the American contemporary scene a profile of the Population Control Movement in the United States—its goals, its programs, its resources, its leadership and its future in light of the proposals of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.

I wish to thank all those individuals and pro-life organizations who contributed both time and talent to the preparation of this report. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the special assistance of Anthony Zimmerman, Rose Emmons, James Cappuccino, Paul Marx, John Harrington, George Barmann, Fred Donville, Terry Sillers, Colin Clark, Bob Sassone, Mary Winter, Barbara Rutkowski, Mrs. Lee Austin, Ed Bryce, and Judy and Jerry Fink. The views expressed in this report are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Pennsylvanians for Human Life, Women Concerned for the Unborn Child, or those individuals and organizations who assisted in the compilation of materials and ideas used in the report.


Section I — A B O R T I O N A N D P O P U L A T I O N C O N T R O L S. J. Resolution 108—Population Stabilization ................................... 1

Interim Report The Federal Government and Abortion Defining Terms Family Planning vs. Population Control Post-Conceptive Family Planning HEW's Abortion Policies Packwood—Tax Dollars for Abortion Dr. Hellman on Abortion Abortion and Population Control Federal Dollars for Abortion Planned Parenthood ............................................................................... 5 Government Grants Planned Parenthood Finances Lagging Big Money in Abortion Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics Abortion Counseling HEW Abortion Policy ............................................................................... 8 Abortifacient Research ............................................................................ 8 AID Involvement U. S. Funded Abortoriums? The U. N. and Population Control Scratch the Surface 0E0 Controversy .................................................................. Must the Poor Be Guinea Pigs? Private or Public Morality? ............................................................... Planned Parenthood Not a Sacred Cow Abortion and Government Birth Control Programs ............................ Asian Abortions on the Increase "Voluntary" Family Planning Programs for the Poor ........................... 11 12 13 13

Abortion Opens Door to Anti-Life Forces ......................................... 14 Coming—Compulsory Population Control

Section II— An Analysis of the Commission on Population Growth and the A m e r ic a n F u tur e w it h Sp e c i a l R e fe r e nc e to t he Ob j ec t i vity of a nd the Values and Goals Set Forth in the Commission's Interim Report

The Hidden Crisis ........................................................................ 17 John Rockefeller III The Rockefeller Foundation............................................................... 18 Interest in Population Stabilization Rockefeller Interests in Abortion ................................................... 19 Planned Parenthood Abortorium Population Plans Begun in 1950's Ridgeway Concludes: Population Control Groups Represented on Commission ................... 20 No Pro-Life Leaders on Commission .............................................. 21 Commission Hearings Unbalanced The Interim Report ............................................................................... 21 Scratch the Surface and Find the Real Motive ZPG and Minority Groups ................................................................. 22 Who Will Choose Values? Wanted Children Only ........................................................................... 23 Large Families Scorned Pressures to Limit Family Population Control—At What Price? ................................................... 25 But at what price?
Section III Population Perspectives

Population Perspectives ............................................................ 27 A Third Possibility Plato and Ehrlich Primitive Man Ancient Populations Malthusian Replay ............................................................................... 28 Birth Limitation and the Poor Dickens vs. Malthus ............................................................................. 30 The New Malthusians ....................................................................... 30 Classic Arguments About Overpopulation Horn of Plenty Standing Room Only? World Population Density Demographic Transition ................................................................ 34 Phase I—Primitive Patterns of Population Growth Phase II—The "Explosion" Period Universal Literacy National Development Armies


Malthusian vs. Developmental Approach................................................ 37 Wrong Approach Argentina—Dangers of Premature Aging Economic Growth Modern Japan—A Demographic Profile ......................................... 38 Economic Considerations vs. Human Values Forty Million Abortions! Phase III—Population Stabilization ZPG for the United States? ...................................................................41 Causes of the Birth Dearth Abortion an Important Factor Economic and Political Effects of ZPG ................................................... 42 The United States—a Second Rate Power? Resources Not Depleted Urban Redistribution Phase IV—Aging Populations Period of Rapid Aging The French Experience with Malthusianism ...................................... 44 The Fallacy of Universal ZPG Population Education and Propaganda ................................................. 45 Office of Education ZPG Grant from 0E0 Family Planning Act of 1970 NEA Stand on Population Stabilization Population Texts and Teaching Manuals .............................................. 47 How and Why Not to Have That Baby PRB Text for Primary Grades Re-Defining "Abortion" The Mass Media and the "Population Explosion" The Role of T.V. Population Control and the Young ........................................................ 50 Sesame Street The Crowding Syndrome Caution: Population Propaganda Ahead



On December 4, 1971, in an interview with the National Journal, Senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif.; Subcommittee on Human Resources; chief sponsor of S. J. Res. 108 on population stabilization; member of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future), in response to the objection that the resolution was "a step toward a Senate abortion bill" replied, "Actually, there is no connection between the resolution and abortion. The Congress has never in its history enacted bills directly governing the practice of medicine. It is not expected that it ever will. I would oppose its doing so. This is a field reserved quite properly to the state legislatures."' However, the main thrust of the opposition to S. J. Res. 108, which came from Right-to-Life groups around the nation, was based on valid evidence including the statements of Senator Robert Packwood on abortion given at the time S. J. Res. 108 was introduced in the Senate 2 and the pro-abortion testimony given by the majority of persons at the time of the Senate hearings, including Dr. Louis Hellman, who represented the administration On November 3, 1971, Charles Westoff, representing the Commission and its Chairman, testified in favor of S. J. Res. 108 with some revisions related to the socially desirable goals of a population stabilization policy.4

Interim Report

The Commission's Interim Report specifically mentions abortion (pp. 15, 29, 30) as having probable demographic impact and sociological ramifications. In addition, there are members (including members and research staff of the Commission) who are on public record as favoring abortion on request—Dr. Paul Ehrlich,' Ansley J. Coale', Judith Blake Davis'—or favor compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies—Kingsley Davis8—or have been or are associated with organizations which maintain pro-abortion policies, including Planned Parenthood-World Population, Zero Population Growth, and the Congress on Optimum Population and Environment, as well as the Association for the Study of Abortion (ASA).

T h e F e d e r a l G ov e r n m e n t a nd A b o r ti o n

Clearly, there is ample evidence to substantiate the charge that the Federal government is promoting and financing a Malthusian ideology which views abortion as a legitimate birth control technique for omitted contraception or contraception failure, or to control "unwanted fertility," and that there is in fact a very real relationship between abortion and other anti-life activities, and an explicit government population policy of `stabilization' or reduced population growth, which the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future will propose in its final report.

De fining Te r ms

It would be best to define and distinguish such terms as abortion, contraception, birth control, family planning, and population control as they are used within the context of this report. Contracep tion: The temporary prevention of conception before, during or after sexual intercourse by preventing the union of sperm and ovum. Birth Control: An "umbrella" term used to include all means of limiting offspring including sterilization, contraception, abortion, infanticide. Famil y Pl anning : The individual married couple's choice with regard to the number and spacing of children. Population Control: The regulation of specific demographic policies designed to influence choice of family size and reinforce specific demographic objectives of government as a matter of public policy. Abortion: "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. i°

In Planned Parenthood, Stone and Hines distinguish between birth control (contraception) and abortion which "destroys a life already begun.''ll N.B.: Abortion used in this report refers to induced abortion by chemical or surgical means.
F a m i ly P la n ni ng v s . P op ul a ti o n C on t r o l

It should also be noted that population control advocates clearly distinguish between family planning and population policies. "Family planning programs do not attempt to influence the number of children a family desires. Any program that seeks to halt population growth must in addition to providing for total availability of family planning services, seek to insure that the number of wanted births is consistent with a stable population." says Sen. Alan Cranston. (emphasis added).

"Population control is to limit births, not to regulate births. It is necessary to understand the difference," states the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population. Elaborating on "The Mythology of Family Planners," Edgar Chasteen in his book, The Case for Compulsory Birth Control, lashes out against the proposition that "individual family planning equals population control," and quotes Kingsley Davis's statement that "There is no reason to expect


that millions of decisions about family size made by couples in their own interest will automatically control population for the benefit of society. On the contrary, there are good reasons to think they will not do so.

Post Conceptive Family Planning

Using the first definition of abortion taken from an official document compiled by the U. S. National Institute of Health and published by the Public Health Service, it is clear that prostaglandins and similar "postconceptive or hindsight means of fertility control are in fact abortifacients. The use of euphemistic words and phrases such as bringing on a period'' or once-a-month pill or post-coital drug found in HEW's Five Year Family Planning Program are but one example of the medical fantasies and downright dishonest claims which attempt to make chemical abortions respectable by labeling them contraceptive agents." I will return to federal research in this area later in this report when I discuss the abortifacient research under way by the AID (Agency for International Development) and the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development of HEW.
-15 -16 -17 -18

HEW's Abortion Policies

Having established these definitions, let us see how abortion—which was excluded from the Tydings Family Planning and Population Act—is being brought in the back doors of government, beginning with the Office of Population Affairs headed by Dr. Louis Hellman. On jaimary 22, 1971, Sen. Robert Packwood addressed, by phone, an abortion symposium held at the International Hotel in Los Angeles. A considerable portion of his speech was given over to bypassing the abortion prohibition of the Tydings Family Planning and Population Act (PP-WP helped draft the original bill) which states, None of the funds appropriated under t h i s title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. (emphasis his).

Packwood Tax Dollars for Abortion

Included in his suggestions were national grants to Planned Parenthood units which could then use their own current monies to promote abortion; grants to states with liberal abortion laws under the Public Health Service Act; and the use of Social Security funds under Section V related to infant care and the like for low-income fin»il ies. °

Of particular importance was Sen. Packwood's special mention of Dr. Hellman as being the abortion establishment's sympathetic liaison within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare." This is a very strategic stronghold for both abortion and population control advocates because the Office of Population will act as the focal point for population growth infOrmation and be a governmental leader, planner, and co-ordinator in this area.


Dr. Hellman on Abortion

During the hearings on S. J. Res. 108 on October 14,1971, Sen. Packwood questioned Dr. Hellman following the presentation of his formal presentation representing the administration on the abortion issue Sen. Packwood: "Why is so little research done on induced abortion? I realize we have some variations in laws from state to state, but we are not limited on research. And yet I don't see much research being done at NIH." Dr. Hellman: "The Center for Population Research is supporting several programs in this area. I agree with you that we have a tremendous laboratory on social change going on in the U.S. in regard to abortion and that it would be a serious mistake if we let this change p as s wi th o ut st ud y " 2 3 A short while later Sen. Packwood returned to the question of abortionSen. Packwood: "Without getting into a discussion of Federal-state relations, do you think the Federal government should be involved in pursuing abortion as a method of family planning?" Dr. Hellman: "What I think personally has little bearing. The legislation is very definite on this point." Sen. Packwood: "What do you recommend should be done with the present legislation which somewhat restricts the use of abortion in Title X funded projects?" Dr. Hellman: "Sen. Packwood, I think we are going to see very rapid change in the U.S. in attitudes about abortion. I think the slowup in the change in state abortion laws last year was a temporary phenomenon. As young people who don't have a hangup about abortion come of age, we are going to see a very rapid change in thinking. Abortion is an area where the people of the United States ought to take a lead, not the Federal Government." (emphasis added). Sen. Packwood: "But the prohibition we are talking about just went in last August." Dr. Hellman: "The states are changing their laws and the issue is before the courts but is still a very sensitive issue." Sen. Packwood: "But where abortion is legal, why should those states be denied the funds to provide abortion services?" Dr. Hellman: "Title XIX of the Social Security Act doesn't have that prohibition, and actually, if abortions are being referred from our clinics, and I expect in New York state some of the clinics supported by Title V send patients for abortion, the operations are probably paid for under Title XIX." Sen. Packwood: "Well, it evades the issue, but I know your personal opinion, and let me say in your defense, if our young people had leaders with your vision to look to, we would move rapidly toward freedom of conscience on the abortion issue." Dr. Hellman: "Thank you, sir."


Dr. Hellman's personal views are well known, as are his associations with leading abortion-on-demand groups. He has served as a chairman of the PPFA Medical Committee, is on the Board of Directors of the Association for the Study of Abortion, is a consultant to the Population Council, and was a plaintiff along with Dr. Alan Guttmacher in the New York abortion actions. 25 Dr. Hellman has also been a member of the Population Crisis Committee since 1968.
A b or t io n a n d P op u la t i on C on t r ol

According to Dr. Hellman, the objective of the country's family planning program now is health and IF THE GOVERNMENT EVER SWITCHES TO A POPULATION CONTROL POLICY "we'll have to use all available methods" including abortion." 26 (emphasis added). But, as Sen. Packwood suggests, there are many ways of circumventing the law before Congress "switches" to a population control policy. Although the federal government as yet has no specific abortion policy, the Department of HEW states that liberalization of abortion laws "must ensure two principles—safety of the patient and elimination of social and economic discrimination
. ”27

Speaking of the impact of fertility control methods as being related to decreased incidence of abortion, the report continues, "Abortion would then serve as a back-up measure for contraceptive failure, thereby still further assuring the freedom of choice of those who do not desire an unwanted birth."28
F e de r a l Dolla r s for Ab or tion

Currently, welfare recipients are being reimbursed under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. (Medicaid) 29 Under CHAMPUS,3° the insurance coverage program for armed service personnel and their dependents (unmarried daughters to age of 21-23 for students), abortions may currently be obtained in states with "liberalized" abortion laws only, instead of any military hospital regardless of local restrictions as was ordered by Dr. Louis M. Rousselot, Deputy Asst. Secy. for Health and Environment, Defense Department, in a memorandum on July 31, 1970. This restriction in actual practice costs the taxpayers double since service wives or dependents may be transported at public expense to other areas if abortions are not available in their state.

