I draw your attention to three mos made by Dr. Langmyhr namely 113 that "most profesionals and volunteers associated with Planned Parenthood have accepted, for a long time, the necessity of abortion as an integral part of any complete or total family planning program, since P.P. clinic personnel cannot avoid dilemmas posed by legitimate method failure, or any type of unwanted pregnancy" (2) "that while P.P. as a non-profit, tax-exempt agency is specifically unable to lobby or overtly attempt to achieve legislation reform" P.P.'s volunteers and professionals such as Dr. Alen Guttmacher can actively participate in advocating abortion law change and (3) that P.P. helped prepare various legal briefs which have been presented to the courts as a means of effecting change Dr. Langmyhr cites one major effort in California regarding the ability of a minor to consent to an abortion.

Dr. Langmyhr substantiates Planned Parenthood's long standing involvement in programs of abortion information Counseling and referral" which were "necessarily unpublicized. He also details quite explicitly Planned Parenthood's role in abortion reform" in Californis and the establishment of a subsidiary Aboritorium unit known as the San Francisco Center for Legal Abortion Likewise, P.P's abortion-related activities are highlighted in Colorado and New York City. Details are also provided on the Syracuse Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic. 15

Dr. Langmyhr concludes with the hope that abortion will become even more available and that Planned Parenthood supports repeal of outdated abortion laws.

Recently Planned Parenthood set up an Abortion Service Loan Fund and Technical Assistance Program of $1 million for the purpose of initiating abortion services or expanding existing facilities.

According to Alfred S. Moran, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, NYC, out of 172 P.P. affiliates providing medical services, eight are performing abortions and 12 others are setting up services and most do abortion referrals. He expresses sadness at the fact many P.P. affiliates have not been more aggressive in providing low cost, non-profit clinics in their communities. (from "Abortion One Year After Supreme Court Decision", Contemporary Ob/Gyn. Jan. 1974, pp. 26-40.)

Planned Parenthood's basic tenet that abortion is an important aspect of total "family planning" is spelled out in its Guidelines for Pregnancy and Abortion Counseling issued by the National Medical Committee, PP-WP.16

Does

Mr Chairman, members of this subcommittee Planned Parenthood believe and incorporate into its programs and policy, abortion, as a means of family planning? The answer clearly is yes Does Planned Parenthood and its affiliates receive extensive funding under Title X The answer is clearly yes I would ask at this point that Rep Rogers enter into the record a complete financial audit of PP WP and its affiliates, receiving funding under this title, Le Title X of the Tydings Act, by the General Services Administration to substantiate my statement.

And lastly does such funding constitute a violation of the contract of such agencies receiving funding under the Tydings Act either directly or indirectly through HEW Family Planning Regional Councils? We believe the answer must again be yes Do you, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee concur? If so, how would you amend Title III of HR 11511 to prohibit such violations? If not, why not?

I would like to interject at this point the related articles 18 and 19 which discuss the relationship between abortion and contraceptive practice since I understand previous witnesses have argued that increased federal funding of contraception and sterilization programs will decrease the need for abortion Such statements are made in historical vacuum since experience shows that while abortion and contraceptive programs are mutually competitive, they are also mutually stimulating. The end of this is usually sterilization. Thus if the federal government goes with the business of birth prevention on the massive scale in which it is currently engaged, it will be drawn deeper and deeper into programs of massive abortion and sterilization and ultimately euthanasia. The latter to deal with a rapidly aging population.

Let us proceed to point three, regarding the language and intention of the House Conference Report relating to "scientific research into the causes of abortion and its effects."

The critical issue here is whether or not this clause permits the funding under the Tydings Bill of the research, development and clinical testing of new abortion techniques since a technique is neither "a cause" nor "an effect".

In a letter dated Jan. 20, 1972 to Senator Richard Schweiker, Dr. Louis Hellman states there is "no Federal policy concerning abortion research" and "... research to increase the safety of

the procedure is a proper activity." He admits however that abortion research is funded through the Center for Population Research, NIH, Dept. of HEW.

