(1)

(2)

(3)

Using this definition - who then are these "certain women" who "refuse" or are "unable" or "incapable" or "unwilling"? Would these women be the wives of the medical researchers? the daughters of HEW officials? the relatives of U.S. Congressmen? Probably not.

These "certain women" are the poor, the young and the retarded the original "guinea pig" group who are notoriously "lax" in limiting their numbers or regulating their sexual activities in such a manner so as not to produce a child. Are these "certain women" who are being immunized and temporarily sterilized capable of giving "informed consent" in the true sense of the word?

The research history of the other drugs mentioned earlier is similar to that of Depo-Provera. Prostaglandin abortion experiments have been widely carried out on clinic patients including minors and at university based medical centers. DES, mis-named "the morning after pill" was and is used widely at

teen birth control centers and university clinics.

I bring this matter to your attention because the Coalition does not believe that the poor, the young, and the retarded should be the object of exploitation by profit-seeking drug firms and the population control establishment.

You as members of the Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment have a special obligation in this matter to see that legislation such as HR 11511 provides explicitly for the protection of the most vulnerable and powerless groups against those who consider the health of the state (overpopulation) more important than those receiving a "public health" service.

Drug companies such as UpJohn, who receive tax funds should be prohibited from turning our ghettos and college campuses and homes for the retarded into happy hunting grounds for pharmaceutical profits and fertility control zealots.

In 1971, the National Institute of Health, awarded a five-year grant of $337,652 (total) to Dr. Kingsley Davis of the University of California, Berkeley.

The title of the grant (HD-04602) is "Goals and Conditions of Population Control".

Dr. Davis, an outspoken advocate of abortion and population control, is best known for his suggestion that unwed mothers be compulsorarily aborted.

I ask this subcommittee to enter into this record a detailed explanation of the nature of Dr. Davis' grant, and the names of

those persons involved in awarding the grant and the reason for approval.

This is but one of the hundreds of questionable grants and contracts listed in the 1972 Inventory of Federal Population Research. Of particular concern to the U.S. Coalition for Life is the large number of grants listed under the Social and behavioral Sciences directed at the poor in general and minority groups in particular including blacks and indians. HEW appears to be overly anxious to unlock the key to family limitation "motivation" to save the poor "from the consequences of their own reproductive behavior."

Concluding Remarks

FEDERAL FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS

In September, 1973, Des Frost, Chairman of Prime Minister lan Smith's ruling Rhodesian Front Party, called for the creation of a ministry of birth control to curb the growing black population in Rhodesia.

"Trying to handle this problem with kid gloves is having a negative effect," he told the party's annual congress. "We need a ministry dealing purely with the population explosion - a ministry with teeth than can dish out benefits to those who conform and penalties to those who refuse to see the problems they create for future generations." Chairman Frost did not elaborate on the penalties or benefits. (from the Florida Times Union 9/21/73).

That is Salisbury, of course. Dr. Louis Hellman and the Bureau of Love at HEW would not be so crude, at least, not publicly.

It is not that Dr. Hellman and the population control establishment would be against such programs in principle. It's simply a matter of timing.

According to Dr. Hellman (the key figure in federal, domestic, family planning programs) there is a question as to whether or not volunteerism alone will be effective in limiting population to acceptable limits since "almost all population programs throughout the world are based on the concept that there is a fundamental family right to choose the number of their children..."

"The alternatives to voluntary contraception such as positive and negative incentives or outright governmental control do not appear feasible or desirable at the present time." (from "Family Planning Comes of Age" by Louis Hellman, M.D., Washington, D.C. 1971)

To argue one way or the other today, is for all practical purposes, a waste of time.

The use of the mass media combined with massive indoctrination of the young in our nation's secondary and elementary schools has rendered "positive and negative incentives or

outright governmental control" superfluous and such cliches as "volunteerism" meaningless.

Talk of adding sterilants to the water supply or compulsory abortion raises the ire of most citizens. Such tactics smack of totalitarianism. They are crude and unnecessary with today's psychological weapon of persuasion.

"The tendency toward psychological collectivization is the sine qua non of technical action... the problem is to get the individuals consent artificially through depth psychology, since he will not give it of his own free will. But the will to give consent must appear to be spontaneous." (Ellul, The Technological Society 409, 1964).

