patients with physicians and institutions. Our role as patient advocate was well demonstrated in our criticism of the slowness of certain municipal hospitals in establishing meaningful programs of abortion. Planned Parenthood of New York City is currently considering the development of an outpatient abortion facility in order to provide prompt, safe, low-cost ($0-$150) outpatient abortions.

Our affiliate in Syracuse made the decision to perform abortions on its premises. You may know that Syracuse is a conservative, Catholic community. The affiliate began to plan its abortion facility when it became apparent that no hospitals in the area were making provision for abortion services. Through various surveys, it learned that a number of doctors were willing to accept referrals for abortions that would either be performed in the physician's office or in the hospital with which the physician was associated.

Planned Parenthood initially wanted to operate a telephone information and counseling service. However, after considerable discussion and deliberation, it was decided that an outpatient abortion facility should be developed within the Planned Parenthood Center. This decision was based on the following factors: The reluctance of certain hospitals to make known their plans for abortion services;

The real prospect that where services were available, the fees would be high; The further realization that services would tend to be offered in a way that the patient would have to face a formidable screening procedure, and thus a long waiting period.

Since July 1, 1970, approximately 12 pregnancies per week have been terminated in the Syracuse Planned Parenthood facility. Twenty per cent of the patients are on welfare; the fees have ranged from $0-250, with the average payment being $150.

The administrative problems in actually putting together the service were, to say the least, horrendous. However, the executive director, an innovative woman, was able to overcome all obstacles in developing this service with the help of an enlightened board and professional staff. It is the feeling of the affiliate that such a service will be offered for the foreseeable future-ie, one to two years until it is clear that abortion is easily available to women in the Syracuse

area.

FUTURE PLANS

By discussing programs within three states, I have attempted to outline the different approaches being taken by Planned Parenthood. Now, for a look into the future.

Clearly, we must provide support for those groups who are attempting to maintain present satisfactory laws such as in New York State, or those who are attempting to repeal the law in other states. In states where abortion law reform or repeal has not yet occurred, we will continue to cooperate with institutions and agencies in offering programs of abortion information, counseling and referral. In those states where abortion law has changed, we have various alternatives, ranging from maintaining a telephone information service to offering direct services, such as in Syracuse.

Of highest priority, however, will be our continued focus on birth control services. It would be unfortunate if the availability of abortion deemphasized the necessity of making birth control available conveniently and cheaply to all women and men. Certainly, the United States is a "contraceptive society." Planned Parenthood hopes that this well-established trend will be reinforced so that we will be an even more efficient contraceptive society in the next decades.

We support the view that when an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, abortion services should be available, with the decision essentially being made by the patient and her doctor. We will continue to be part of the advocacy constituency so that fees can be scaled down to reasonable levels.

In summary, Planned Parenthood hopes that abortion will become even more available and supports the efforts of others in seeking reform and repeal of outdated abortion laws. At the same time, we will work to provide more effective programs of public education, information and birth control services to lessen the need for pregnancy termination.

Ms. ENGEL. Secondly, at the end of this hearing, I would request that those Senators who have not been able to appear, if their aides would come down to the table, I have a specially prepared packet for each of those individuals.

Beginning my testimony, I would like to open with a comment with regard to a speech that was made by Dr. Louise Tyrer of the Family Planning Division of the American College of OBGYN before the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians at their 12th annual meeting at Memphis, Tenn., on April 16, 1974. The very impromptu talk was on the status of the various Human Life Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

According to Dr. Tyrer's assessment of the congressional scene, she saw that there were two basic approaches. One was the basic States rights approach which would return the power of lawmaking in the area of abortion to the individual States. The second, which would guarantee the full protection of the law to the unborn child from the moment of fertilization.

The States rights approach, she states, and I believe quite correctly so, is unacceptable to the majority of prolife people yet very attractive to the legislators, that is, Federal legislators, because "it sort of takes the onus off their backs from making any decisions."

The remainder of her talk stresses the necessity of stalling these hearings by this subcommittee by having Planned Parenthood physicians flood the subcommittee with requests to testify. This, Dr. Tyrer suggested, was politically expedient and politically necessary for you, Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the amendments bottled up in subcommittee until you have gone through the election process in

the fall.