"Planned Parenthood Federation of America (also known as Planned Parenthood-World Population) is the largest private organization in the family planning field" states the Dept. of HEW in its Five Year Plan (emphasis added).


"Over the past few years, our organization (PP-WP) has entered a new and invigorating era of public-private partnership. The passage of the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 signalled a milestone in the development of this partnership, dovetailing the efforts of public agencies with our own in a framework of a greatly-expanded commitment of Federal funds. And a second milestone was reached in the past several months with preparation by the Dept. of HEW of the first nationwide five-year plan for family planning services (testimony of John C. Robbins, Chief Executive Officer, Planned Parenthood-World Population in favor of S. J. Res. 108 on October 14, 1971). (emphasis added).
Government Grants

Which of these two statements comes closer to the truth?

Is Planned Parenthood primarily a private organization with limited governmental funding, or, is it in fact a quasi-governmental agency with a shrinking public support in the form of unrestricted contributions?
Since Planned Parenthood not only engages in abortion referral and counseling, but also operates abortion clinics of its own, the question of the extent of the use of taxpayer's money is of considerable importance. In 1970, PPFA, Inc., (not including affiliates) received the following amounts:31 Approx. 2.6 million—unrestricted contributions 2.4 million—restricted contributions .8 million—other sources 5.8 million—total public support 1.0 million—Grants from Government Agencies According to Planned Parenthood's president, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, reporting in his personal newsletter of June 18th, 1971, "Government funding has permitted affiliates (PP) to open numerous satellite clinics and employ indigenous people as Planned Parenthood workers to teach family planning in their own neighborhood. The Washington office reports that in 1970-71, 125 affiliate projects shared $10,057,273, exclusive of Medicaid payments. The lion's share (over $9.25 million) was provided by the Federal government in a roughly 5 to 3 ratio between 0E0 and HEW" Dr. Guttmacher goes on to state that governmental funding on each occasion requires new matching funds, usually 25%, and that "these government

grants free unrestricted citizens' contributions to finance new areas of service excluded from government subsidy. (emphasis added).

Planned Parenthood Finances Lagging

In Planned Parenthood Report, issued in March-April 1971, Dr. Guttmacher highlighted the activities of PP-WP and its affiliates for 1970 and took note of their increased services and expanded activities, and the need for greater financial support from government.


For the first time in a decade," he reported, "gifts to affiliates failed to grow, and gifts to national headquarters fell off."

B i g M on e y i n A b o r ti o n

To what extent Planned Parenthood's activities in abortion will help boost its lagging financial resources is, of course, unanswerable at this time. Clearly, however, abortion in general is a very lucrative field, as Dr. Irwin H. Kaiser, chief of obstetrics-gynecology at Lincoln Hospital in New York ( famous" for its large out-patient abortion facilities) pointed out to the abortion establishment at the Los Angeles symposium mentioned earlier.

When asked about the financing and costs of the out-patient clinic, Kaiser said that it was impossible to give an accurate accounting of who got what from where and that they did a certain amount of midnight requisitioning. He then went on to say We have vastly more than recouped this (about $65,000) by now. At $160 per patient, this is a substantial money-maker for the hospital and, obviously, if we were prepared to step into the competitive New York market, where abortions go as high as $1,500, we probably would make a substantial killing, if I nay use that expression. (Great laughter from audience!)

P la n ne d P a r e nt h o od A b or t i on C l i ni c s

As of 1971, Planned Parenthood was operating at least three aboratoriums, including an out-patient center in Alameda-San Francisco area fbr "lowincome" patients, a clinic in Syracuse, and one in New York which will perform 8,000-10,000 low cost abortions per year.

In New York City, Planned Parenthood operates a Family Planning Services Information Service fbr the city, which gives infbrmation and makes referrals for birth control, voluntary sterilization, and abortion for city residents.
A b or t io n C ou ns e l i ng

Across the nation, 181 Planned Parenthood affiliates were involved in abortion counseling," says PP-WP medical director (NY) Dr. George Langmyhr. Planned Parenthood, Milwaukee, for example, has received a $150,000 grant from HEW which was matched by $75,000. This permitted PP to increase its services by 50% to include contraception, sterilization and "abortion referral ."

According to PP, abortion counseling and referral are "educational and political" as well as purely "service," that is, a total program aimed at educating the public so as to "mold a new attitude" toward abortion; to "increase the number of therapeutic abortions performed under the law in the Bay area and throughout California; and to work for further liberalization of the law" and other objectives. The Center for Family Planning Program Development is a key Planned Parenthood agency established in 1968 to pioneer methods of program


planning for community-wide family planning programs and is financed primarily through foundation grants. Last year the Center conducted a survey in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area and revealed that there were an estimated 57,000 women who want and/or need family planning services. This survey resulted in a $1,000,000 grant from the Dept. of HEW to the Family Planning Council of Southwestern Pennsylvania, Inc. Magee-Womens Hospital, in Pittsburgh, is one of the 25 health related agencies associated with the Council. According to its 1971 Annual Report, Magee-Womens Hospital is dedicated to "the conception, gestation and birth of a healthy, WANTED baby in an environment where he can develop to his maximum potential." (emphasis added). Toward this end, Magee-Womens, the largest nongovernmental maternity service hospital in the country, aborted 1,709 unborn children last year.

This filtering down of Federal funds to hospitals performing abortionson-demand is in keeping with HEW Secretary Elliott Richardson's 1970 statement that "I don't anticipate that we (HEW) would take a position on this (legalized abortion) as a Federal agency, beyond saying, in effect that, one; it is primarily a matter for state action and, two; that in general


In the area of abortion research, Federal funds are being funneled into the Contraceptive Development Branch (CDB) of the Center for Population Research (CPR)—a unit of the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NHI) of the Department of HEW. The CDB, which last year received a full time director according to Science Mag azine (March 26, 1971) is reviewing a number of contracts relating to abortion including one "to explore the use of microwaves and ultrasound in performing abortions."

A.I.D. Involvement

The development of prostaglandins, i.e., for use as abortifacients, which according to Dr. Reimert Ravenholt of the Agency for International Development will be very suitable in developing countries because they act through "post-conceptive (hindsight) means of fertility control," has been given top priority in AID, which invested some three million dollars in prostaglandin research in 1969. (Population Council).
38 39


In its latest report, Population Program Assistance (December, 1971), AID states that it currently has $4.4 million invested in prostaglandins in contracts with the Worchester Foundation for Experimental Biology, the Upjohn Company, the Royal Veterinary College (Sweden) and the Universities of North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Harvard, Yale, Hawaii, Washington, Michigan (St. Louis) and Makerere (Uganda). Collaborative clinical trials of prostaglandin are already in progress in North Carolina, Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Missouri and Hawaii in the U. S. and in India, Uganda, the United Arab Republic, Yugoslavia, Great Britain and Singapore and will rapidly be extended to additional developing countries. The University of North Carolina recently received a grant of $3.1 million to support prostaglandin field trial studies. According to Carl Djerassi of Stanford University and president of Syntex Research, Palo Alto, California, "surgical abortion must be used, in case of failure, as back-up procedure during the research phase on chemical abortifacient." This is why AID is sponsoring the clinical work on prostaglandins (agents expelling the embryo or fetus) in countries (Sweden, Great Britain, Uganda) lacking such legal restraints 4 0

Djerassi states that research on chemical abortifacients should be given top, or near top priority as a future fertility control agent. He also takes note of the fact that both the AID and the Center for Population Research (NH I) "seem to have found ways of circumventing Section 1008 of the 1970 Family Planning Act" and have made important contributions to this area of research.41
U. S. Funded Abortoriums?

In a section on various types of family planning centers to be developed by AID in the 1970's, Population Program Assistance raises the spectre of United States sponsorship and/or support of so-called "pregnancy centered" family planning programs. "With the advent of post-conceptive methods of fertility control (especially prostaglandins) family planning programs in many areas seem likely to become more "pregnancy-centered"—with emphasis on early diagnosis of pregnancy, termination of unwanted pregnancies, and the continuing provision of oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and sterilization services." (p. 12) Further on in the report we read "As legal restrictions on post-conceptive fertility control are removed, for example, India in 1971, it is foreseeable that family planning program strategy will center upon the early diagnosis and relief of unwanted pregnancy, followed by provision of contraceptive information and services needed to prevent subsequent pregnancies. "Such pregnancy-centered programs can be much more efficient than ordinary family planning programs because women who believe they may have an unwanted pregnancy will actively seek out any facility offering relief, and hence education and promotional costs of the• family planning program can be greatly reduced, and the time from inception of the program to reduction of fertility can be minimized. 9

"Provision of relief of unwanted pregnancy plus effective contraception, for example, sterilization, can achieve fertility reduction of more than one birth per clinic acceptor and have a powerful and rapid effect upon fertility patterns." (pp. 34-35)
The U.N. and Population Control

In 1967, the Secretary-General of the United Nations established the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) to expand the activities of the organization in the area of population/family planning. The United States, as its major supporter, has already contributed millions of dollars to the agency. If Congress should attempt to cut off funds for abortion and abortifacient research from AID or similar agencies, it may very well be that the UNFPA will become the funnel for getting abortion research and supportive funds into the right hands without undue legislative difficulties. This is one reason why U. S. dollars to this agency need to be carefully monitored. Another reason why the population activities of the U. N. will be of great importance in right-to-life groups at home and abroad is the fact the U. N. is considered by those interested in controlling world population as THE ideal medium for setting up the initial machinery and providing ample financing toward this particular long-range goal. A reading of World Population–A Challenge to the U. N. and Its System of Agencies, a report prepared by a National Policy Panel of the UNA-USA with John Rockefeller III as chairman will, I believe, support the possibility of a World Population Control Center within the United Nations. AID's suggestion that abortion is an effective means of "fertility control" was well outlined last year in HEW's Five Year Plan by R. T. Ravenholt, director of AID's Office of Population which prepared the text of Population Program Assistance in cooperation with various U. N. and U. S. agencies as well as organizations including Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Population Council, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the Pathfinder Fund, the Population Crisis Committee and the Population Reference Bureau. "Effective use of precoital or preconceptive (contraceptive) means of fertility control requires the exercise of foresight. For many individuals, particularly in developed countries, these methods have been quite successful. But for many others in all societies and particularly in the developing countries, use of foresight means of fertility control is difficult and reliance solely on these means is less efficient and more expensive. For these groups, access to post-coital or post-conceptive (hindsight) means of fertility control is imperative for adequate control of fertility." (p. 281)
Scratch the Surface

This is presented as being only a small portion of the Federal government's involvement in abortion which is being subsidized by the American taxpayer—an involvement which will increase, as Dr. Hellman suggests, if the government adopts a population policy, and if HEW's Five Year Family Planning and Population Research program goes unchallenged.


Since the root of the abortion problem is the government's promotion of Neo-Malthusianism or Planned Parenthood ethics as a matter of PUBLIC POLICY, I will therefore address myself to this problem—even while abortion is excluded as a method of family planning. By 1971, the Office of Economic Opportunities had received some 26 million dollars for programs relating to family planning,42 a portion of which has been given to PP affiliates to carry on such programs. In one specific case, Planned Parenthood of San Diego rejected a sum of $150,000 for 1972 from the OEO through its OEO office. According to a report in a San Diego press release, the Executive Director of the Economic Opportunity Center said, "The organization (PP) is in noncompliance because one-third of the board is supposed to represent the poor of the community. This is hardly the case." He also stated, "PP has always ignored OEO guidelines to adequately represent the poor. They would not follow the guidelines for a 'racially balanced district,' " to which a PP representative answered that PP does not intend to do so and therefore it plans to reject the OEO grant. What we see in effect here is a "democratization" of birth control techniques intended to limit the poor while the power remains in the hands of the Malthusian elite.
Must the Poor Be Guinea Pigs?

Another specific injustice relating to federally sponsored family planning programs involves the use of welfare recipients and minority poor for human guinea pigs without informed consent. The Southwest Foundation has received from the Federal government a three year grant of $913,000 for the study of steroids.43 A portion of the research, carried on by Dr. Joseph Goldzieher, involved the physiological or psychologically induced effects of the Pill. In a Hasting Center report published in the Spring of 1971 by the Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences, an article written by Robert M. Veatche, entitled "Experimental Pregnancy" explained Dr. Goldzieher's mode of operation. Poor, multiparous Mexican-American women had come to the San Antonio, Texas, clinic for birth prevention devices and instructions. Seventy-six of these who were told they were reacting to the Pill were given placebos while others received a variety of hormonal compounds including some containing chlormadinore acetate progestin (recently banned from all further human investigation because of bad side effects in beagles). Of the women on placebos, ten became pregnant and remained so because, according to Dr. Goldzieher, "We could have aborted them if the abortion statute in Texas weren't in limbo right now!" The Hastings Report raised many excellent ethical questions relating to the injustice of uninformed consent and asked why it is always the poor that must be the subject of experiments of this kind instead of the researchers' wives and daughters.


But the dangers of Neo-Malthusianism—or as Americans have come to know it, Planned Parenthood—are not only related to the poor, for the ideology which it promotes is a challenge to the entire Judaeo-Christian community—regardless of economic circumstance. Neo-Malthusians can never deliver on their promises—to ensure only wanted children in a family, to build marital happiness, to eradicate illegal abortions and venereal disease, and to promote the welfare of the community. For theirs is an ideology based only on secular humanism and crass hedonism—the adoption of which gnaws away at the backbone of moral virtue and strong family life based on fidelity and sacrifice and love.