The so-called "Population- education" funded under the Tydings Act will insure a generation of young people who will welcome governmental control of their reproductive lives. The rabid anti-life doctrines in our schools today will make abortion and euthanasia acceptable tomorrow. And the young will find consolation in that if such acts be murder, as Scholastic magazine suggests "it will be murder in context!"

Clearly, termination of federal funding the Tydings Act of anti-life secular indoctrination, by this subcommittee, would be a step in the right direction. We urge you to take such steps immediately. The U.S. Coalition for Life is prepared to substantiate all charges leveled against HEW in this testimony. Your concern translated into legislation will not cure these bureaucratic ills overnight, nor immediately halt the anti-life programs so deeply entrenched in HEW.

What such action, however, will do, is provide the first stepping stone toward an end of rulé by the bureaucracy and return government to its original mandate of service not control of protecting human life not destroying it - of nurturing family life not corrupting it.

The first step is the most difficult. The U.S. Coalition for Life is ready with documentation and support for any Congressman and Senator willing to take that first step.

Documentation to foot-noted information is available to Congressmen and Senators from the House Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment.

Cost to Pro-Life groups is $25.00. Documentation may be ordered directly from the USCL office. Allow 14 days for delivery.

1974

Mr. Chairman

Members of the Subcommittee

WOMEN CONCERNED FOR THE UNBORN CHILD is an inter-racial, non-partisan, non-sectarian organization of over 7,000 mothers, students and professional women from Pennsylvania whose purpose is to speak for, and act in behalf of the youngest and most defenseless member of the human family the unborn child.

We welcome this opportunity to enter testimony on HR 11511, the Health Revenue Sharing Bill now before this subcommittee, with our specific remarks directed at Title III of the Bill, The Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1973. HR 11511 is the companion bill to S1708, the Family Planning and Population Act of 1973. Both Bills are critical of the Pro-Life Movement as jointly they:

1. Represent the basic funding legislative mechanism for numerous anti-life agencies, specifically Planned Parenthood World-Population and its affiliates, the number one enemy of the unborn child, and

2. Represent an attempt to legitimize through legislative action, anti-life policies and programs which have ALREADY been put into effect by bureaucratic fiat of

the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, specifically federally funded abortion and abortifacient research and fertility control experiments, and CLINI CAL TESTING, using as human guinea pigs, the poor, the retarded and other vulnerable elements of the population, and

3. Represent a threat to the civil and constitutional rights of all citizens, specifically, the poor and the powerless, RIGHTS which include the right to marital privacy, the right of informed consent, the right of the young to be free of anti-life public indoctrination, which incorporates values alien to Judaic-Christian heritage and the ultimate right, the RIGHT TO LIFE itself.

If "Truth in Advertising" were the issue here, the Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1973 would fail to pass this Congress. By this we mean that legislators, (first this committee, then a conference committee and finally the House and Senate members) are being asked to pass judgment on legislation which cloaks itself in such terms as "voluntary". "population education", "family planning" and similar euphem isms which serve to disguise a reality which is so repugnant as to be solidly rejected at its face value by a major segment of Congress and the American public.

Certainly specific aspects of Population Control TECHNIQUES have arisen from time to time, issues such as abortion, involuntary sterilization of the poor and retarded and fetal experimentation. Congress has also discussed and debated specific programs, such as the abortifacient research program of the Agency for International Development and the Contraceptive Research Branch of the National Institute of Health. Yet, amidst this dialogue of various techniques and projects of Population Control, Congress has yet to come to grips with the critical issue that is Population Control itself and its civil and constitutional implications as a matter of national policy.

WOMEN CONCERNED FOR THE UNBORN CHILD, as the name suggests, is committed to speaking out in defense of unborn children and their inalienable right to life. This committment, however, does not mean that we remain oblivious to related issues, such as euthanasia and fertility control experimentation. On the contrary, this committment allows us to see the TOTAL anti-life movement so as to view abortion and euthanasia and involuntary sterilization for what they are - tools of Population Control. Likewise, because each member of Congress is committed to defending the civil and constitutional rights of our citizens, it is obligatory that we see the Federal Government's so-called "Family Planning" policies and programs for what they are tools of Population control and

enemies of life and the liberty of the citizens of the United States.