Frankly, I have no desire to embarrass anyone on this issue at this time. This is not because I do not feel that Dr. Tyrer was incorrect in her judgment of the political realities of the Senate and House committees dealing with the abortion issue, and it is not because I disagree with her, or her assessment that stalling these committee hearings by dragging them out month by month would be politically expedient for you and for others who might prefer not to have a rollcall vote on a Human Life Amendment before election time.

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

MS. ENGEL. That is perfectly fine.

Senator BAYH. You said, "Although, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to embarrass you," I do not think your desire not to embarrass me is relevant to what we are trying to do here. I appreciate your sentiment, although it is not necessary.

Nor am I virgin as far as being embarrassed, nor do I anticipate that I will never be embarrassed again. It is like Harry Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," and I like it in the kitchen. You say further, "not because I feel Dr. Tyrer was incorrect in her judgment or her assessment that stalling the subcommittee hearings by dragging them out month by month would be politically expedient for you and others who might prefer not to have a rollcall."

Do you feel what we are doing here is dragging things out and following political expediency?

MS. ENGEL. I would not care to judge your motives. However, I would suggest that these hearings have been dragged out, holding 1 per month on a different topic; yes, I would concur in that opinion. Senator BAYH. All right. How many votes do you suppose we could have for these amendment if we had had the vote in June?

MS. ENGEL. Well, the problem of getting through the subcommittee is yours and getting people motivated to support is our problem, in which you, of course, would play a role.

Senator BAYH. You see, I have not tried to answer that question, because I am trying to solve the problem in my own mind.

It must be very comfortable, I imagine, to be so satisfied that you have all the answers and know exactly what is right and wrong.

I find it more difficult in my own mind and heart to reach that conclusion. However, if you are in favor of an amendment and make, what I would call, a rather critical assessment, if not of my motives, than of the results of my actions, I think maybe you ought to, in the quiet of the evening, add up the votes you would have had in June. Now, please proceed.

Ms. ENGEL. Yes. I would like to comment on that statement.

I have been in the movement now for more than 10 years. I do not believe I have all of the answers, but I believe by the time you get through these hearings you will not have all of the answers either. As you said, there comes a time when you will vote yes or no, and that time in your estimation may be 2 years, but at that point of 2 years you might be able to say, if I only had another 2 years to think about it, I might know more about it. And the chances are that is true, but the point here is that each day that goes by, thousands of unborn children are being killed and so we are extremely anxious to have this issue the hearings conducted in the manner which they usually are, and I would suggest future hearings be held in groups of 2 or 3 days rather than being strung out in such a manner. That would be my only comment before I go on.

With regard to the matter of congressional responsibility, the excuses that I have heard, and I am sure most prolife people have heard on the abortion issue, is they will say, this is not our affair.

Some Congressmen and Senators will say the massive slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn children is not a Federal matter.

They will say, we are not responsible for the Supreme Court decision of January 22, which is now the law of the land.

Well, my primary purpose in being here today, Mr. Chairman, is to tell Senators like yourself in both counts, in terms of being both in the House and the Senate, that abortion is a Federal matter, that the massive slaughter of unborn children in this country is a very proper matter of Federal concern.

And the reason that it is such a proper matter of Federal concern is that this Congress is directly responsible for the almost inevitable Supreme Court decision which stripped unborn children of their inalienable right to life.

Why does Congress have this responsibility?

I say Congress has this responsibility because over the last 10 years it has permitted an antilife philosophy and antilife programs and policies in the area of population control and so-called family

planning to be matters of national policy, promoted and supported by tax dollars.

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

The executive branch because it has failed to correct the antilife abuses primarily within the bureaucracies of HEW and AID and has permitted key antilife leaders such as Dr. Louis Hellman of the Office of Population Affairs and Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, Director of Population Bureau for AID, to remain in office.

President Ford's selection of Nelson Rockefeller will undoubtedly compound these abuses.