Planned Parenthood Not a Sacred Cow

The Federal government has no right to adopt it as a national credo without first fully debating all the implications for society, particularly those relating to family stability which Neo-Malthusianism tends to break down, rather than build up. Instead of increasing its involvement in family planning, the Federal government must begin phasing itself out, starting with a divorce of all family planning policies from welfare. Government programs in the area tend inherently to invade privacy and, ultimately, the right to live. At the Second World Population Conference, held in Belgrade in 1965, a Korean official pointed out the relationship between government promotion of family limitation and abortion when he stated that a nation which launches a birth control campaign OWES it to the citizens to liberalize abortion laws to a certain extent. There will be many unwanted pregnancies, he explained, and the people should have a method of meeting this problem (emphasis added). The fact is that once the government puts itself into the business of promoting contraception, it will be held responsible for subsequent failures. The establishment of tax-supported nationwide aboratoriums, which has already been proposed by the abortion establishment, is a very real possibility in the not-too-distant future. The problem is further complicated by the fact that anti-population propaganda tends to increase the reluctance of parents to bear children who, under more normal circumstances, would be accepted and welcomed into the family. Hence, it is likely that government promotion of family limitation will result in MORE, not fewer, unwanted children. This is the case in contemporary Japan, where prior to 1948, a pro-natalist policy was in effect and "unwanted children" were practically non-existent. Today, there are many fewer births in Japan but the number of "unwanted children" has increased, as evidenced by an increasing number of child beatings, exposures and parental neglect by mothers and fathers who are busy with other things. 12

This may also help to account for the fact that massive government programs of contraception, intended in part to reduce national abortion rates, do just the opposite. This has been the experience of Chile (Santiago region), Korea, and Taiwan—all of which have, since the early 1960s, been taking part in massive IUD programs promoted and financed by the United States' Agency for International Development (AID), the Rockefeller Foundation, the Population Council, and the Ford Foundation. According to a special ASA report, International Consultants' Report 1970, in greater urban Santiago, Chile, the abortion rate in 1961 was 15.5% of all pregnancies. By 1966, the rate had increased to 20.1% of all pregnancies "in spite of the use of contraception." Asian Abortions on the Increase In Korea, 74% of patients on oral contraceptives have had induced abortions ...and 58% who have discontinued use of the IUD have also experienced induced abortion ...the article then notes "The proportion of wives practicing contraception prior to and/or after induced abortion is much higher than those who have never had an induced abortion." Taiwan over the last three years has experienced an increase in the number of induced abortions. "These findings lead to an impression that promotion of family planning may in fact increase abortion, particularly at the initial stage of the program when a large proportion of women are anxious to keep their families small, yet are unable to avoid unwanted pregnancies completely." (emphasis added) (pg. 4).

As for the argument that prohibiting government promoted birth control programs rob the poor of the "freedom" to limit their numbers, it should be noted that under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, mothers are free to go to their own physicians, and free to get family planning advice under total medical care, which is as it should be. The constant problem of the Malthusians since the days of Thomas Malthus is not getting birth control information to the poor but convincing the poor that they need to limit births, as evidenced by the candid statement of Dr. David L. Crane of the Sarasota County Health Department which was entered into the hearing report of Family Planning Services. "I speak for every area, not just for this county. I do not know any area in the county where anyone has found a formula that will get more than 25% of the needy patients served at an acceptable cost which could be applied nationwide. Meanwhile, the other 75% who are not served are inundating us with another generation of indigents. This indeed is a serious problem! I hope some of the one billion to be provided will be utilized ($1,100 million allocated in 1970 Family Planning Act) to find solutions to the problem of how to get patients to accept our free service!"'4


Given the "nature of the beast," I believe that the Commission on Population Growth will come out in favor of an explicit population policy directed at 'stabilizing' the American population rather than a report centered on the ways in which America can accommodate a very moderate, indeed a very low level, of population growth if immigration is taken into consider tion. In turn, an acceptance of the Commission's recommendations w in fact be an acceptance of Neo-Malthusianism as an American way of life—with all of its attendant evils including permissive abortion, contraceptive sterilization, euthanasia, infanticide, and genetic engineering.
Coming Compulsory Population Control

It is not merely coincidence that one of Planned Parenthood's most zealous leaders is also a board member of the Abortion Rights Association of New York, Inc., a member of the Medical and Public Health Committee of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization, Inc., is on the Advisory Council of the Euthanasia Education Fund, and is a board member of the Pathfinder Fund. ABORTION — CONTRACEPTIVE STERILIZATION — EUTHANASIA — POPULATION CONTROL — all are closely related anti-life activities which will be promoted and financed by the Federal government unless steps are taken now to divorce Malthusianism from gOvernment policy. The eventuality of compulsory birth control, abortion, sterilization and death control also must be considered, once such "voluntary" programs are put into effect and protected by law.



"Human Resources," National Journal (December 4, 1971), p. 2401 U. S. Congressional Record, June 2, 1971, S7968 Testimony of Dr. Louis Hellman before the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, October 14, 1971 (reference to prostagland in s) Testimony of Dr. Charles Westoff before the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, November 3, 1971 "The Drive to Stop Population Growth," U.S. News and World Report (March 2, 1970), p. 37





Ansley Coale, "Man and His Environment," Science, CLXX, (Oct. 9, 1970), p. 136 J. B. Davis, "Survey on Abortion," Science (Feb. 12, 1971) Frank J. Ayd, "Liberal Abortion Laws," America (Feb. 1, 1969), pp. 130-32 The term "unwanted fertility" is found in the Commission report "Demographic Significance of Unwanted Fertility in the U.S.: 1970," by Charles Westoff and Norman Ryder, Princeton University, and in "The Extent of Unwanted Fertility in the U.S.," remarks by Charles Westoff at the annual meeting of PP-WP, October 28, 1969 "U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, publication 1066 (Washington: 1963), p. 27 "A. Stone and M.B. Hines, Planned Parenthood, (Binghamton, N.Y.: Viking Press, 1951), p. 40
6 9

"The Congressional Record—Senate, June 2, 1971—Introductory remarks on S. J. Res. 108 "Hearings on Res. 108—Declaration of U.S. Policy of Population Stabilization by Voluntary Means, 1971, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1972 No. 68-976 0. p. 37 "The Case for Compulsory Birth Control, Edgar R. Chasteen, Prentice Hall, N.J., p. 91 U.S. Office of Population Affairs, Office of the Asst. Sec'y. for Health and Scientific Endeavors, A Five Year Plan for Population Research and Family Planning Services, 92nd Cong., 1st Session, Committee Print. No. 68-1780

"Ibid., p. 281 "Ibid., p. 39 "Ibid., p. 59

/bid., p. 39 "Paul Marx, The Death Peddlers, (Collegeville, Minn.: St. John's University Press, 1971), pp. 39-60 /bid., p. 59 "HEW Five Year Plan, op. cit., p. 22


"Res. 108 Hearings, p. 424 "Ibid., p. 428 "Robert M. Byrn, "Abortion-on-Demand: Whose Morality?" Notre Dame Lawyer, XCVI (Fall, 1970), p. 24



Abortion Law Mental Test Called 'Sham,' W ash ing to n Post, November 25, 1971, B-4


HEW Five Year Plan., op. cit., p. 319

""Health Insurance for Abortion Costs: A Survey," F a mil y P l an n in g P er sp e c tiv e s, Vol. II, No. 4 (October, 1970), p. 12 p. 20 "Planned Parenthood-World Population Annual Report, 1970 "Marx, op. cit., p. 147 P.P. to Open Abortion Clinic Soon, N.Y. Ti me s, 12-5-71

"Marx, op. cit., p. 34 ""Counselling and Referral in Legal Abortion in California's Bay Area,'' F amily Pl ann ing Perspectives, Vol. II, No. .3 (June, 1970), pp. 14-15

Family Planning Services Hearing—Aug. 3,4, & 7, 1970 Serial No. 91-70 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1970, p. 99

"Robert Gillette, "Population Act," S c ie n ce (March 26, 1971), p. 1221 "HEW Five Year Plan, op. cit., p. 281 "Gillette, o p . c i t. "Carl Djerassi, "Fertility Control Through Abortion" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1 (January, 1972), pp. 12-13
4 'Ibid., p. 13 "HEW Five Year Plan, op. cit., p. 300

p. 286 "Family Planning Services Hearing, op. cit., p. 461



An Analysis of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future With Special Reference to the Objectivity of and the Values and Goals Set Forth in the Commission's Interim Report.
We are bigger, yes. But is America the better for increased population? I think not ...For unchecked population growth—in our country as elsewhere— threatens, if not human life itself, then surely life as we want it to be ... ... myriads of personal choices are at the root of the population problem ... The population problem is not one of two dimensions, but of three. The third dimension touches the very essence of human life—man's desire to live as well as to survive This emphasis on the quality of life is for us in this favored land, the heart of the matter. Unchecked population growth will ultimately place this third dimension beyond our reach, even in America ... Some may question whether the American population constitutes a population 'crisis.' I believe the word crisis is justified: Its dictionary meaning is 'a time for decision' ... THE CHOICE IS NO LONGER WHETHER POPULATION STABILIZATION IS NECESSARY, BUT ONLY HOW AND WHEN IT CAN BE ACHIEVED. (emphasis added) ... Let me suggest three practical opportunities for action ... First: we should inform ourselves more fully about the population problem ... Second: ... the population problem ... is so ramified ... THAT ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN ATTACK IT ON THE SCALE REQUIRED . . . (emphasis added) Third: In planning the size of our own families, we should weigh carefully the collective effect of our decisions upon the future well-being of our communities.'


John Rockefeller Ill

From "The Hidden Crisis," Look, February 9, 1965 This article appeared more than six years ago and was authored by John Rockefeller III, founder and trustee of the Population Council, Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation (America's leading non-governmental birth control promotion center2 and channel for America's funds into world population control 3) Advisory Board member of the U. N. Population Fund, and currently the Chairman of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.

Interest in Population Stabilization

In the Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report (1967-68), chapter on Problems of Population (pp. 11-15), the commitment of the Foundation in the area of "finding widely acceptable and applicable means of achieving population stabilization," is acknowledged. The thrust of the Foundation's grants during this period is directed at increasing the involvement of the health profession in the field of population. Thus, major appropriations were directed at Cornell University and Cornell Medical Center in New York, Tulane University in New Orleans, and Baylor University in Houston. On the International level, the Foundation works through the Population Council, with a sizable grant directed at the Council's Technical Assistance Division which trains population workers through educational scholarships in family planning and demography. Foundation funds were also funneled abroad through the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the School of Public Health of the University of California at Berkeley. The Foundation's population grant program also included Emory University in Georgia; Princeton University in New Jersey, and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. In the most recent bound edition of its annual report (1969-1970), U. S. grants from the Foundation have been given to Columbia University, New Jersey; Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.; Howard University, Massachusetts; the Institute of Society, Ethics, and Life Sciences, New York; Princeton University, New Jersey; Rockefeller University, New York; University of Chicago; University of Michigan; University of North Carolina; University of Wisconsin; University of Connecticut. In addition to funding population research and family planning programs via university and medical schools, Foundation support is extended to the Population Reference Bureau and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Western Hemisphere Region. The Foundation report cites two "very successful" programs including the Louisiana Family Planning program at Tulane University headed by Dr. Joseph Beasley, and a model program at the University of Chile. Planned


Parenthood, New York City, and the Center for Family Planning Development of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America are also included. This partial listing of Rockefeller Foundation grants to most of the major population research and study centers in the United States indicates, to a certain degree, the financial leverage which the Foundation is able to direct in the area of population research. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation are the two largest foundation contributors in the area of population and family planning. It is of importance, I believe, in discussing the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, to note that many of the researchers for the Commission were selected from the universities and centers mentioned above including Princeton, U. of Wisconsin, U. of California, U. of Chicago, Columbia, Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences. Indeed, Princeton representation of the Commission research staff appears to be dominant (the Taeubers, Westoff, Keller, Tietelbaum, Coale, Danielson, and Viederman).