Let us look briefly at these seven questions related to the issue of Federal Population Control programs First:

Second:

Third:

Fourth:

Fifth:

Are federally funded "Family Planning" programs envisioned as a method of bestowing upon citizens a personal health benefit or as a weapon in Population Control?

Is the "voluntary participation" clause attached to federally funded "Family Planning" programs (including S1708 and HR 11511) workable without practical and meaningful guidelines built into such legislation?

Does the Federal Government violate its professed NEUTRALITY by aggressively promoting birth control, including contraception, sterilization and abortion among the general citizenry as a desirable practice or goal?

Do "Family Planning" programs funded and promoted by public authorities violate the right to privacy of a relationship which Justice Douglas called "intimate to the degree of being sacred"? (Griswold vs: Connecticut, 381 U/S. 479,486, 1965) Upon what meaningful criteria may federally funded "Family Planning" programs be evaluated?

If asked whether "Family Planning" programs are for the benefit of the individual participants as a personal health measure or for the benefit of the state (i.e. a measure to deal with the "Population Explosion"), most Congressmen would probably opt for the former. In their eyes, these federally funded programs are merely "making available", primarily to the poor and the young, birth control services which they "voluntarily" seek out, and might otherwise not have access to because of specific restrictions, financial or otherwise.

To examine whether such a view would find support in legislative history, let us briefly examine the rationale and conclusions formulated at the Gruening hearings. These public

hearings held in the mid 1960's are critical to the questions at hand, since they formed the basis on which Congress was to establish the Tydings Bill, the Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1970. Clearly, from even a cursory review of the Gruening hearings' volumes of testimony, the massive intrusion of the Federal Government into the "Family Planning" arena was justified on the grounds of saving mankind from itself, or the so called "Population Explosion". Thus, while alluding to the proposition that a woman's health might improve with fewer births and longer spacing birth patterns, the principle thrust of the DESIGNERS or architects of the federal programs was directed at improving the health of the state by reducing population growth.

The truth of this assertion may be observed in a number of ways. For example, current fertility control research is directed at the perfect birth control agent (be it contra-conceptive or a sterilant or an abortifacient) which can be administered to the "masses" in the form of an inoculation or vaccination. The "crisis" wrought by a plethora of people demands a massive, not an individualized, program.

In practical application this means the "success" of fertility control programs are measured by the number of IUD insertions or number of pills popped or the number of sterilizations performed. If a conflict arises between the two areas of concern, for example, if a woman suffers severe anemia from bleeding, due to an IUD, the prescription is for an iron tablet rather than removal of the device, since the latter action might result in a birth, which must be avoided at all costs, even to the jeopardy of the health of the patient.

Again, in the case of abortion, there is sufficient documentation that abortion, particularly repeated abortion, is harmful to women, yet abortion is the KEY weapon in any Population Control Program. Hence the continuing campaign for abortion reform. (See attachments 1, 2 and 3).

This pattern is repeated again and again. We see it in the use of clinic patients as experimental guinea pigs for pharma

ceutical houses and Federal Abortion Research Programs. (See attachment 4). We see it in the Food and Drug Administration approval of DES, not fit for cattle, but okayed for campus co-eds. We see it in the use of Depo-Provera on the mentally retarded, or those, as the FDA guidelines suggest, who are either "unwilling or unable" to use the pill or other fertility control agents.

If the purpose of this sub-committee on Public Health is to propose and devise health legislation, then we recommend a thorough study of the health hazards of the pill, the IUD (an abortifacient agent) and such drugs as Depo-Provera and DES, as well as Prostaglandins. The latter agent for second trimester abortions has been linked directly to Sickle-Cell Aneamia, yet, here in the Pittsburgh area at West Penn Hospital, black clinic patients continue to be aborted, using this still experimental technique. (See attachment No. 5).

Under $1708 and HR 11511 women, primarily clinic patients, would continue to be the victims of fertility control experiments, which will benefit the Population Control establishment and in which pharmaceutical firms have a multimillion dollar international investment. Adequate protection is an absolute necessity to prohibit such victimizing of the most vulnerable segments of our population.

