網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

U.S. Coalition for Life was created to serve as a national and proper credit. Portions of Newsletter may be reproduced with international clearing house for Pro-Life organizations and proper credit. individuals seeking information, documentation, research

ATTENTION materials in the areas of population control euthanasia, genetic engineering, abortion and related areas. Its primary function

New subscription rate will become effective September 1, 1973. is that of service.

Individual subscription: $5.00 a year.

Organization subscription: $25.00 a year. The U.S.C.L, Reprint Service is designed to provide docu

Bulk rate for August issue: $.50 each. mentation and resource materials for the Pro-Life Movement. Costs include both copying and postage expenses. All reprints

Back issues: $.25 each. are to be used as study copies only. In the case of copyrighted

REMINDER materials, permission must be obtained from the publisher or This is the last complimentary copy to be made available author directly, except for brief quotes which may be used with to groups and pro-life individuals who are not USCL subscribers.

COMING EVENTS
Special Fall issue and mailings on Population Education including:

The Rockefeller Population Packet
Harvard's Plan-A-Fam classroom game

The Anti-Lifers Invade the Classroom
as well as the latest information on World Population Year – and Conference 1974.

Vol. 3 No. 6 Spring, 1974

Published by: U.S. Coalition for Life Educational Fund • Box 315, Export, Pa. 15632

S. 1708 H.R. 11511* A PROLIFE GUIDE TO FEDERAL ANTILIFE ABUSES

Coalition Testimony on H.R. 11511 - March 8, 1974

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON S. 1708 AND H.R.11511

Mr. Chairman: Members of the subcommittee: I am Randy Engel, Executive Director of the United States Coalition for Life, and I am offering this testimony on HR 11511, the Health Revenue Sharing and Health Services Act of 1973 on behalf of the United States Coalition for Life, an international research agency and clearing house on all aspects of population control and so-called government "family planning" legislation and programs. My remarks will be directed primarily to Title III, The Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1973. Background

In order that my testimony be viewed in its proper context, I wish to comment briefly on the manner in which the public hearings on HR 11511 were conducted and my general observations and experience with its companion bill in the Senate, S. 1708, the Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1973, now before the Labor and Public Welfare Committee.

The interest and concern of the United States Coalition for Life in the Senate and House version of the Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1973 and similar measures is a matter of public record.

On May 8, 9 and 10, 1973 the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare held public hearings on HR 11511's companion bill S. 1708.

As with the similar hearings on family planning - population control such as the pioneer Gruening Committee hearings on S. 1676 of the mid-60's and Cranston hearings on S.J.R. 108 calling for a national policy of "population stabilization", the hearings on S. 1708 were carefully orchestrated so as to produce an overwhelming record in favor of continued and expanded federal family planning population programs.

On the afternoon of May 10, 1974, the last day of the hearings, I was permitted approximately twelve minutes of hearing time to present an oral summary of my testimony for the U.S. Coalition for Life as part of a "pro-life" panel of approximately one hour duration,

My full testimony consisted of a summary of violations of the 1970 Family Planning and Population Services Bill (Tydings Act) by governmental and private entities and a

Randy Engel, Editor

documented brief in support of the charges which was given to Senator Alan Cranston, at the conclusion of my oral presentation, for inclusion in the final record.

Gentlemen, the record for 51708 hearings have been published. I draw your attention to the fact that not only was my documentation excluded but that there is no indication that such documentation is contained in the files of Senator Cranston's subcommittee office. I am sure you would welcome Senator Cranston's explanation on this matter should he chose to reply.

CALL FOR CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION My testimony on S. 1708 was designed not only to substantiate charges of violations of the Tydings Bill but moreover to provide the impetus for a full Congressional investigation of the multitude of abuses of government population control programs which run the gamut from abortifacient research to violations of civil and constitutional rights, from fertility control experimentation on the poor to promotion of the Sangerite credo and others.