In the President's Report, published by the Association for the Study of Abortion, on ASA, its Functions and its Needs, major contributors to ASA funding ($5,000 or more) include the Population Council, John Rockefeller III, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Rockefeller Foundation. In November, 1968, at the ASA Hot Springs Virginia International Conference on Abortion, John Rockefeller III delivered a main address on "Abortion Law Reform—The Moral Basis," in which he states that restrictive abortion laws "must be changed to alleviate the evils in our society" (the unwanted child, poverty, physical suffering, etc.) His long-range answer to the abortion problem is "to eliminate abortion laws altogether, replacing them only with a requirement that a duly licensed physician perform the abortion."
Planned Parenthood Abortorium

Planned Parenthood's New York abortorium, which gives priority to lowincome residents of the city, was established with funds pledged by The Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($200,000), the Scaife Family Trust of Pittsburgh and an anonymous donation of $60,000. According to Alfred F. Moran, the center "will be a prototype for the development of additional centers throughout the city, state and nation."
Population Plans Begun in 1950's
Li ''Pollution al id Population" from The Politics of Ecology, James Ridgeway enlarges on the Rockefeller interest in the population control movement: "In 1957, an ad hoc committee of population experts from the council, the Rockefeller Fund, Conservation Foundation, and Planned Parent-


hood published a scheme for controlling populations called Population: An International Dilemma. The report said population control was the key to stability in both rich and poor nations. The idea was to persuade educated people of the population dangers. The committee believed population was a problem in the U.S., and sought to use tax, welfare and education policies to "equalize births among the socially handicapped. In 1963, the population-control people created an organization called the Population Crisis Committee, and made Gen. William Draper chairman. It acts as a quasi-governmental organization through which U.S. funds can be routed to birth control programs in underdeveloped countries. Since the U.S. finds it embalTassing to funnel money for birth control to backward Catholic countries, it runs the money through Draper's group, and from there it goes out to Planned Parenthood groups abroad
Ridgeway concludes:

The Neo-Malthusian doctrine, rising among both the technocrats and the ecologists, looks like a narrow, manipulative scheme aimed at controlling the poor in the interests of the wealthy.4

Other Commission members associated with population control interests or groups or legislation include: Bernard Berelson—President, The Population Council George D. Woods—Trustee, The Rockefeller Foundation Joseph D. Beasley—PP-WP Technical Assistance Division Senator Joseph Tydings—Coalition for National Population Policy Senator Robert Packwood—sponsored National Abortion Act (S 1750) and Senate Joint Resolution 108 on population stabilization Senator Alan Cranston—sponsored S.J. Res. 108 The Commission's Executive Director is Charles R. Westoff, the National Advisory Council of Planned Parenthood-World Population. The research staff of the Commission as recorded in the Interim Report includes: Charles R. Westoff—PP-WP Christopher Tietze—Population Council; Medical Responsibilities Committee of the Abortion Rights Association, New York Paul Ehrlich—Founder of Zero Population Growth, Inc.; Congress on Optimum Population and Environment Stephen Viederman—The Population Council Frederick S. Jaffe—PP-WP Sheldon J. Segal—Population Council Phyllis T. Piotrow —Secretary, Population Crisis


Committee: Victor-Bostrom Fund, PP-WP. Peter Brown—Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences (founded in part by Rockefeller Foundation) Other well-known advocates of population limitation or abortionon-demand or both include: Conrad Taeuber—Bureau of the Census Ansley J. Coale—Princeton Judith Blake Davis—University of California, Berkeley Lincoln H. Day—United Nations Kingsley Davis—University of California, Berkeley Preston Cloud—University of California, Santa Barbara

No Right-to-Life leader is listed either on the Commission or on the Research staff, although it appears that key personnel of organizations promoting population control and, in almost all the cases, abortion-on-demand, are exceedingly well represented NOT ONLY in terms of research positions but also, more importantly in the chairmanship and executive directorship of this Commission.
Commission Hearings Unbalanced

I have not had an opportunity to examine all the hearings' testimony and the new research papers which have been added to the Commission files since the Interim Report was completed. I have noted, however, that certain groups such as PP-WP have had several opportunities to present their opinions to the Commission. While a few Right-to-Life witnesses have been able to render testimony along with demographers, economists, etc., who are opposed to population control, here again, I do not believe that the record when completed will show balance. In my view, therefore, both the Interim Report and the Final Report will not be representative of a wide spectrum of public opinion. Rather, the Report will represent the minority viewpoint of the vocal Malthusian coercive population control advocates of this nation who have in recent years been taken over by eugenic enthusiasts, social engineers, and pro-abortionists demanding that their views be translated into public— that is, governmental—policies.

But let me be specific in my objections to the Interim Report, beginning with the choice posed in Chapter One: Do we wish to continue to grow as a nation in terms of resources and demands for service or do we wish to concentrate our energies and resources to improve the "quality of life" for the needy of our society? I think that the best answer to this question is given, again, by James Ridgeway, who says: 21

"The Neo-Malthusians argue that population control means economic betterment for the family. But there is nothing whatever to indicate that population control programs result in income distribution. IT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE. (emphasis added) Population control is a means for rulers to control the populace. And when the issue is considered in terms of modern technology, population control becomes a way to increase the wealth of a few individuals and corporations." Citing the fact that the signers of the pro-population control Hugh Moore Fund newspaper advertisements include George Champion of the Chase Manhattan Bank (a Rockefeller bank), Frank W. Abrams, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Lammot duP. Copeland of duPont, Ridgeway concludes that these same people now ask that "the masses control the size of their families so that the plunder can continue." 5 From an historical point of view, Malthusian economics designed to "freeze" a particular level of national wealth or standard of living by reducing the number of sharers—characteristic of France for more than two centuries—have proven to be harmful to nations over the long haul.
S c r a t c h t h e S u r f a c e a n d F in d t h e R e a l M o t i v e

I think Americans would do well to follow Mr. Ridgeway's example and scratch the surface to find the motive behind the Malthusian's "concern" for humanity, particularly the poor, whose fertility has always made them nervous even in the clays of the Reverend Malthus.

One of the more practical rather than theoretical applications of so-called "population stabilization" revolves around the issue of minority groups, particularly blacks and Spanish-speaking Americans. I do not believe that those advocating population control are racists; that is, they are not interested in black genocide. To the Malthusian, color is not as important a factor in their campaign as poverty, so in a sense they can be said to practice democratic eugenics. Thus, they are as joyful at the prospect of sterilizing poor white Appalachia as they are of securing "abortion rights" for blacks in Harlem. As it happens, however, while white Protestants and Jews have birth rates which are at replacement levels, Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and MexicanAmericans are reproducing well above replacement level in most cases. Thus, for the former group Z.P.G. will have little meaning, but for the latter it will pose special problems, since they'll have a longer way to come to achieve a zero objective set by population controllers. So—if this Commission goes on record as favoring population stabilization, it can't be accused of minority genocide—it simply happens to work out that way. The relationship between tax supported programs of abortion for the poor and the reduction of welfare costs was explained by Dr. Garrett Hardin at an abortion conference in California in May, 1969:


"If the total circumstances are such that the child born at a particular time and under particular circumstances will not receive a fair shake in life, then she (the mother) should know—she should feel in her bones—that she has no right to continue the pregnancy ...It may seem a rather coldhearted thing to say, but we should make abortions available to keep down our taxes, but let us not hesitate to say this if such a statement will move legislators to do what they should do anyway." Dr. Hardin is not alone in espousing the view that publicly financed abortions of the poor and welfare recipients are a taxpayers' bargain, which eliminates the costs (about some $20,000+) of raising one ADC child from birth to 17 years of age. This, no doubt, accounts for the fact that many middle and upper-class Americans who are reactionary on other issues, (fo• example, sharing the wealth) suddenly become very liberal with regard to birth control, sterilization, and abortions in the ghetto. Who Will Choose Values? Chapter 4 of the Interim Report, Policy Issues (p. 25), has another phrase which probably more than any other reveals the Malthusian leanings of this Commission's Interim Report: "The Commission views population policy not as an end in itself but as a means to facilitate the achievement of other social goals desirable in their own right. The report goes on to list those which would (not should) be included.

As this statement implies, population policies involve a choice of ends. Where the Malthusian rules, these ends will be based on an ideology of secular humanism, and human norms end up taking a back seat to economic, technological, and scientific norms. This particular characteristic of Malthusian behavior manifests itself today in the area of abortion, where a human life is destroyed to insure a higher standard of living or to preserve the "quality of life" of the parents or children already born.

Indeed, the Commission statement which includes the goal of "improving the health and opportunities of children born because they are wanted" rather than improving the health and opportunities of all children born parallels the thinking of Dr. Alan Guttmacher, president of Planned Parenthood-World Population, who says: "We are trying to stimulate the creation of wanted children and WAN TED CHILDREN ONLY. (emphasis added) in Abortion and the Unwanted Child.


Which of us is so foolish as to believe that man will ever reach such a state of moral perfection that he will welcome every newborn? There will always be unwanted children born just as there are unwanted adults. But what is it that distinguishes a barbarian from a civilized man 23

if it is not the latter's concern for the unwanted, the handicapped, the aged, or the mentally or spiritually retarded? Just because an unborn child may not be wanted (the criteria here for being unwanted is somewhat vague) certainly does not mean that he is unworthy or worthless. The degree of a child's "wantedness" has nothing to do with the rights and opportunities which belong to him because of the very fact of his existence, nor can it be the determining factor when his life is up for grabs to fulfill a want less than life itself. Vita is still vita, even though it may not be la dolce vita. Generally increasing the quality of life is a laudable goal. But when the "quality" of life takes precedence over life itself as it did at Dachau, then it is time to reassess priorities.

Large Families Scorned

Another objectionable segment of the Interim Report relates to the matter of averages (p. 9); that is, the Report states that even in a stabilized population there will be room for all size families including those with no children to those with many. Again, the Commission is dealing in theory which sounds fine, but the issue of practicality is another matter, for in a nation Which adopts Malthusianism as a national policy, (that is, a nation which attempts to hold clown population growth), there is no room for a large family, which in Malthusian terms means four or more children. No Malthusian ever planned and got eight children. When the PP-WP poster says "KEEP YOUR FAMILY THE RIGHT SIZE," r i g h t means one or two, with three as the outer limit. The contempt for large families by the Malthusian can be seen in a handbill put out by Planned Parenthood entitled "So You Finally Had a Boy?" in which large families' parents are characterized as immoral, selfish, and even killers of future generations. If one wishes to see Malthusianism in action, then a careful study of Anthony Zimmerman's classic study of Family Life in Postwar Japan is in order.8 As Zimmerman, a leading demographer and resident of Japan for twentytwo years explains: "No law forces Japanese couples to limit family size through birth control. However, the Eugenic Protection Law makes all forms of birth control legal. Pressure applied by official promoters and through mass communications does the rest ..." 9 Commenting on the effect of the population control movement in Japan, he continues, "The movement itself makes couples want to avoid children by all means; it creates a hostility to more than two or three children in a family. It educates people to let things drift, to take the easiest way out. The easy way out of a pregnancy is abortion ... "10 Like Sweden, Japan has an intolerable housing situation, with homes and apartments made for uniform size midgets. Although Japan is well known for her voluntary family limitation system, Zimmerman points out that most of the "family planning" is done by corn24

panies who find it to their advantage to keep the Japanese family small so that the company can give a lesser wage, build smaller homes, and sink more of its funds into the development of company facilities.
P r e s s ur e s t o L im i t F a m i ly

Large families in Japan have become a social monstrosity since the government adopted an explicit governmental policy which puts economic norms ahead of human norms.11 "Just look at that house over there; those people are having one baby after another despite being so poor. And the authorities told us so exactly not to do that. What kind of people do they think they are?" Public opinion has become a tyrant, exerting coercion for all practical purposes. 12 Of course, one doesn't have to go to Japan to hear that type of gossip. As a mother of five youngsters, I can honestly say that the pressures to limit family size in modern America need no further assist by a government commission. Years of brainwashing by Malthusian propaganda have already done enough to make young women insecure and frightened of motherhood, which, (contrary to the evaluation given in the Interim Report) is an ART, not a part-time hobby. I could not help but notice that in the research section of the Interim Report relating to motherhood and family values, no Commission grant was given to a representative of the La Leche League or leaders in Leading Families ofAmerica. Organizations teaching positive and pro-natal attitudes toward maternity and family life, although numerous in this country, were ignored completely. Why must raising the status of women be synonymous with getting her out into the labor force and out of the home? Why can't raising the status of women include paying mothers to stay at home by readjusting tax exemptions to reflect actual child care costs so that she herself can raise her children? While the Commission's Interim Report appears to have a very avantgarde attitude with regard to the Women's Liberation movement, it appears to reflect the Dark Ages when it addresses itself to attitudes toward womanhood and motherhood.

These, then, are some of my specific objections to the Interim Report. However, even if all these deficiencies did not exist, my main objection to the concept of implementing a specific governmental population policy would remain the same, for I object to such a policy in principle as well as in execution. "The 'population explosion' raises the spectre of infants without food, malnutrition, and diseases among the lower classes, inadequacy of education and other services prerequisite to vertical mobility, mass misery, and little fulfillment of the aspirations of the 'revolution of rising expectations' • • .Modern day collectivists and state interventionists perceive the popula25

tion explosion as a persuasive rationalization for the advocacy of the expanded and benevolent but coercive state ... Let's solve the problem before it's too late."
But at What Price?

"Almost all the proposals for government action to meet alleged dangers of the 'population explosion' involve expansion of the functions of the state with the attendant consequences of LARGER BUREAUCRACIES, GREATER EXPENDITURES, AND LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND FREEDOM." 1 3 (emphasis added). These are factors which must be kept in mind when discussing "voluntary" population control. More taxes, more government control, more federal bureaucracies ... It's good to know what "improving the quality of life" involves.


' John D. Rockefeller, III, "The Hidden Crisis," Lo o k , (February 9, 1965), pp. 75-80 Anthony Zimmerman, S.V.D., How to Get 6,000 Abortions a Day,'' R e i g n o f t h e S a c r e d Heart (December, 1966), p. 4
2 3 4


Germain G. Grisez, "Why Liberalized Abortion?" Li f e i n Am e r i c a, (May, 1971) James Ridgeway, "Pollution and Population, The Politics of Ecology, condensed in Catholic Digest (February, 1971), pp. 91-92 Ibid., p. 94



A.F. Guttmacher and Harriet F. Pilpel, "Abortion and the Unwanted Child, Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 11, No. 2 (March, 1970) So o n Fi na l ly H a d a Boy ? (Colorado: Planned Parenthood, 1970) Anthony Zimmerman, S.V.D., Po s t wa r Fa m i l y Li f e i n J a p a n (Tokyo: Family Life Bureau, 1964), pamphlet No. 1

Ibid., p. 4 )"Ibid., p. 25-6 "Ibid., p. 21
' Zimmennan, "6,000 Abortions, o p. ci t., pp. 4-5 "William S. Stokes, What Hope For Latin America ' Vt i f i r m a ! Re v i e w (Inl 1:3, 1965), p. 591
2 -



A Third Possibility

The current population debate has mankind precariously steering through demographic straits, with the Scylla of population control by government fiat on one side and the Charybdis of overpopulation on the other. This report proposes the existence of a third possibility based on the principle of a natural demographic transition which will permit mankind to weather the current "explosive" phase with ample space and resources far into the distant future. We hope that this viewpoint will be given the benefit of a thorough public hearing by the scientific community of academia. There is developing a dangerous penchant for predictions based on mathematical projections and isolated statistics, rather than actual demographic patterns. Similarly, we hope every attempt will be made to put mankind's demographic problems into an historical perspective whereby our citizens, particularly our youth, might gain important insights into this vital area of human conflict. Evident on many college campuses today is not only a sense of alienation from the past, but a sense of hopelessness. This attitude can make man enormously vulnerable to totalitarian schemes designed to "save" us from the "tidal wave" or "cancer" of population growth. "How is it," Mahatma Gandhi once asked, "that we behave as if this little globe of ours were but a toy of yesterday. How can it be if the earth has not suffered from weight of overpopulation through its ages of countless millions, that the truth has suddenly dawned upon some people that it is in danger of perishing of food until the birth rate is checked." 1
Plato and Ehrlich

I wonder how many studies in population dynamics include an examination of Plato's concept of "optimum population" which antedated Dr. Paul Ehrlich's population bomb by more than 2000 years. In his Laws and Republic, Plato goes far beyond an explicit and rigid system of population limitation for city-states to be regulated by the public magistrate, and advocates his proposals for improving the quality of life of Athens. He would abolish the family and turn over the reproductive power of the individual to the State, which would be charged with the duty of limiting offspring to licensed couples only and of destroying all deformed and uncertified children by abortion or exposure.