In a letter dated February 10, 1972 from Philip Corfman, M.D., Director of the Center for Population Research to Congressman John G. Schmitz, Dr. Corfman gives a slightly different reply on the question of whether or not the Abortion Prohibition Amendment of Title X covers clinical abortions and the research and development of new abortion techniques. I submit the three letters for the record. 20, 21, 22

I wish to enter into the record a letter dated March 1, 1972 from the Senator from Nebraska, Roman L. Hruska to a Coalition member regarding the role of the Federal government in the development of chemical "prostaglandins" for induced abortions. 23

According to Sen. Hruska he had been in touch with HEW on this matter and, "Federal funds are not supporting the research into prostaglandins, and the use of this drug has not in any way been approved by the Federal Government." He concludes with the thought that his constituent does not have to be concerned about a problem that "doesn't exist".

For the benefit of Sen. Hruska and others who labor under similar misinformation, I take this opportunity to set the record straight.

First, federal funds, that is tax dollars including funds from the Tydings Bill, have in fact been used to research, to develop

and to carry out clinical testing of prostaglandins for the purpose of induced abortions. Secondly, the Food and Drug Administration, at the time of Sen. Hruska's letter, had approved the clinical testing by the UpJohn Company of Kalamazoo, Michigan.

24

Evidence to support these charges are found in the 1971 and 1972 Inventory of Federal Population Research prepared in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development by the Center for Population Research headed by Philip Corfman, M.D. I include for the record the pages of these reports giving full details on prostaglandin research and clinical testing by both the NIH and the Agency for International Development, as well as published articles on such federally funded research and clinical testing of prostaglandin abortions which usually result in the delivery of live babies, whose skin may then be used as a medium for tissue cultures 25 and future experimentation.

I draw your attention in particular to those prostaglandin contracts made directly to UpJohn Researchers specifically (1) a four year contract from the NIH in 1969 to John Johnston of the UpJohn Company. Total project cost: $200,587. HD-92208

(2)a 1971 contract to Kenneth Kirton of the UpJohn Company for $41,913. HD-12224

(3)a 1972 contract to Kenneth Kirton of the UpJohn Company for $50,247. HD-12224

(4)a 1972 contract to J.W. Wilks of the UpJohn Company for $88,140. HD-92208

On November 26, 1973 The Food and Drug Administration approved Prostin F2 for "Therapeutic Abortion". The application had been filed by the UpJohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan. 26 According to Medical World News/Dec. 28, 1973 the abortifacient drug will be used primarily in university based hospitals.

To date the best known of these clinical testing areas are the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill (Dr. C.H. Hendricks and Dr. William E. Brenner) and the Washington University Medical School, St. Louis (Dr. Arpad I. Csapo.) These institutions and these key researchers have all been recipients of federal research grants in the area of prostaglandins for induced abortion.

The research office of the U.S. Coalition for Life can provide in addition to the enclosed two articles, 27, 28 at least

a dozen grant-contract descriptions of federally funded (AID and NIH) abortifacient research to this subcommittee.

The American taxpayer has funded these anti-life institutions, these researchers and the UpJohn Company (who provided the abortifacient for testing) thus contributing to the speed with which the abortifacient product was approved by the FDA for marketing on an international scale.

Yet these tax funds were used without any legislative authority and in spite of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. We recommend, therefore, that in the future Congress specifically prohibit such funding through concrete legislative action and exert similar curbs on the financing of abortifacient and sterilization clinical testing and drug-company related activities, particularly research.

Clearly, family planning legislation, whether under this Title or others, requires that anti-abortion prohibition sections be both comprehensive in their scope (i.e. they exclude abortifacient research and clinical testing and the funding of organizations such as Planned Parenthood-World Population and its affiliates which include abortion and related activities as part of comprehensive family planning services) and explicit in intent as well as language.

As a means of dramatizing the need for more stringent legislation, in the light of the large number of anti-life HEW (and AID) officials which dominate this Administration, I will briefly highlight our agencies experience in researching a single NIH abortion research contract.

The contract is listed on page 46 of the 1972 Inventory of Federal Population Research, under the heading of Zygote

Transport, Pre-implantation Development, and Implantation. Numbered 178 the contract is titled STUDY IN EXPERI

Rabbits) HEW-NIH Contract HD-02306. The three year contract (6/70-6/72) totaled $81,700 and was awarded to Dr. Robert L. Brent of Thomas Jefferson U. in Philadelphia.

A Playboy Forum 1972 news brief carrying the title "Zap, You're Aborted" and. datelined Philadelphia, notes that "microwave radiation has been used to terminate pregnancies in rats" and that the technique might be applied as safe, quick and "noninvasive" abortifacient for humans. The article mentions Dr. Brent's experiments using a modified standard microwave oven to raise the temperature of a pregnant female rat's uterus resulting in the resorption of the embryo with no apparent harm to the mother.