The second to be posed to this committee is akin to the first, and centers upon the issue of "voluntaryism", and whether

such legislative guarantees are meaningful without strong built in guidelines. Here we are addressing ourselves also to the

question as to whether or not Federal Bir Control Programs should be clearly and without qualification separated from welfare assistance.

"Coercion" is a term of a broad spectrum of meaning in the law. In the law of contracts a finding of coercion, or duress, does not depend upon objective tests of what act or threat produces a state of fear, leading compulsively to given acts age, sex, capacity, relation of the parties, attendant circumstances must all be considered. Persons of a weak or cowardly nature are the very ones who need protection. Closely related is "undue influence".

"Influence, therefore, is considered "undue" giving rise to rescission of contracts, where a relationship of confidence may be deemed to exist between the parties, and one of the parties is in a position of weakness in relation to the other, and where there is, in fact, unfair persuasion..." (from Population Control; Court and Constitutional Concerns, William Ball, Cornell University Press 1967 pps 19-20.)

We believe that because of the nature of welfare to the poor, who are at the mercy of the state for their basic existence,

welfare birth contro ograms can be said to be coercive in the broad sense of the term, i.e. represent undue influence on such individuals. This holds true when a social worker presumes to influence the poor by promoting birth control practices or suggests that a welfare client relieve herself of an "unwanted" pregnancy, including setting up an abortion for the client.

That the State is ready to pass this stage and is preparing to introduce coercive measures to limit the number of welfare clients is not merely speculative. Bills have already been introduced at the federal and state levels to sterilize welfare mothers or to make Depo-Provera shots a condition for receiving further welfare assistance. (See attachment 6).

Given the seal of the Population Control establishment to "manage" the reproductive habits of the poor, for this subcommittee to further perpetuate the myth of voluntarism is to be blind indeed to the reality of built-in coercion which exists whenever welfare is directly linked to aggressive birth limitation schemes.

While the poor make up the hard core of the "target group" of federally funded "Family Planning" programs, they are by no means the only class of citizens who are exposed to the on-going aggressive campaign of birth limitation.

The Federal Government has poured millions into behavioral and motivational research, designed to discover various psychological techniques to "motivate" citizens to limit the number of children in their families. "We must teach people to Want fewer children" appears to be a specific goal. This becomes a rather complicated public relations problem as this "want" must appear to be a voluntary decision rather than a forced reaction to a state prescribed edict, at which people might balk. That federal "Family Planning" programs promote, not only

a service, but attempt to mold values and attitudes by use of mass media brings us to the important question of the possible breach of state "neutrality" in matters of morals. For this sub-committee to view birth control as merely a health measure is to deny the true nature of human sexuality which encompasses a person's total being.

It would be no exaggeration to state that the Planned Parenthood Credo is the official religion of the Department of HEW and that Planned Parenthood World-Population has become an official appendage of government. Civic Awareness of America a Wisconsin based organization has taken this matter of state support of a religion of secular humanism as espoused by Planned Parenthood via HEW, to the courts. The case is expected to reach the United States Supreme Court.

Do tax supported "Family Planning" programs constitute a violation of the right to privacy? This question does not appear to be one to which this sub-committee or any other legislative body has addressed itself. The reason is obvious.

Government probing of one's sexual habits and attitudes, traditionally related to marital privacy, has largely been confined to the poor, the welfare clients, who are particularly vulnerable to pressures of public authorities.

We would venture to say that if any of the members of this sub-committee or their families were subjected to an

indepth interview by a government agency as to their sexual practices and contraceptive methods, and that such information (coded or uncoded) were to be entered in a federal data bank, a Congressional investigation of such gross intrusion into family life would have already been demanded.

It is naive to assume that "Family Planning" programs can be efficiently managed without such intimate probing of client's sexual history and practices and without such information being accumulated for statistical purposes deemed necessary by HEW.

One of the areas of Congressional responsibility is the evaluation of an ongoing tax supported program. Yet, has there ever been a single instance of a public hearing by this

sub-committee on Public Health and Environment to objectively evaluate and scrutinize policies and programs funded under the Tydings Bill or its successors?