Since my appearance before Senator Cranston last year, there have been three major events to support such an investigation of the entire spectrum of federal family planning-population control programs, namely (1) the involuntary sterilization of two black girls in Montgomery, Alabama and welfare women in Aiken County, South Carolina, (2) the National Institutes of Health investigation and debate on fetal experimentation and (3) federal grand jury indictment of Louisiana's Birth Control Czar, Joe D. Beasley, M.D. for alleged mishandling of $12.2 million in federal family planning grants.

*As of May 20, 1974 H.R. 11511 (incl. Title III) has been withdrawn and H.R. 14214 (Title 11 -- the Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1974) offered as a substitute bill. It is scheduled to go before the full House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce for markup. No hearings are scheduled by Rep. Rogers' Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment.

Thus far Secretary of Health, Euucation and Welfare Casper Weinberger has chosen to evade a Coalition request for an impartial investigation, referring the matter instead of the office of Louis Hellman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs. 1.2

Likewise, Senator Henry Jackson of the Subcommittee on Governmental Activities has refused to take up the matter. 3 We are currently exploring other avenues including of course you, Representative Rogers, as both sponsor of HR 11511 and chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment. So much for S. 1708.

Now let us turn briefly to the matter of public hearings on HA 11511 held for six days beginning on Thursday, February 14th and concluding on Friday, February 22, 1974. Asi mentioned earlier, our interest in bills related to family planning and population control are a matter of public record.

On November 1, 1973 I received a reply from clerk W. E, Williamson of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to my request to testify at future hearings related to federal family planning programs including H.R. 3381 Mr. Dellums).

Similarly on November 5th I received a communication from Lee S. Hyde, M.D. also a committee staff member confirming hearing information on H.R. 6021 (Mr. Dellums) and H.R. 6139 (Mr. duPont). 5

Additionally I understand that members of Life Lobby Inc.

TITLE III – THE FAMILY PLANNING AND POPULATION RESEARCH ACT OF 1973 The official position of the United States Coalition for Life – in principle and in practice – is one of opposition to Title III – the Family Planning and Population Research Act of 1973 and all similar measures which feed the ever expanding population control bureaucracy of the Federal Government leading to a host of anti-life programs and practices. Such activities continue to flourish even amidst specific congressional legislation designed to curb such abuses.

I welcome this opportunity to highlight some of the more gross violations of the Tydings Bill and to support my charges with the necessary documentation. So that I may be assured that my documentation will not meet with the same fate as the documentation provided for S. 1708, I have attempted to

VIOLATION OF ABORTION PROHIBITION AMENDMENT

The 1970 Family Planning and Population Service Act (P.L. 91-572) contained the following provision:

(Title X. "Sec. 1008 None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning."')

The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1972 HEW Appropriations Act (P.L. 92-80, 92nd Cong.), 1st Sess. (1971) expressed the following intent:

"The Committee of Conference is agreed that in population research, the prohibition in Title X of abortion as a method of family planning should not be construed so as to prevent scientific research into the causes of abortion and its effects H.R. Rep. No. 92-461, 92nd Congress, 1st Sess. 8 (1971)."

The question of violation – of the spirit and letter of the Abortion Prohibition Amendment therefore, involves three basic criteria.

First, the definition of abortion as used in the amendment.

met with Representative Rogers on January 22, 1974 and expressed an interest in testifying at future sub-committee hearings on family planning and related measures. Their names were to be added to the clerk's register.

How is it then, that with the exception of Msgr. McHugh of the USCC, neither the U.S. Coalition for Life, or Life Lobby nor any other independent pro-life group was informed of the hearing date or invited to give testimony on H.R. 11511 while a litany of well-known anti-life agencies including Planned Parenthood and Zero Population Growth were given an opportunity to air their views on this piece of legislation. I believe a detailed explanation of the reason for omitting pro-life groups' testimony at the public hearings should be entered by the Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Paul Rogers and Committee Clerk Williamson, since there appears to be some disagreement as to who is responsible for the "oversight". Such an explanation is necessary to dissipate fears that the hearings were "rigged" so as to make an overwhelming case for continued and expanded family planning and population control programs via H.R. 11511 or the Administration bill sponsored by Javits in the Senate (S. 1632) and to silence the opposition to such measures. 6

I hope this background information will be helpful to all subcommittee members and that it will provide a suitable backdrop for my remarks on H.R. 11511.

keep such material to the minimum needed to substantiate my charges. Additional documentation of footnoted materials is available to both the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee as well as the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee.