In the ancient Hellenistic world, limited parenthood and restrictive governmental population concepts were the rule rather than the exception—so much so that many of the historians of this period thought the Egyptians to be very peculiar because they generally reared all children born to them. In sharp contrast to the Greeks, both the Romans and the Chinese based their population policies on the concept of an expanding empire and the colonization of the barbarians through cultural assimilation.
Primitive Man

Today, we have substantial ethnological evidence to support the belief that even primitive man developed certain population policies which were reflected in the mores and taboos and local customs of the community. Whether or not a tribe adopted pro-or anti-natal policy depended to a great extent on its mode of living and its ability to produce food. 3
Ancient Populations

In the fall of 1968, Robert S. McNamara, president of the World Bank and spokesman for the Neo-Malthusian cause on the international scene stated that "World population totaled only one-quarter billion in the first century A.D. and required 1,650 years to add another quarter billion. It added one billion in the next 200 years; a second billion in the following century, and a third billion in the next 30 years." Since the Roman emperors only occasionally took a census for tax purposes and the first periodic census didn't take place until 1665, from what source does Mr. McNamara draw his statistics? According to Dr. Elgin Groseclose, 4 there is sufficient evidence to warrant the belief that the ancient world, i.e., the Mediterranean region known to us, may have been more densely populated than today. Anthropological studies in areas of Mesopotamia and southern Palestine, for example, reveal the reigns of past civilizations with teeming and prosperous populations—the numbers of which these regions have not seen in modern times. The point I wish to make here is not simply that a demographic "fact" is only as reliable as its source, but that mere statistics isolated from historical reality contribute very little to an understanding of demographic patterns and trends.

Actually, the current campaign to decrease population growth is but a replay of an historical phenomenon which occurred in 19th century England and dominated the social, economic, and political thinking of this nation for nearly half a century. This movement became known as Malthusianism, named after its main architect, Thomas Malthus. If one can grasp an understanding of the rise and fall of the Malthusian Movement in England during this period of rapid population growth which marked much of Europe between 1760 and 1840, much of the bite of the pro-population control advocates can be eliminated. 28

Many readers are no doubt acquainted with Malthus' two famous ratios: population, when unchecked, increases in geometric ratio (2, 4, 8.... ) while subsistence increases only in arithmetical ratio (2, 4, 6 .... ). In his law of diminishing returns, Malthus contended that populations increase in cycles beyond subsistence means until they are impoverished, then are reduced again by positive checks, such as famine, war, and plague, or preventative checks including vice and moral restraint, i.e., late marriages. Unfortunately, however, these popularized mathematical concepts were NOT the whole of Malthusian thought, but merely served as the premise upon which Malthus based his complete theory and ultimate conclusion: that the root of poverty, famine, and their attendant ills was IMPRUDENCE, i.e., the overbreeding of the poor. "A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society does not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and in fact, no business being where he is. At Nature's feast there is no cover for him. She tells him begone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests." An Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Malthus, London, 1803, Second Edition, p. 531.
Bir th Lim ita tion and th e P oor

The Malthusian held that society could not help the indigent masses unless the poor first learned to limit their numbers, and until that time came Nature would take care of the poor in her timeless fashion. The modern counterpart to this theory goes something like this: we cannot help the underdeveloped nations of the world and eradicate hunger and want unless those nations first institute a universal program of population limitation. The practical application of Malthus' doctrine was the abolishment of public relief, which was said not only to rob the rich of their wealth but also to contribute to the wretchedness of the poor by depriving them of their only motivation to limit their number and pull themselves out of the gutter—starvation. To really appreciate this remark, one should understand that the food consumption by horses and household pets of the English aristocracy during the early 1800's is estimated as nearly the same as the total annual human consumption. Norman E. Himes, himself a leading advocate of Neo-Malthusianism, wrote back in 1936 that, to the rich, nothing is too radical which serves their interests. And so it was in Malthus' day. The rich and powerful of English society clung to Malthus, not because he had proven his theories beyond a reasonable doubt, but because his theories proved useful to them in much the same way as certain population rhetoric today serves the interests of certain wealthy industrialists, eugenics advocates, and elitist-oriented groups.


Ironically, the backbone of the Anti-Malthusian Movement was not the clergy or professional humanitarians, but rather the writers of the era—men like Sir Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Lamb, Shelly, Keats, and Wordsworth. Most famous was one of England's greatest writers, Charles Dickens. As sensitive as he was to pangs of hunger as a youth and the abuses of the workhouse, it was no mere coincidence that his timeless A Christmas Carol featured a Malthusian named Scrooge, who when asked to contribute to charity asks if there are no workhouses, and concludes with the admonition that it is better to let the poor die so as to reduce the surplus population. The triumph of Malthusianism in 1834 was marked by the abolishment of the "poor laws." Yet, this victory also marked the beginning of the end of Malthusianism in England, for up to this point Malthusianism was still theory. Saying a poor man should either marry late and thereby reduce his number of offspring, or starve to death from his imprudence, was not the same thing as actually seeing him starve to death—whether slowly, in the workhouse, or quickly outside of it. Some other factors which contributed to the demise of Malthusianism were the revolutions in agriculture, transportation, trade, commerce and education, improved public health, and, of course, industrialization.

Malthusianism, however, did not die out completely, as is amply evidenced by the number of population control organizations which are currently enjoying a renaissance, including Planned Parenthood-World Population (PP-WP) and Zero Population Growth, Inc. (ZPG). Most still cling to Malthus' old teachings and dire predictions for mankind unless population growth is checked, with one major difference. With the exception of late marriage, Malthus and his followers held out little real hope for the poor to effectively reduce their numbers. Today, however, the New Malthusians maintain that there is hope for the poor if the latter can be motivated and taught to limit their numbers through birth control, i.e., the use of contraceptives. Similarly, they insist that if man is to avoid standing room only, then he must begin limiting his numbers now and if this limitation cannot be obtained voluntarily, then it must be mandated by public law.

Classic Arguments About Overpopulation

In an article currently being circulated by PP-WP called "The Human Race Has Thirty-Five Years Left," by David Lytle, the subtitle reads "After that, people will start eating plankton. Or people." A second well-espoused claim of those favoring a decelerate population growth is "if the present rate of 2% annual increase continues for 650 years, every inhabitant would have but one square foot of land surface to stand on!"


"Rapid population growth is at last being widely recognized as a threat to social and economic progress. World leaders are receptive to measures aimed at reducing the rate of growth; the medical profession is increasingly endorsing public programs of family limitation; research in the population field is accelerating; and even deep-seated cultural attitudes toward fertility are beginning to change ... "Inhabitants of North America—only 7% of humanity—are using about half of the world's yield of basic resources ...at our standard of living, the total products of the world would support a billion people ... a dim outlook for the 3.5 billion now alive and those yet to come." 8 All of the above claims are basically Malthusian in origin and are related to food production, space for demographic expansion, population growth vs. economic and social progress, and resource and ecological problems. Together, these arguments represent the basic thrust of the current drive to limit and/or reduce population growth. Each needs to be examined and expressed more realistically. The initial argument posed by the Lyle article predicting mass famine and even the threat of cannibalism by the year 2000 is based largely on Malthus' concept of the fixity of land supply, which in turn limits food supply. This particular concept was examined by two Princeton professors, Dell and Luthringer, in the 1930's. 9 Their summary revealed the inadequacy of the "land supply" approach with respect to subsistence: ... from the standpoint of the population problem, the physical extension of land areas is far less significant than the possibilities of the utilization of land. If a given land area can be made to yield twice the former product under new methods of cultivation, the same result is achieved from the standpoint of subsistence, as if by some miracle, the land area had been doubled, while the art of cultivation had remained stationary. (Thus) ... in one sense the world is growing larger. A new concept of frontiers has been forced upon us by science and technology. Frontiers are vertical, as well as horizonta1.10 It is unfortunate that the solution to alleviate world hunger has in recent years been linked to population limitation or control programs for food production, as differentiated from food consumption, is related to both specific methods of agricultural techniques (fertilizers, irrigation, etc.) as well as prices paid to farmers. It is the latter factor which probably explains why food production never out-distances population growth by much of a margin, for if food is over-produced, prices plunge, and less is produced the next year. In addition, the battle against hunger must be fought at the local level within the context of a nation's cultural and social patterns.
Horn of Plenty

The following hopeful statement was made by A. H. Boerma, DirectorGeneral of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Org., and distributed by the FAO in February, 1971.


"The current review chapters of this report offer further evidence that at long last something of a turning point may have been reached in the difficult struggle of the developing countries to achieve a sufficiently rapid increase in their food production. But in the Far East, with its immense population, there was the third successive large increase in food production (4% in 1969, compared with 6% in 1968 and 4% in 1967) since the disastrous harvests of 1965 and 1966.

"This is cause for satisfaction, not only because it affects such vast numbers of people, but also because it suggests what can be done when governments are firmly committed to agricultural development; it illustrates what can happen when farmers are introduced to improved technology in economic and institutional circumstances that enable them to take full advantage of it. "It seems reasonable to hope that the high-yielding varieties of cereals will make it possible to overcome the worst calorie deficiencies in many of the developing countries during the course of the 1970's. They should also help to reduce the scourge of protein deficiency that particularly afflicts so many children, both because cereals are man's main source of protein, and because higher yields of these dominant crops can release land for other purposes, including feed production. "So his one of the main results of the introduction of the high-yielding varieties of cereals has been a return to greater self-sufficiency in food in a number of developing countries. Some of them already have or may have in the near future a surplus capacity. ll

Standing Room Only?

The 'standing room only' specter currently popularized by zero population growth zealots also deserves our attention because it likewise lies at the root of the Malthusian controversy. A somewhat modified version of the s.r.o. theory as viewed by Rev. John O'Brien of Notre Dame (2% annual increase fbr 650 years = 1 sq. ft. per person) is contained in the opening statement of the President's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future's Interim Report presented to President Nixon and the Congress on March 16, 1971: Our population reached 100 million in 1915; it now numbers something over 200 million; the Nation had better get ready for 300 million; it may soon have to decide whether it wants 400 million. (p. 4) From a purely s t a t i s t i c a l viewpoint, I cannot share the apprehension that these predictions are designed to engender. Specifically, if we were to allow a space of five square feet per person, the earth, which has about 52 million square miles of solid ground excluding Antarctica, could accommodate 290 trillion persons, 78,378 TIMES as many


as inhabit the earth today. With a current world population of approximately 3.7 billion persons, the suggestion of standing room only cannot be taken seriously. (Note: Keyfitz and Pflieger in World Population (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1968) after collecting all reliable worldwide population data came up with an estimate of 947,000,000 in 1965. That same year, the United Nations Yearbook put world population at the 3.5 billion level.)

W o r ld P o p u la t i on D e ns i ty

The latest UN DEMOGRAPHIC YEARBOOK, 1969, gives the following figures about the number of persons per square kilometer in various parts of the world:
P op u la t io n P e r Sq ua r e K i l om e te r , 1 9 6 9

Australia ................................................2 Papua ........................................... 3 New Guinea .................................. 7 United States .............................. 22 China Mainland .......................... 77 India ......................................... 164 Japan ....................................... 2 7 7 China Taiwan............................ 3 8 4 Holy See ............................ 2,273 on Hong Kong .............................. 3,859 Tokyo ku area (wards) ............... 14,966 Monaco ................................. 15,436 Macao ................................... 16,250 Manhattan. Island, 1970 ............. 25,335 Manhattan Island, 1910 ........... 44,074 WORLD........................................... 26

(890 persons 0.44 km

(1970 census) (calculated by (A. Zimmerman)

With regard to the United States, even with a population of ONE BILLION, we would have a population density of about 300 persons per square mile, less than that of Italy, Holland, West Germany, or Belgium. According to Bishop John R. Quinn of Oklahoma City-Tulsa: "Little emphasis is given to the fact that 70 per cent of the people in the United States live on 2% of the land. The Amazon Basin in Brazil is 1/20th of the land surface of the earth and is still virgin soil. There are 180 million acres of some of the world's most fertile soil lying unused in Ethiopia. Our government has retired at least 22.5 million acres into the soil bank, and former Agriculture Secretary Clifford Hardin reported that the government may have to spend $2 billion in 1972 to head off surpluses in corn and other grains. "Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Wyoming, North and South Dakota each have a population of less than a million people. In California, almost half of the 20 million people live in four counties. A news report last August


revealed that Australia, which is as large as the United States, has a population equal to the state of Ohio. Huge land areas such as Mindanao in the Philippines are uncultivated. "Dr. Colin Clark, one of the world's great economists, served for a number of years as director of the Economics Research Institute at Oxford. He recently published a book entitled, Population Growth and Land Use. It is his contention that if we take world resources of arable land at 4 billion acres, this would feed at maximum American standards 47 billion people." 1 2 "Living space is therefore a very relative term; people create it for themselves as they need it. In fact, the trend is to move away from the wide open living spaces and to move into the metropolitan areas, presumably because the advantages and the opportunities attract immigrants."13

Here again, I wish to emphasize that this is merely a statistical analysis cited for the sole purpose of giving a very limited perspective to terms and numbers which are much bandied about these days. Population density in itself tells little of the relationship of population to productive resources or the potential development of the country. Likewise, birth and death rates exclude very vital information, such as the age distribution of the population, which is necessary for demographic analysis. That nations are created, develop, and age in much the same way as we humans do, although over a greater span of time, is in part in keeping with the historical quip that nations are born Stoic and die Epicurian. This phenomenon, which I would like to deal with at length because it is germane to the discussion of the population questions, is called demographic transition or cycling, and it revolves around four factors: 1) the birth rate; 2) the death rate; 3) the total numbers of the population, and 4) the age distribution of the population.

