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

(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 Ian 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 indoc trination 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 rule 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.

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 $1708, 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 CLINICAL 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 $1708 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