Second, the overall intent and language of the abortion prohibition amendment.

Third, the overall intent and language of the Conference
Committee Report section on "scientific research
First - At the time of the passage of the Abortion Prohibition
Amendment the following definition of abortion by the
Department of HEW was known to be in effect.

Abortion "all the measures which impair the via
bility of the zygote at any time between the
instant of fertilization and the completion of labor
constitute in the strict sense, procedures for
inducing abortion." (U.S. Dept. of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare, Public Health Service, publica-
tion 1066 (Washington, 1963), p. 27)

No distinction is made between surgical techniques and abortion accomplished by drugs or devices. Thus, it would appear that any drugs or device whose primary mode of action

57-782 O - 76 - 6

was abortifacient in nature would be preciuded from family planning programs in which abortion was prohibited.

Thus the Abortion Prohibition Amendment posed a dilemma for those who wished to incorporate abortion measures (parti

cularly non-surgical methods) into family planning programs funded under Title X, and at the same time desired to avoid charges of violating the prohibition.

REDEFINING ABORTION

The impass was resolved by a re-defining of abortion and related terms by the Department of HEW.

In November 1973, Family Planning Digest, a publication of the Bureau of Community Health Services Administration, U.S. Dept. of HEW, edited by Planned Parenthood - World Population, published "A Glossary of Family Planning Terminology."

The glossary was approved by the National Family Planning Forum in May. 1973 and was developed by the Forum's Committee on Terminology chaired by Dr. Louise B. Tyrer of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Other Committee members included Dr. Lu Davis (N.J.), Dr. Theodore Scurletis (N.C.), Dr. J. King Seegar (MD.) and Frederick S. Jaftee of P.P. - W.P. (N.Y.)

The glossary includes the following terminology: Conception - Implantation of the blastocyst. Not synonymous

with fertilization (from Obstetric Gynecologic Terminology,

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Fertilization - Union of the male sperm cell and the female

ovum. Pregnancy – State of a female after conception until termina

tion of gestation. Abortion - Expulsion or extraction of all (complete) or any

part (incomplete) of the placenta or membranes without an identifiable fetus or with a live born infant or a stillborn infant weighing less than 500 gm. In the absence of known

weight, an estimated length of gestation of less than 20 completed weeks (130 days or less), calculated from the first day of the last normal menstrual period may be used. Abortion is a term referring to the culmination of the birth

process before the twentieth completed week of gestation. Fertility Regulation - Medical and nonmedical techniques that

enable individuals to engage in voluntary planning and action to have the number of children they want, when and of they want them. These techniques include contraception, infertility diagnosis and treatment, abortion and sterilization.

Similarly, on November 16, 1973, the National Institute of Health of the Department of HEW published "Protection of Human Subjects" in the Federal Register (Vol. 38, No. 221). The NIH glossary included the following definitions: Pregnancy - encompasses the period of time from implanta

tion until delivery ... Fetus - means the product of conception from the time of

implantation to the time of delivery from the uterus. Having then re-defined conception and pregnancy as begin ning with implantation rather than fertilization, early abortion techniques which go under the euphanism of "menstrual extrac tion" or "hormonal interception"7 or "post-conceptive fertility contro18 or abortion achieved by drugs such as Diethylstilbestrol (DES) (Morning-after-pill) or by devices such as the IUD9, 10, 11

are permitted to be funded under Title X, Sec. 1008

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND TITLE X FUNDING

Secondly, let us examine the language and intent of the Abortion Prohibition Amendment.

On February 14, 1974, a memo was sent from the Education and Public Welfare Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress to the Honorable John H. Dent (acting under a request from the U.S. Coalition for Life).