B.R. Phase I high

D.R. high

Numbers static

Aging very young population youthful population maturing population aging population

Example primitive tribes India

Phase II




Phase III





Phase IV






P has e I P r im iti ve P a tt e r ns of P op ula tion G r ow th

With the exception of a few isolated primitive tribes, most nations have already passed through Phase I of the demographic cycle characterized by a static or zero population growth pattern resulting from high birth rates and high death rates. Life expectancy at this point is very short, and only the fittest survive. The numbers remain stable, with severe depopulation in times of crisis (famine, war, or plague). Such factors as limited food supply, little trade or commerce, poor transportation and communication, and limited medical and public health facilities mitigate against any stimulation of population growth.

Phase II The "Explosion" Period

At the turn of the century, many of the undeveloped nations of the world moved into this median phase of demographic growth. Special note should be taken of the fact that the rise in total numbers comes not from a further stimulation of high birth rates, but rather from a drop in the death rate at both ends of the life spectrum, i.e., infant and maternal death rates go down while life cycles expand. Thus, more children are surviving to adulthood and living longer. The development of a stable agricultural economy is essential here and is directly related to such factors as improved farming techniques and food processing and distribution. Developing nations such as India, which have attempted to bypass this agricultural revolution by spending more money and manpower for industrial development have slowly come to realize that self-sufficiency in agriculture is a prerequisite to full national development. The population in this phase is composed of many young people in their prime. Once they enter the labor market, they prove over the long haul to be a developing nation's greatest asset. Until they do, however, they must be fed, educated, clothed, housed, and given proper health care. This transitional burden generally falls upon a small base of productive citizens and, of course, parents. Literacy and education are key factors in a developing country's national building program, and traditionally have had a moderating effect on population growth. Dr. Leo R. Fernig of UNESCO, Department of Education, estimated in 1960 that 250 million children out of the 550 million aged 5-14 in the world were not going to school. "The economic, social, and individual effects of this deprivation are well known. The provision of education is indispensable for economic and social progress," he wrote (Courier, March, 1960).


Universal Literacy

A. Zimmerman, a participant at the 2nd World Population Congress at Belgrade in 1965 cites the progressive growth ofliteracy as an indispensable factor in the economic progress of newly developing nations. "The new labor force must learn how to operate machines more complicated than the hoe. Government officials, industrial managers, and labor foremen must learn techniques of efficient administration. Housewives should produce healthful meals, keep pleasant and efficient homes. Social barriers, such as castes of India, must be dissolved and eroded by the processes of education and association, if the labor force is to become socially mobile. The people must learn to exploit the technological advances of other countries, and even add ,new contributions of their own. Incentives must grow through increased knowledge of what is possible, and what other peoples are already enjoying. The religious taboos based on irrational foundations must be shed. Through the discipline of patient learning, the population should also indulge less and less in unrealistic dreams, and submit itself to the inevitable necessity of planning and effecting progress through hard labor. Concerning the latter point, a "Newsgram" of U.S. News and World Report of December 21, 1959, complained that people of underdeveloped areas desire a higher standard of living for everybody quickly. Yet few are willing to work and sacrifice for that progress. They want airplanes and steel mills, not schools and better farming."

National Development Armies

In "A Proposed Mass Technique to Promote Fuller Utilization of Human Resources in Developing Countries," Zimmerman details some of the basic problems encountered by developing nations in this second phase of demographic growth, specifically class barriers; rural-urban migration; employment difficulties involving relatively unskilled and unstable workers; rigidness of labor flow; and economic waste and social hardships associated with the agrarian-industrial transition. He also outlined a National Development Armies (NDA) Program, modelled on the military draft system whereby the youth of developing nations are conscripted for about a two year period as a means of "providing a sluice gate for the rural-urban movement." Part of the basic training at NDA camps would include (1) the elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic; (2) specialized training in such areas as constructing hygienic and simple dwelling units, credit and accounting, irrigation, disease control and machinery use for men, and nutrition, childcare, nursing, basic hygiene, sewing for women; (3) community service in the form of road building, extending irrigation and drainage systems, the building of migrant housing units and (4) well disciplined programs of work hours and habits. Some of the NDA Program by-products would include a mixing of all social strata and castes engaged in manual labor, a rise in the age of marriage of 3-5 or more years, greater labor mobility, a possible base for developing labor unions to improve the working standard of laborers, and the introduction of new ideas into otherwise isolated and provincial villages, communities, and regions.


Since the NDA program needs considerable refinement, Zimmerman has suggested that the United Nations explore, via pilot projects, various means of implementing the peacetime cadre concept."

The financial tab for the Zimmerman NDA Program, as well as for other development-oriented projects in the newly developing countries of the world would probably run quite high, with the more industrialized members of the United Nations and such agencies as the World Bank carrying much of the initial costs. For this reason, many of the richer and more technologically advanced nations of the world have found it more expedient to adopt a Malthusian approach in aiding developing nations. This approach is characterized by an attempt to "freeze" a particular standard ofliving by reducing the number of sharers. Massive governmental programs of contraception, abortion, and sterilization are encouraged to reduce the developing nation's birth rate. At home and abroad, the United States government is one of the leading spokesmen for modern Malthusianism. Acting on the premise that rapid population growth is a very serious inhibitor of economic development and a prime factor in perpetuating poverty and human misery, the U.S. has earmarked millions of dollars for the promotion of family limitation programs. In this effort, it has been joined by such private and semigovernmental organizations as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Population Council, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Pathfinder Fund, Commonwealth Fund, and the Population Reference Bureau. Although most of the population limitation programs are espoused for "humanitarian" reasons, there appear to be other factors which enter into the population control picture. In an article entitled "The Politics of Population" (Los Angeles Times), D.J.R. Bruckner states: "What we have had is endless talk about limiting numbers through diversion of sexual processes ...All this concentration on methods of one kind is obviously related to the dominance of economics, to our engrossing concern with making money. Birth control, if it is a device, makes money for someone::
Wrong Approach

Whatever the motivational factor may be, however, these population limitation programs tend to be notoriously shortsighted, because they cut demographic growth at the wrong end and stimulate a premature aging in developing nations with all the ramifications implicit in this demographic phenomena.
Argentina Dangers of Premature Aging

Argentina, for example, has one of the lowest birth rates in South America. While many of her neighbors are growing at a rate of 2.6%, Argentina's 37

growth rate ,is a low 1.2%, but without the affluence of more developed nations such as the United States. Despite vast regions of good farmland, one-half of the nation's 23.5 million people are concentrated in and around Buenos Aires. Typical family size has dropped from an average of 6 to 7 children per family in 1869 to 3 children in 1969, with an even lower projection in 1971. Instead of increasing the percentage of young people who are so essential for national development, the demographic trend shows a rapid rise of older people who are less flexible in their skills and do not enjoy as good health nor the level of education of the younger generation. Contrary to Neo-Malthusian propaganda, the Argentine government sees the low birth rate as a major cause of economic and social stagnation reflected in the country's very slow increase in production and a declining housing trade.
Economic Growth

Financier Elgin Groseclose, in his excellent commentary in Barron's (November 13, 1968) on the relationship between birth rates and economic development, builds a solid case for the belief that low birth rates are apt to be a result of, and not a cause of, economic development. Doctor Groseclose's examples of the economic development of the U.S. and West Germany as related to their birth rates do not support the view that high growth rates have a "crippling" effect on developing nations. In general, rapid technological progress in developing countries is a positive good. By increasing their economic productive capacity through industrialization, nations enrich the lives of their people. Insofar, then, as technological progress remains at the service of individuals and families, it should be encouraged by both private industry and government. However, a word of caution would appear to be appropriate at this point in terms of particular situations in which technological and economic progress compete with fundamental human values and individual and familial welfare. This phenomena can best be demonstrated by briefly reviewing the Government's campaign to reduce Japan's birth rate in the post-W.W. II era for the sake of economic development.

During the Tokugawa era (1603-1867), when Japan achieved a stable population of about 30 million for more than 250 years, the nation labored under the constant pressures of overpopulation with all of its attendant ills: famine plagued the populace, food-wars were common, and desperate peasants constantly resorted to abortion and infanticide to limit family size. But when at last the feudal system was abolished, and Japan's isolationist policies ended, the nation was ripe for the initial transitional moves toward industrialization. The nation's standard of living started upward, and so did Japan's population. At the turn of the century, both abortion and infanticide became rare. 38

This trend toward demographic expansion continued up until the end of World War II when Japan was faced with loss of territory, destruction of industry, disruption of communication and transportation systems, famine and massive epidemics, and most importantly, the destruction of Japanese family life and the nation's moral and social traditions. In the midst of this post-war chaos, the voices of the Neo-Malthusians eager to use Japan as a population control laboratory dominated the period. The postwar government, still weak and ineffective, was under tremendous pressure to immediately institute a program of birth limitation to offset the expected population increase from repatriation and the baby boom of 1946-1948. Among those Americans espousing the Malthusian viewpoint was Dr. E. Ackerman of Chicago University, who concluded that Japan must hold the line at 80 million persons if she ever hoped to achieve a moderate standard of living and escape becoming an international charity case. Once the Diet accepted a population limitation policy, it became necessary not only to make contraceptives available, since this information and service was already available elsewhere from private .sources, but to "promote" the idea of family limitation on a national scale. This official philosophy gradually set the national mood for the small size family of only one or two children—the rest being lumped into the "excess fertility" category. Quickly, public policies, public funds, and the law were brought into line, and within a ten-year period Japan had succeeded in cutting her birth rate in half, chiefly by abortion, which appeared to run parallel to the intensity of the contraceptive movement. While in the immediate postwar years, the Government may have been justified in urging parents to limit the number of offspring, given the grave food shortages and poor health of many women. But, by the early 1950's these humanitarian considerations were no longer overriding factors in the continuance of a national program of birth limitation.

Economic Consideration vs. Human Values

In 1954 these latter considerations were set aside and the Japanese government announced that for the sake of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Japan must continue to limit its population. Thus, on August 24, 1954, the Ministry of Welfare's Advisory Council on Population Problems passed the following resolution: "In view of the present situation, where the heavy pressure of population IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUCCESSFUL ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL AS WELL AS TO THE RATIONALIZATION OF INDUSTRIES, it is necessary for the Government to adopt policies to curb population increase." This resolution was followed on October 25 by a recommendation from t he Minister of Welfare to Chiefs of Prefectural Health Departments that popularization of contraception should be a basic principle of the naI i oil's population policy directed at limiting family size in order to cooperate wills Ilic Government's economic program.


F or ty M illion Ab or tions !

The contemporary significance of Japan's postwar zero population growth campaign for developing nations midstream in demographic development is reflected in Prime Minister Eisaku Sato's recent population statements decrying the nation's worsening labor shortage and the economic problems of supporting a rapidly aging population with an ever-shrinking youthful base of productive citizens.15 16 Japan has "succeeded" in drastically reducing its birth rate over the short run but she is now encountering the price which "instant ZPG" extracts from its promoters, and that price tag includes the lives of more than forty million unborn children who have been aborted since the passage of the Eugenic Protection Law in 1948.

Phase III P op ula tion Stab iliz a tion

In this phase of demographic development, the major shift results from a decline in the birth rate and a tapering off of the rate of increased life expectancy typical of most of the industrialized nations of the world, including the U.S. Generally, there is a slight elevation in the total numbers of people resulting from increased life spans or, as is the case with France, West Germany and Sweden, from the immigration of foreign labor pools. Nations entering this phase of the cycle have already established a sufficient agricultural base, have a fairly high standard of living, and are technologically advanced. On the aging index shown below, these nations have a score somewhere between .4 and .5.


.4 or less .4 - .5 .5 or more

.... indicates a very young population ... indicates aging has begun .... indicates very heavy aging

At the present time, the United States is experiencing its greatest decline in the under-five child population in the entire 120 years for which statistics have been kept—a decrease of 15.5%. Thus, despite an image of a youthful population, the United States is gradually aging. In this it is merely following a well-established demographic pattern which has already been documented by past United Nations' studies on aging populations. 18 40

In late August of 1971, according to Ben J. Wattenberg's "The Demography of the 1970's: The Birth Dearth and What It Means," a highly significant set of government statistics was routinely made public. These statistics, however, proved to be anything but routine, for they revealed that "The birth rate had dropped, during the first half of the year, to the lowest level in all American history—to a level 10% lower than the years of the Depression!"