Earlier, the March 26, 1971 issue of Science in an article by Robert Gillette on the alleged inadequacies of federal population funding noted that the NIH Contraceptive Research Branch was currently funding a project "to explore the use of microwaves and ultra-sound in performing abortions."

Hellman's Answers In a letter dated April 12, 1972 to the Honorable Bob Mathias, Dr. Louis Hellman stated that the (Brent) study is being conducted on rats and rabbits "in order to discover if slight increases in temperature of the pregnant uterus, induced by microwaves, affect fetal survival," and to learn if microwaves have a "deleterious effect on the fetus", 29

Corfman Answers In a letter dated March 28, 1972, Dr. Philip Corfman replies to Mr. Christopher Kolb, President of the University of Maryland Right to Life Committee. According to Dr. Corfman, the (Brent) study is designed to gain knowledge "unrelated to abortion" such as the dangers, if any, of microwave ovens . . . conceivably, then, this research would contribute to assuring healthier pregnancies and avoidance of hazards during pregnancy." "'30

The CRB Director concludes that "improvements in abor tion techniques are within the purview of this Institute's mandate to support research on questions of public health.

The November 1973 issue of Contraception carried an article entitled "Ultrasound: It's Potential Use for the Termination of Pregnancy" by Melvin Sikov of Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 31

Under the subtitle, Effects of Ultrasound on the Conceptus, Sikov notes that "other forms of radiant energy, such as microwaves, recently have been shown to produce embryonic death" (12).

Footnote 12 is Brent, R.L. Franklin, J.B. and Wallace, J.D., The interruption of pregnancy using microwaves. Teratology 4:484, 1971.

Clearly, the primary purpose of the Brent contract was to explore new techniques ultimately designed to kill the fetus or embryo of a pregnant woman desiring an abortion.

Carl Djerassi, President of the Syntex Corporation, Palo Alto, California in the Jan. 1972 issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted that he was happy that two important federal funding agencies (AID and CRB-NIH) seem to have found ways to circumventing Sec. 1008 of the 1970 Family Planning Act..." Louis Hellman denies such action. Our research supports Prof. Djerassi's premise. If such federal funding under the Tydings Bill is to be ended we will need prohibition legislation which is virtually air-tight in both intent and language.

VASION OF PRIVACY

The second major area of concern of the U.S. Coalition for Life related to current federal family planning abuses centers upon the dangers to civil and constitutional rights posed by data banks and similar information gathering and monitoring techniques used by HEW.

The omniscient, omnivorous memory of computers which store vast information of all kinds on the everyday activities of citizens, has in recent years become an increasing concern of Congress and the public.

Daily, new provisions are being adapted at all levels of government to curb undue encroachment on the privacy of individuals.

Yet, despite this new awareness to the potential dangers o data bank systems, there has been no challenge to the presence of Big Brothers in the boudoir. Indeed there is little evidence which might lead one to suspect that anyone even knows he is there.

From a practical point of view, HEW population controlfamily planning data banks fulfill the need to monitor, coordinate, administer and evaluate current federal and state programs. All agencies receiving federal funds are required by HEW to submit data which includes a sexual history of each client.

From a philosophical point of view, such data banks reflect the desire of population technocrats to control and regulate even the most intimate activities of the populace. Rough Beast editor, Gary Potter explains: "... order in a Technocracy requires a control so complete that even the most intimate acts, and their consequences must be regulated. Already few acts are performed entirely in privacy. The one that still is generally the most intimate of all, the act of love, an act which the planners of perfection must control, not only because unlicensed offspring would disrupt the Fiscal Year's projected availability of goods and services, but also, and perhaps more importantly, because the passion which an unauthorized act of any sort would imply is the very antithesis of the thing which is the most essential of all to perfection, careful planning."

the client is given an identification number assuring anonymity. Yet are not similar "precautions" used in other data systems which have been attacked as unconstitutional?

In some cases identification numbers do not offer anonymity since the ID number is the client's social security number. Tennessee employs such a system of identification in its statewide data system for family planning.