The legislative branch, they are responsible because Congress has authorized legislation and appropriate funds year after year to initiate, promote, and to sustain antilife programs in virtually every conceivable Federal bureaucracy, including the following:

You have a whole list, as you can see, in front of you, which I am not going to go through the bother of labeling succinctly other than to say that in the attachments which accompany the testimony we do contain specific details on the extent to which each of the agencies such as the Office of Education, Department of Defense, Public Health Services, U.S. Information Agency, and so forth, have contributed to the antilife mechanism at the Federal level, and if at the end of my testimony, if you have any specific question on any of these agencies, I would be happy to answer them there.

Then we get lastly to the judicial branch. The judicial branch, whose highest Court by a 7-to-2 decision, legalized the killing of unborn children up to and including the time of birth, a decision based in part upon the very impeccable historical credentials of the Playboy Foundation as well as numerous antilife lower court decisions, brought about through the tireless efforts of federally funded Legal Service lawyers.

Senator BAYH. Excuse me, madam, what is the Playboy Foundation?

MS. ENGEL. The Playboy Foundation is the foundation of Hugh Hefner and is related directly to Playboy Magazine and the Playboy empire.

Senator BAYH. And how does it have impeccable historical credentials? I have never heard of it. Which is not to mean it does not have impeccable historical credentials. Would you edify us a little bit? Maybe it is something I do not know. I am familiar with the magazine, having only a passing familiarity with it. [General laughter.]

MS. ENGEL. When the Supreme Court decision came out, Hugh Hefner, in an article which appeared in Playboy, praised the fact that the Supreme Court decision had based a portion of its section with regard to the history of abortion law on a presentation which was funded through the Playboy Foundation, and if you would like a copy of that I do have the article on which the Supreme Court decision, using the information provided by this historical background, funded through the foundation.

Senator BAYH. Well, now you are referring to an article that Mr. Hefner wrote?

Ms. ENGEL. No, no.

Senator BAYH. Did the Court in its judgment talk about the impeccable historic credentials of the Playboy Foundation?

Ms. ENGEL. Hugh Hefner, through the Playboy Foundation, his foundation, has done a number of research articles and so forth on the abortion area.

When the Supreme Court decision came out, one of the references made in the Supreme Court decision was to a specific article made by a specific author. That particular article is related to the Playboy Foundation in terms of funding.

And if I use the term "impeccable historical credentials" it was to get just the reaction I have gotten, meaning, what is the impeccable historical credentials?

I would love to ask that of the Supreme Court.

Senator BAYH. What concerns me, is that we have a very serious issue here.

Ms. ENGEL. That is correct.

Senator BAYH. I am sure you think it is serious, but when you approach it from that particular point, I do not think it is making a good case.

MS. ENGEL. Mr. Senator, I do not think you are quite correct. Senator BAYH. I think Hugh Hefner has a right to say what he wants to say.

MS. ENGEL. He may have.

Senator BAYH. But I do not think we should be told that the Supreme Court of the United States based their decision on the impeccable historical credentials of the Playboy Foundation. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but as the chairman of this committee I am trying to sort out facts from fiction and it is very difficult. And forgive me if I am a little harsh on you.

Ms. ENGEL. Not at all.

Senator BAYH. You have a right to present your opinion, and that is why you are here. Do not be deterred. I have a sinking suspicion you are not going to be. [General laughter.]

Ms. ENGEL. Yes. As you said before, you know, if you don't like the heat in the kitchen-well, I have been through a lot of heat in the kitchen as a mother of five so I will stay and go over this.

Now, what I was trying to say here, Senator, is that when I saw that the Supreme Court decision was based at least in part on historical documentation supplied by the Playboy Foundation, I thought that to be rather unorthodox and more so when I read the information. I believe it was not historically correct.

So perhaps I should have put little quotes around my comment as being a facetious one but the fact that the Supreme Court decision did base some of its historical data and so forth on information provided by the Playboy Foundation simply means that I think that they could have had a better source, if they were looking for more accurate historical information.

Senator BAYH. But in the footnotes, I should remember this, but did the Court refer in the footnotes to the Playboy Foundation, or was this a doctor or a scientist who was studying the issue and some of the funds for the study had been provided by the Playboy Foundation?