A month after the issuance of the data, at the end of September, later statistics were made public concerning birth and fertility rates for July, the seventh month of 1971. The later statistics showed a further drop— down to a fertility rate that, roughly calculated, just barely surpassed the American "replacement rate" of 2.11 children per family."
C a us e s o f th e B ir t h De a r t h

Among the main factors Wattenberg lists as probable causes of the American birth dearth are (1) the enactment of permissive abortion laws in at least 18 states and the District of Columbia; (2) the economic recession; (3) improved contraceptive technology; (4) changes in attitudes toward family size, particularly among "poor or near-poor" families, attitudes which are reenforced by government promotion of contraception; (5) the increased numbers of mothers employed outside the home; (6) the advent and intensification of the "Environmental Crisis" movement in America; (7) a decline in net immigration totals, and; (8) a decline in the fertility of two specific groups—Negroes and Catholics—who have traditionally had higherthan-average fertility.
. 20

A b or tion a n I m por ta nt F a c tor It is interesting to note that Wattenberg lists the increase in legalized abortion as the FIRST influential factor in the United States' dramatic birth rate decline. He notes that in Czechoslovakia, Japan, and Bulgaria permissive abortion has greatly affected these nations' reproduction rates, while in other countries the effect has been moderate?'

One significant point Wattenberg stresses is that current United States abortion data reveals a disproportionate number of abortions is being performed on the very young, that is, women under 25. He then goes on to state that "These young women, it should be understood, are potential repeaters. The psychological trauma and the logistical difficulties that are encountered in a first abortion are much less of a problem in second and subsequent abortions." Wattenberg's analysis of the importance of abortion as a factor in reducing a nation's birth rate runs counter to an abortion study conducted by Dr. Christopher Tietze for the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. According to Tietze, the associate director of the Population Council, "The initial demographic impact of liberalized abortion laws has been comparatively minor. A similarly modest initial effect may be expected nationwide if restrictive abortion laws were to be struck clown by the Su22


preme Court or replaced by legislation." This is true primarily because "the great majority of legal abortions ...even without liberalization, would have been terminated by illegal abortion. This latter assumption by Tietze, however, is not supported by contemporary abortion data which shows that when liberalized abortion laws are repealed or significantly restricted, birth rates rise, and that women who might seek abortion if it were legalized do not necessarily seek out the illegal abortionist as an alternative to giving birth to an "unwanted" child.
-2 3 -

Approaching the United States' move toward a stabilized and aging population from a different viewpoint, Dr. Colin Clark, former director of the Agricultural and Economics Research Institute, Oxford, stated in his testimony in June of 1971 before the Commission on Population Growth that: "While it is true that technically advanced countries can gain some of the advantages of scale without large population growth ...their prosperity depends on intense specialization in a very limited range of industrial products, in which they can secure a worldwide predominance in export markets." Clark goes on to explain, "Anything which is done to alter the rate of population growth either upwards or downwards will have consequences which will still be working themselves out in a hundred years from now; and those who take such steps should have a full sense of their responsibility ...It is naive to assume that if the United States decides to reduce its rate of population growth, other countries will immediately copy it. Nor will increasing income necessarily reduce family size in Asia, Africa or Latin America ...It may well be fifty years before changes come about in these continents. Meanwhile, there will be a massive further growth in their populations, and with it a great increase in their economic prosperity."
The United States A Second Rate Power?

Some of the implications of these demographic and economic factors according to Clark may be "That in fifty years' time, the United States (and Soviet Russia) will become comparatively small powers on the world scene, both economically and politically. In order to secure economics of scale to the extent then required, the United States may have to become a specialized producer in a more limited range of industries, and be considerably more dependent on international trade. Under these circumstances, it might be desirable to enter into a close political and economic understanding with a group of friendly nations, as the Western European countries are now doing."
Resources Not Depleted

In terms of available resources both in the United States and elsewhere to meet the needs of growing populations, Clark foresees an overabundance of agricultural produce on the world market; a movement to impose heavy 42

taxes on metals, sulfur, wood pulp, and glass in order to create an incentive to recover them, and to reduce litter and pollution; a similar drive to encourage recycling in households as well as in industry; and the replacement of oil and coal consumption by the use of nuclear and solar energy.
U r ba n Re d is tr ib ution

While noting that the United States as a whole is greatly underpopulated, Clark suggests that current metropolitan congestion might be alleviated by an extensive geographical redistribution of population to "new industrial centers" situated preferably at least 100 miles away from existing centers, and surrounded by zones of recreational and conservation land. The population of these centers would range between a low of 250,000 inhabitants and a high of about 500,000. Clearly, the drive to reduce our current birth rate to 9/1000, so that births equal deaths and "population stabilization" is achieved in the immediate decades ahead is not without the most serious consequences for the United States. Furthermore, as we shall see in the final phase of demographic development (IV) there is nothing magical about the ZPG level, i.e., the birth rate may very well go below replacement levels, as it has already done in Japan since the mid-1950's.
P ha s e I V Aging Populations

Sonie European nations, including Belgium, Hungary, and Sweden, have already entered into a period of heavy aging with an index score of .5+. In Sweden, for example, in 1970, 14% of the population—some 960,000 citizens—were 70 years of age or older. Despite its low population density, Sweden, which is considered by many to be an ideal example of a modern Malthusian state, is currently suffering from the most critical labor and housing shortage in all Europe. The core of the Swedish health problem is a shortage of medical personnel to care for the increasing number of chronically ill old people 65 and over. Sweden's climbing social problems include suicide, juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, homosexuality, and the highest per capita venereal disease rate in Europe, with the peak age for crime clown from 21 years in 1920 to 14 years in 1967.
24 25 26

P e r i od o f R a p id A g i ng

Thus, some of the problems alluded to in the Population Commission's Interim Report regarding a shortage of medical personnel, housing, etc., can be observed in all the phases of demographic development listed above, including those nations which are into a period of heavy aging, for they have a shrinking tax base from which to draw, and an accelerated growth in the number of government dependents. Another noteworthy factor in this final stage of demographic development is not only a drop in the birth rate, but a climb in the death rate, as the older segments of the population approach the upper limits of expanded life cycles. This phenomenon does not occur overnight, of course, although it might appear to do just that since aging has a habit of lying dormant for a generation or more.


Such is the case with France, whose birth rate began a downward trend in 1750 and continued for two centuries. The desire for family limitation manifested itself in a large percentage of childless couples or those with only one or at the most two children, and was stimulated by the Napoleonic Code which demanded that family property be split among all the children rather than being given to the oldest son in a family, by a desire to achieve a higher standard of living, and by the prospect of economic betterment and social mobility. It appears that when placed in an historical context, the depopulation of France was influenced by intellectual, religious and ideological factors at the family level rather than specific governmental population policies. According to George Mauco, the French have been offering childbearing rewards since the 1930's, but it was not until the early 1960's that the government became aware for the first time "that the population level was being maintained only by foreign immigration and a longer life span, and that in another 200 years there wouldn't be any more original French in France."27 Similarly, Dr. Alfred Sauvy, Dean of World Demographers, feels that France's acceptance of Malthusianism is responsible for her present dilemma. His main argument centers about the demographic concept which views population growth as necessary, and zero population growth leading to economic stagnation and an older population which is more resistant to changing technologies and has a more conservative attitude.28
The Fallacy of Universal ZPG

The current French goal is 3 children per family, up from the present 2.6, while here in the U.S., the United States Coalition for a National Population Policy aims to reduce the number from 2.5 to 2.1. This points out the difficulty in implementing a universal program of population reduction, since such industrialized nations as France, the USSR, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, and Germany and some less developed nations such as Argentina and Brazil are suffering from either aging or underpopulation or both. It is not likely that governments would act against their own national interests, Malthusian claims notwithstanding. From a demographic perspective, history seems to bear out the belief that there are distinct advantages to a moderately-growing population but NOT to a population decline. No nation stays at a "stabilized" prescribed number. The only choice is aging or growing. No nation with a steadily aging or declining population ever became a first class power. And no first class power ever said "Enough! We want no more growth!" and survived, for the world belongs to those who are willing to expand their human frontiers, not build a wall around them.


There can be no doubt that the science of demography is still in the infancy stages of development. Much needs to be done not only in the area of accumulating scientific data and accurate census statistics but also in putting demographic "facts" within their proper historical or contemporary context. For this reason, I support the idea of incorporating basic demographic concepts into the educational curriculum of grade school, high school and college students. Such a program would appear to naturally fit itself into the existing areas of biology, history and the social sciences, and should cover a variety of viewpoints on the current population controversy involving two opposing approaches to demographic development; namely, the Malthusian approach that seeks to limit or reduce population growth; and the Development approach, which seeks to increase the necessary resources in order to accommodate a growing population. Obviously, this writer is decidedly prejudiced in favor of the latter proposition.
Office of Education

However, one must not be misled into confusing education with the current trend toward propagandizing in the area of population studies, which is the hallmark of such groups as Zero Population Growth, Inc. (ZPG) and Planned Parenthood-World Population. On October 14, 1971, I had an opportunity to hear the testimony of Mr. Don Davies, Deputy Commissioner for Development of the Office of Education (Dept. of HEW) before the Senate Subcommittee on Human Resources studying Senate Joint Resolution 108 on "achieving population stabilization in the United States by voluntary means."
ZPG Grant from OE

Addressing himself to the subject of how his department was attempting to strengthen "population education," Davies elaborated on the "crisis" of overpopulation in America and how population growth was adversely affecting the quality of life in this country. He also, by way of example, pointed out that a federal grant had been awarded to ZPG, Inc., for the purpose of promoting a series of seminars and lectures on population. For the record, it should be noted that in September, 1969, the national board of ZPG, Inc., passed the following resolution, which I have summarized: 1) Parenthood is not an inherent right but a privilege granted by society which may legitimately limit that privilege ... 2) Every American family has a right to two children, no more . 3) The U. S. Congress must act to limit parenthood to two children and adopt a crash program of birth control (this includes abortion) that will be sufficient to accomplish this objective without using criminal sanctions ...


As a result of Mr. Davies' testimony which reflected the heavy Malthusian bias of the Senate hearings chaired by Sen. Alan Cranston, I subsequently launched an in-depth investigation of the degree of involvement of the Federal government in the area of "population education," as well as a study of the objectivity of various textbooks and resource materials which include information on various aspects of demography and related areas of study, such as environmental education and sex education. The following statements and excerpts were selected from a wide variety of sources and have been carefully footnoted for the convenience of readers who might wish to verify the materials presented, in their complete context.
Family Planning Act of 1970

Section 10 of the Family Planning Act of 1970 (S.2108) authorized the Secretary of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare to make project grants and contractual agreements with public agencies and non-profit organizations and institutions to assist in the development and distribution of family planning and population growth information (including educational materials) to all persons desiring such information (or materials) on a "voluntary" basis. More than 6 million dollars were allocated for this purpose over a five year period. Speaking in favor ofthe bill during the hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, Lloyd Tupling of the Sierra Club announced his organization's support of the Cranston amendment (Section 10) because "there is a general recognition that a causative factor in the world's and this country's population growth is the simple desire of most people to have more children than are compatible with a stable population. This aspect of the problem is at least partly educational, and the Cranston amendment acknowledges and proposes initial steps to deal with the problem. (emphasis added)

NEA Stand on Pop ulation Stabilization Likewise, the National Education Association went on record as favoring the act which would limit "the numbers of understimulated and underachieving children entering school. ' ..."Every professional hopes to inspire each of his students to reach the full limits of his educational ability. That has proven impossible when families are too large."
-3 32

A little more than a year later, the Senate Special Subcommittee on Human Resources held hearings on S.J. Res. 108—to declare a U.S. policy of population stabilization by voluntary means. Below is a selection of statements related to the area of population education taken from these public hearings: "The need to deal with the problem of too many wanted children requires a third trait in our population policy; it must seek to redirect the momentum of our society through education ...but the formal population education our children receive today is virtually non-existent . . .We should — i deed, m u s t — present the causes and consequences of population growth as fit subjects for the classroom ...STEWART UDALL. (emphasis in original)


. . . the U.S. needs a policy of population stabilization to stimulate development of population education in the U.S. so that our children and our adults are familiar with what we know at any point in time about the determinants and consequences of population growth and the means of controlling it at individual, family, local, national and international levels." ...DR. LESLIE CORSA, JR. 3 4 "Federal agencies can do much more to develop public awareness of the population problem through conferences and seminars, and by developing needed public information and media material, T.V. programs, speeches, charts, posters, pamphlets, movies, and policy exhibits. The Dept. of HEW could develop teaching aids for use in acquainting students at various grade levels with the demographic facts of life, how to prevent conception, and what needs to be done to preserve and extend the quality of the environment." ...ROBERT LAMSON 3 5

"There was an education fair or a population fair put on recently ...and one thing impressed me very strongly. A standard textbook of mathematics was changed—they had replaced the eggs and potatoes problems with people problems. Now, nobody was attempting to teach a student that too many people are bad, but when a student got through using that textbook he couldn't help but carry away the idea that more and more people carried certain implications for his living. There is a number of approaches of this kind." ...DR. LOUIS HELLMAN, 36 Deputy Assistant for Population Affairs, HEW. When asked by Senator Robert Packwood, a member ofthe subcommittee, as to whether Dr. Hellman's office had sufficient funds for population information and education, Dr. Hellman replied "No. A major program cannot be mounted for that sum ($5-7 million) in 1975. For instance, a major television program similar to SESAME STREET, which I would like to see created, would cost many times those figures. The private sector must take part in this effort. We have talked to the National Advertising Council. It is helping Planned Parenthood with this type of education ..." 37 In the cross-questioning that followed, Dr. Davies of the Office of Education was asked by Senator Cranston if his office had adequate access to expertise in the field of population education. Dr. Davies replied, "Well, we have adequate access to Dr. Hellman. We don't pretend to have a staff of experts in this area in the Office of Education. I would rely on the gentleman to my right at any time (Dr. Hellman)." 38

A PP-WP reprint from The A merican Biology Teacher entitled "Population Expansionism and Birth Control" by Irwin Slesnick opens with "the need to sensitize upper teenagers to the personal and social aspects of the population problem .. Among the experiences which were tentatively planned, but time pressures prevented the activities from being carried out, were a visit to a botany research lab to see protein conversion experiments and ... "the


report of a social case worker and one or two students who would have accompanied him on visits to homes where unplanned parenthood had

created family and social burdens.