"Patient identification. Both the patient's name and a unique identification number are recorded on the data form. In order to evaluate continuity of care, the patient retains the same number in whatever counties or clinics she receives service.. In Tennessee, the patient's number is her social security number. When a new patient does not have a social security number, the clinic staff is instructed to apply for one and to give the patient a temporary number. "35 Under the Tennessee system, "delinquent" clients who do not respond to a computerized follow up visit are placed on a

home visitation list a scheduled visit by a community social worker or public health nurse.

I draw the attention of this subcommittee also to the enclosed national birth survey of the PHS, Health Services and Mental Health Administration.

Note the patient's name is clearly identified. Note that the survey requires a doctor to divulge his patient's contraceptive practices.

Do these practices involve civil and constitutional violations? Do these practices involve a breech of the patient-doctor relationship? Are these practices a violation of privacy of individual citizens? These are basic questions this subcommittee must ask.

I ask therefore that this subcommittee include in this hearing record a detailed explanation of the Federal Family Planning Data System of HEW and legal opinions as to the constitutionality of such practices by federally funding family planning units.

The following history of an OEO-CAP grant No. CG-4813 illustrates the need for legislation to prevent further abuses using federal agency listings.

Beginning in May, 1971 the Office of Economic Opportunity as an "anti-poverty" project awarded over $100,000 in family planning funds to Population Services, Inc., a Chapel Hill, North Carolina agency, for the purpose of increasing use of condoms among sexually active, young, unmarried low income males in urban and rural settings.

The creature of Dr. Timothy Black of England and Philip Harvey, formerly of CARE, Population Services, Inc. was begun as a non-profit corporation in Jan. 1970.

In order to get tax-exempt status to qualify for funds for research in birth control, the agency split in two

Population Services Inc. - the non-profit research branch and Population Planning Assoc. a commercial retail firm buying and selling birth control devices.

During the first year of OEO - Community Action Program contract, 25,000 individuals between the ages of 13 and 20 were contacted.

The local OEO Community Action Agencies and commercial sources supplied mailing lists.

The mailings were unsolicited.

A typical mailing included such questions as "Has one of your friends made a girl pregnant recently?" or a similar question on venereal disease. The letter, the context of which encourages premarital sexual activity, reassures the reader that such consequences are avoidable. Population Services promises that the name of a local co-operating druggist or a condom stamp coupon worth $1.00 from Condom Associates (Population

Planning Associates?) will be sent to those responding favorably to the letter.

Of the 25,500 young men contacted, 2,260 responded favorably. These were sent materials (condoms and drug store locations) in unmarked envelopes. Eighty-six letters were returned requesting no material be sent. In no case did Population Services solicit parental consent.

The July 26, 1972 application, date beginning Aug. 1, 1972 and ending Jan. 31, 1974 of Population Services for an additional $152,274 includes in its description plans to reach "coaches and other supervisory personnel" in condom outreach programs for young men.

I understand that the Population Services, Inc. program has been terminated due to disappointing results of the pilot project.

I am sure however that similar 'family planning' schemes will be approved in the future.

This particular grant involving low-income young persons primarily blacks, and all below the age of 21 brings to the forefront some very disturbing questions.

Could the unsolicited action funded by the OEO be held as action contributing to the delinquency of minors?

Why do young, unmarried males need "family planning" assistance?

Did the unsolicited action of minors as young as 13, violate parental rights?

I ask that this subcommittee enter into the record, answers to the above questions and legal opinion as to the possible violations of parental authority incurred in the carrying out of this grant.

The following report on Planned Parenthood Teen Scene of Chicago, Illinois combines a number of abuses of federal family planning funds, some of which have already been pointed out in earlier portions of my testimony.

Teen Scene is operated by Planned Parenthood of Chicago. The program began in 1971 with an HEW funded grant totalling $259,000 (FY 1961, $69,000; FY 1972 $190,000).

The mechanism of funding was the Illinois Family Planning Coordinating Council, a funneling agent for most of the Tydings Act funds.

In a letter of Nov. 1, 1972 to the Honorable Richard S. Schweiker, Carl S. Shultz, M.D., then Director of the Office of Population Affairs, outlines the basic programs of Teen Scene, 37, 38

Dr. Shultz notes that the law in Illinois specifically allows contraceptive information and services to be made available to individuals aged 16 and over without parental consent. According to the HEW official "Teen Scene" activities include "pregnancy testing and contraceptive information". Pregnant girls requesting further "counseling" after examination are referred to a "Teen Scene" social worker. Dr. Shultz states however that Teen Scene does not give counseling on abortion. Instead, the girl is referred to "CARES", the Council on Abortion Referral and Evaluation Services, an agency not funded by HEW Dr. Shultz states that there's no followup by "Teen Scene" of patients referred to CARES.