The substance of the memo centered upon the funding of Planned Parenthood - Los Angeles under the Tydings Act (1970 Family Planning and Population Services Act),12

The memo reads in part, "... please note that the question pertaining to P.P. - L.A.'s performing abortions or providing abortion counseling is not mentioned. Since P.P. - L.A. is funded through the Tydings Act, SUCH ABORTION RELATED ACTIVITIES AS MENTIONED ABOVE ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW. Therefore, that particular question is not germaine." (emphasis added)

I believe that the CRS memo accurately reflects both the letter and the spirit of the Abortion Prohibition Amendment.

The question of abortion-related activities of PP-LA IS germaine since Planned Parenthood – Los Angeles engages in such activities, while receiving funding under the Tydings Act.

I ask that the contents of the attached article "The Abortion Kick-backs":13 be examined with great care by this subcom mittee. Reporter, Roger Rappaport of New Times makes two

serious charges against PP.LA. I quote in part

"Planned Parenthood-Los Angeles was violating the terms of its federal grant in two ways. First, it was receiving a second payment for "psychological testing and evaluation" of abortion patients, not permissible under the terms of its grant. Second, it was failing to report this income to the federal government. Both these violations could result in termination of the government funding. More important, if there was appropriation of unreported revenue by an executive of a federally funded organization, this could lead to felony prosecution."

The Coalition believes that it is the responsibility of this subcommittee, prior to reporting HR11511, to thoroughly investigate this charge of abuse and misuse of Title X funds and if necessary subpoena the records of PP-LA officials and the evidence of Mr. Rappaport as outlined in his article.

However if such an investigation is to have any meaning at all, then PP-LA's activities must be viewed in the larger context of the Policies and programs of the parent agency - Planned Parenthood - World Population, New York City.

The role of Planned Parenthood-World Population in abortion is candidly discussed by the agency's medical director George Langmyhr, M.D., in an article by the same name written in 1971.14 I enter this article in full as part of my testimony. draw you to to the moon made by Dr. Langmy namely (1) that mon professionals and volunteers

[graphic]

sociated with Planned Parenthood have accepted for a long time the necessity of abortion as an integral part of any complete or rosal Emily planning programine P Pectinic persone cannot avoid dilemmas posed by legitimate method aluteor any type of unwanted pregnancy (2) that while P.P. or a non-prots, tax-exempt agency is specifically unable to lobby or avertly attempt to achieve legislation reform" PP's volunteers and professionals such as Dr. Alan Guttmacher en actively participate in advocatlog abortion law change and 3) that PP, helped prepare various legal brief which have en presented to the courts as a means of effecting change Dr Langhe Citna one major effort in California regarding the ability of a minor to booser to an abortion

Dr. Langmy sutstantiates Planned Parenthood's longstanding involvement in programs of abortion Information sourusling and redetal" waich were necissarily unpublicized," He also details gulte explicitly Planned Parenthood's role in

abortion purm in California and the establishmem of a wubsidiary Abonitorium-unit known as the San Francisco Center for Legal Abortion, Bikewise, PP's abortion related activities are highlighted in Colorado and New York City Details ate also provided on the Syracuse Planned Parenthood Abortion in 15

Dr. Langmyhe concludes with the hope that abortion will become even more available and that Planned Parenthood support 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

In the Plann arenthood - New York City brochure outlining its Family Planning Centers we note that in 1971 PP/NYC opened "the first large scale comprehensive family planning center in the U.S. As such, it will be a prototype.. and will stimulate the conversion of so-called abortion clinics into facilities that will provide comprehensive birth control services, not only abortion ... the facility is designed to perform 8,000 to 10,000 early abortions a year . . ."17

The latest P.P.-W.P. letter form carries a statement of purpose which reads in part, to provide leadership

"in making effective means of voluntary fertility control, including contraception, abortion and sterilization, available and fully accessible to all. "18

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

And lastly - does such funding constitute a violation of the contract of such agencies receiving funding under the Tydings Act either directly or indirectly through HEW Family Planning Regional Councils? We believe the answer must again be yes. Do you, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee concur? If so, how would you amend Title III of HR 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.

ABORTION RESEARCH LOOPHOLE

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

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

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

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

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

I submit the three letters for the record. 20, 21, 22

« 上一頁繼續 »