How and Why Not to Have That Baby

How and Why NOT to Have That Baby ° by Dr. David Van Vleck, Associate Professor of Biology, Middlebury College, is a campus-circulated booklet published by Optimum Population, Inc., and personally recommended by Dr. Alan Guttmacher of PP-WP.

According to Dr. Van Vleck, there are too many people on this earth NOW ...man is exhausting his food supplies as the deer herd did theirs . . . lack of space (in crowded rat colonies) seems to produce frustrations which in turn lead to aggression and death ...crime, juvenile delinquency, mental sickness, riots and drug addiction are caused less by ''bad'' people than by crowded people living in an impersonal society ...we are depleting our mineral resources ...the world's population probably will not stabilize by people's volunteering to have two children per family ...our society will probably begin to motivate everyone to have smaller families in the future by taxing childbearing, by inducing people to be sterilized or perhaps, should voluntarism fail, enforced compulsory sterilization ...many couples have 4 or 5 children, thus adding to the greatest biological problem of our times ...a young person must learn that he (or she) is

not doing a baby or anyone else a 'favor by allowing it to be born.''

A pro-life college demographer recently voiced his concern that only about a dozen anti-natalists contribute material to all the new ecology textbooks. As a matter of Kiel, he said, the papers are the same but appear in six or seven different volumes under different tables. The cover of a Scholastic NEWS PILOT, 4' a nationally circulated weekly reader fin- young people, in the Spring of 1970 featured a mass of faceless humanity packed together with the caption reading: Too Many People? People, people, people! Sonic cities are getting more and more crowded. There are not enough homes for all the people. There are not enough jobs or schools, too.

PRB Text for Primary Grades

This Crowded World—an Introduction to the Study of Population is

a grade school primer on population prepared by the Population Reference Bureau and part of a progressive program series which reaches up into the high school level. C hap te r I . i s ti tle d Imag ine! im ag i ne you w ake up one M o r n i n g and all the trees and yards are gone and only buildings remain crowding you in ...imagine, in your classroom, over 100 children jammed together, etc.


The "baddies" in the book are a couple named Mr. and Mrs. Collins. The "goodies" are a couple named Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. The JacksOils' have only TWO children, Billy and Mary, who have many nice toys, wear nice clothes, go to camp, take music lessons, etc. But the Collins family has T E N children (unnamed) who must wear hand-me-downs, who must share toys, who rarely eat steak, and who have a tendency to be sickly because they don't have enough to eat. In school, the Jackson children are very bright and plan to go to college. But the Collins children, though they may be as bright are not likely to have the same opportunities for a higher education. "Most families in the world are like the Collins'," says the text, "so you can understand how whole countries can have many of the same problems as Mr. Collins." Re Defining "Abortion"

A McGraw-Hill Junior High textbook, Health and Safety for You, uses the following definition of abortion in its glossary .... "The discharge of an embryo from the uterus during the first three months of life, before the embryo is sufficiently developed to survive." The Mass Media and the "Population Explosion" Addressing himself to the task of educating people on the dangers posed to all mankind from "overpopulation," Richard C. Fuisz, M.D., V.P. and publisher, Medcom, Inc., has stated before a House hearing on family planning and population education that "If we use the techniques of mass communications, if we understand that the expression one picture is worth a thousand words' has real meaning, if we understand that money spent on techniques is not money wasted, then the job can be done." 43 The Role of T.V. On November 17, 1971, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences of the Emmy Awards sponsored a Conference on Population Control. "This anti-life seminar was held in an effort to induce the television media to openly promote a national policy of population control, and to assist in spreading fear about the so-called population explosion," said the Pro-Life Council of California in a news release issued on Dec. 8, 1971. "Attendees at the conference were urged to promote abortion and government population control, and a $20,000 prize was established for the best population 'fear' teleplay written in 1972. No attempt was made to present any pro-life arguments," the release stated.


"Nurture small-family ideas in classroom, teachers told" was the headline for an article which appeared in the Seattle Times, (10/16/71). The article reads— "If you want to curb America's population growth, you're going to have to drive home the concept of small families to school age youths, primarily at the elementary level—a group of Washington State teachers was told here yesterday. "Teachers will have to begin influencing the student's attitudes about family expectations," said Dr. Irwin Slesnick, director of the Science education at Washington State College. "If we want to (stop population expansion through family planning), we'll have to decide what we're going to teach at the elementary school," Slesnick told about 300 teachers attending a population growth workshop at the University of Washington. (Note: The Oct. 15th In-Service Day on Population was organized by Planned Parenthood, Population Dynamics, Seattle Pacific College, U. of W. Sierra Club, W.W.S.C., and Zero Population Growth.) Slesnick then went on to elaborate on the optimal age to change attitudes. "Reproductive behavior is determined at the elementary-school level — usually between the ages of 8 and 13 in girls," he said. Through programs of "sex education and reproduction education" we can prevent all unwanted births and this "would be quite close to zero population growth."

According to Slesnick, the message of the importance of smaller American families already is reaching thousands of children. In New York, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller earmarked funds for the television program "Sesame Street"—designed for preschoolers—with the specification that the show's format would include "subliminal" extolling of the virtue of small families, Slesnick said. (emphasis added) After reading the Times story, a portion of which was highlighted in HUMAN LIFE NEWSLETTER, a pro-life report coming out of Seattle, I contacted Professor Slesnick at Western Washington State College to inquire further about his statement on Sesame Street, and received the following reply: according to Dr. Slesnick, Sesame Street now includes deliberate and persuasive messages that are intended to convince little girls that motherhood and large families are not necessarily their destiny. (emphasis added) Dr. Slesnick stated that the Rockefeller Foundation is one of the contributors to Sesame Street production, and that if I was interested in establishing whether "SS" is attempting to influence attitudes about family norms that a good idea would be to study a few programs.


The Crowding Syndrome

Actually, I had already been regularly monitoring Sesame Street two months prior to seeing the Seattle news item, after receiving a call from a disturbed parent wanting to know if I, as a pro-life writer, had seen some of the pro-population control-oriented segments of the children's program. The particular episode to which the woman was referring was a segment involving a study of marigolds which were being crowded together and therefore couldn't obtain enough sunlight and water, etc. The "problem" was solved by pulling out some flowers to save the others. Curiously, the concept of transplanting the excess marigolds was not introduced, although it would appear to be logical. Although I found no reference to family size per se, there are numerous segments dealing with the concept of "crowding" and its ramifications, such as wanting to get "away from" thundering crowds with trampling feet ...or what do you get when you try to squeeze five houses on a block? and the voices reply in chorus "CROWDING .. . CROWDING .. . C RO WD ING .. ."
Caution: Population Propaganda Ahead!

Are Americans being objectively educated in the area of population and demography, or are we being deluged with a profusion of ill-documented `facts' and facile biological analogies on the so-called "population explosion" which are designed to indoctrinate our citizens, with particular emphasis on our very young people? My studies and observations in the area of demography and population control lead me to the conclusion that the latter statement is much closer to fact—perhaps even more so than most Americans realize. Where, then, do we go from here? The most obvious answer is greater public and, particularly, parental awareness of the objectives and means of implementing programs of the various population-control oriented groups like Zero Population Growth. Secondly, since the issue of abortion is inextricably tied into the POPULATION CONTROL MOVEMENT, as is euthanasia and genetic engineering, Right-to-Life groups across the nation should intensify their efforts to achieve a balanced public hearing on the issue of population growth, and increase their level of expertise in the demographic field. Thirdly, working at the Federal level, pro-life leaders must seek fair representation on various governmental boards, councils, and advisory groups involved in the area of population education, ecology, sex education, and related areas.



Harij an (India), September 14, 1935 Plato L aws v. 737, trans. B. Jowett (New York: Random House, 1937) Plato Republic v. 460-1, trans. B. Jowett, (New York: Random House, 1937) William G. Sumner analyzes family limitation in primitive societies in Fo/kitay.s. (Boston: Anthenaum Press, 1906) E. Groseclose, "Too Many Mouths to Feed?'' B ar r o n s (November 13, 1968), p. I Edgar Chasteen, The Case for Co mpulsory Birtb Control (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice I tall, 1971) Rev. John A. O'Brien, P astor al Lif e (July-August, 1966) Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report (1967-68), p. 11 Dr. Philip Hauser, sociologist. Quoted in Planned Parent hood pamphlet OVERPOPULATION-It's Everybody's Proble m.






Speech by George Bannann, Director of MAP, Dayton, Ohio, before the Abortion Study Commission of Pennsylvanians for Human Life, November 13, 1971, Hershey, Pa. "Thid., pp. 9-10

"Direct Quotations from the S tate of Food and Agriculture, 1970. Distributed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Org., in February, 1971 See also The Global Food Supply, J.G. Harrar (Rockefeller Institute) Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 66 (2):900-907 (1970) "World Population, Colin Clark Nature 181:1235-36 (1958)

Robert Sassone's Popul ation Growth and Pollu tion S olu tion, L.I.F.E., 615 W. Civic Center Dr., Santa Ana, Calif. 92701, 1971, for an excellent summary on world food production "The National Catholic Register, February 27, 1972, p. 8 "Quoted by Anthony Zimmerman in a paper prepared for the Japanese Bishops, July 3, 1971, on Ju stice in the World (1971 Synod of Bishops in Rome) "Anthony Zimmernian, "A proposed mass technique to promote fuller utilization of human resources in developing countries in WORLD POPULATION CONFERENCE, 1965, Vol. IV, 338 (UN, 1967)

" japan: A Crowded Nation Wants to Boost Its Birthrate," Science 167:960-962 (January, 1970)

"Japan Short of Labor is Seeking Older Workers, Ne w York Ti me s, Saturday, Feb. 27, 1971 "Albert Nevett, S.J., Popul ation: Explosion or Con trol? (Notre Dame: Fides Publishers, Inc., 1964), pp. 27-28 "United Nations, The Aging of Population and Its Economic and Social Implications (1956), pp. e, 86, 88 ' The Demography of the 1970's: The Birth Dearth and What It Means Ben J. Wittenberg/Commissioned by Family Circle, 1971, N.Y. /bid., pp. 6-11
9 29 21

1bid., p. 6 /bid., p. 7 Abortion Impact Assayed in Study," New York Time s, Jan. 6, 1972



"Frederick Fleisher, Th e N e w S we d e n (New York: David McKay Co., 1967), pp. 215, 218 /bid., p. 208 /bid., p. 177 Rodney Angrove, "More Babies! The French Cry," The Tribune Revie w Greensburg, Pa., November 12, 1971
25 26 27



General Theory of Population'' by Alfred Sauvv, translated by Christopher Campos, Basic Books, New York, 1969 Chasteen, op. cit., p. 94


Fa mi ly Pl a nn i ng Serv ic es Hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welkire of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. House of Representatives, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. No. 49-7280, p. 454 "Ibid., p. 432

"ibid., p. 431
Dedaration of U.S. Policy of Population Stabilization by Voluntary Means, 1971, Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 92nd Congress, 1st session on S.J. Res. 108. Gov. Printing Office, No. 68-976-0, p. 87
3 3 34


/bid., p. 235 /bid., p. 217
p. 432
38 37

/bid., p.

4:34 Ibid., p. 435 "Vol. 26, No. 8, Dec., 1964 Hote a nd Wh y N O T to H ave Th a t Ba by, Dr. D.B. Van Vleck, Optimum Population, Inc., Vermont, 1971 \701. 20, No. 12, May 4, 1970—City edition
40 41

Thi.s. Crowded World, Lillian B. Frankel, Columbia Books, I nc., Washi ngt on, D.C., 1970 "Family Planning Services, 455-456


Regrettably, time and space did not permit me to elaborate on some of the international aspects of Population Control, and a thorough description of the population control ties that bind. This is unfortunate, since this is necessary for a full understanding of all of the implications of the current drive to "stabilize" or reduce population numbers throughout the world. Hopefully this material can be added at the time of a second printing. However, I hope that this report will provide sufficient information to stimulate greater interest by the pro-life movement in the United States in the area of population control. Clearly, there is a great deal of controversy about which course America should take with regard to her population growth and development. Therefore, I support the suggestion made by a leading demographer recently, that President Nixon declare a one-year moratorium on a U. S. poptilation policy decision during which time a wider representation of views on future American population policies and the means by which these policies may be carried out can be presented to the President, the Congress, and the American people. Equally clear is that the original mandate given to the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future by Congress and President Nixon has not been carried out. Rather than centering its attention on how best America might accommodate its growing population, the Commission has centered its attention on controlling and limiting population growth. I therefore support and urge others to support those persons within Congress, the White House, and within the Right-to-Life Movement who believe that the Final Report of the Commission should be set aside in the true interest of America's future.