According to Dr. Shultz the emphasis of "Teen Scene" counseling is to encourage responsible teenage sexual behavior. Dr. Shultz denies that any Tydings Act funds funneled via the Council are used for abortion related purposes.

The U.S. Coalition for Life does not agree with Dr. Shultz's evaluation of Teen Scene activities. We believe that the Abortion Prohibition Amendment of the Tydings Act has in fact been violated in the case of "Teen Scene".

Let us look more carefully at CARES. Dr. Shultz's letter attempts by implication, that there is no direct link between "Teen Scene" and CARES.

Fact Number One - CARES, a five-state abortion referral service, established in July 1971 is located at 185 N. Wabash Ave.

"Teen Scene" is located at 185 N. Wabash Ave. Planned Parenthood, Chicago is located at 185 N. Wabash

Ave.

CARES was established by Planned Parenthood, Chicago (which administers "Teen Scene") in conjunction with the Clergy Consultation Service on Problem Pregnancy. According to P.P. Executive Secretary, Benjamin Lew the goal of CARES is to keep the quality of abortions high and the costs low. CARES arranges for a "package" deal sending most women to N.Y.C.

In addition to CARES, Planned Parenthood, Chicago, recipient of both HEW and AID funds, established itself in 1972 as an abortion co-ordination agent for the purpose of

arranging for N. Y. abortions for Chicago coeds.

Fact Number Two In the Spring of 1972, an 18 year old resident of Chicago made a pre-arranged call to Teen Scene to "arrange for an abortion for his 15 year old girl-friend." He was told that he must make his own plane reservations on a flight which would be pin-pointed by Teen Scene and he must bring in a signed notarized statement of responsibility by anyone 21 years or older. He was then told that Teen Scene would arrange for a limousine to meet the girl at the airport in New York, take her directly to the clinic where an abortion would be performed and she would then be transported to the airport to return to Chicago the same day.

It should not be too difficult a task for this subcommittee to substantiate Teen Scene's abortion package for minors by questioning Teen Scene administrators and Staff personnel.

(Note: In 1971-1972 abortion was legal in Illinois to preserve the life of the mother hence the need for out-of-state abortion referrals of the nature mentioned above).

Fact Number Three "Teen Scene" seminars are open to children as young as 13 years of age. Girls are charged $5 for instruction, contraceptive devices and an examination. A primary "educational method" is the "rap session". (We will upon request, supply this subcommittee with a transcript of the nature of P.P. "rap sessions" for young people).

Fact Number Four - According to a Teen Scene brochure, objective No. 2 of the project is "To eliminate unwanted pregnancies by making effective means of family planning, including contraception and voluntary abortion, available to all."

"Teen Scene", Chicago is one of many Planned Parenthood programs catering to minors.

Sadja Goldsmith, M.D. is Director of Teenage Services of Planned Parenthood/World Population San Francisco. Dr. Goldsmith is well known for her abortion techniques and has co-authored a number of articles on early abortion methods.

According to Dr. Goldsmith abortion counseling and voluntary abortion services for teenagers, with or without parental consent, is a new area of need, and the provision of pregnancy counseling, sensitive counseling, and referral for legal abortion are essential parts of a comprehensive program. (From "A Study of Teenage Contraceptors" by Goldsmith, Gabrielson, Gabrielson, Potts and Sholtz.)

I repeat an earlier question posed to this subcommittee. How does HEW continue to justify the continued funding under the Tydings Act of Planned Parenthood-World Population affiliates which deal, both indirectly and directly with abortion (including abortion of minors without parental consent) and which in a broad sense of the term contribute to the delinquency of minors? I trust this subcommittee will not permit such funding to continue without investigating these charges and where necessary, subpoening necessary statements and documents from these Planned Parenthood units funded under the Tydings Act.

Under the 1970 Family Planning and Population Services Act, extensive research on new techniques of fertility control has been carried on.

Prostaglandins (UpJohn Co., major supplier to researchers), Depo-Provera (an UpJohn trademark for the long-acting sterilization drug) and