The Framing of A Right To Choose Roe v. Wade and The Changing Debate On Abortion Law.

American Society for Legal History
The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
The Framing of a Right to Choose: Roe v. Wade and the Changing

Debate on Abortion Law
Author(s): MARY ZIEGLER
Source: Law and History Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Summer 2009), pp. 281-330
Published by: American Society for Legal History
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40646016 .
Accessed: 10/06/2014 05:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Society for Legal History and The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Law and History Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Framingof a Rightto Choose:
Roe v. Wadeand theChangingDebate
on AbortionLaw
MARY ZIEGLER
The SupremeCourt'sdecisionin Roe v. Wade,arguablythemosthotly

debatedinrecentdecades,hasproducedan impressive bodyofhistorical
The
scholarship.1 leading historieshave focusedon theevolutionof the
argumentsand that
alliances shape abortiondebate
today, pro-
rights-based
lifeandpro-choice arguments,alliancesbetweenwomen'srightsleaders
andpublichealthadvocates, andtheadoptionofpro-choice positionsby
theDemocratic Partyandpro-lifepositions Thisori-
bytheRepublicans.2
a sensibleone;rights-based
is unquestionably
entation arguments,inplay
1. See,e.g.,DavidJ.Garrow, LibertyandSexuality:TheRighttoPrivacyandtheMaking
ofRoe v.Wade(Berkeley: University Press,1998);CelesteMichelleCondit,
ofCalifornia
DecodingAbortion Rhetoric:CommunicatingSocialChange(UrbanaandChicago:Univer-
sityof IllinoisPress,1990);LeslieReagan,When Abortion Wasa Crime:Women, Medicine,
and Law in theUnitedStates(Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress,1997); Cynthia
Gorney, ArticlesofFaith:A FrontlineHistoryoftheAbortion Wars(NewYork:Simonand
Schuster, 1998).
2. Reaganhasstudied howthestrength oftheabortion orreform
legalization movements
depended on theabilityofordinary womento achieveindependence andpowerovertheir
ownlives.See,e.g.,Reagan, When AbortionWasa Crime.18.Condit, hasstudied
bycontrast,
thedevelopment ofpro-lifeandpro-choicerhetoric
andtheultimate compromise between
pro-lifeandpro-choice a compromise
positions, thatframed abortionas "a woman'schoice
butalsoas anundesirable moralact."See Condit,
DecodingAbortion, 199.Garrow, inturn,
has examinedtheworkof thelitigators andcourtsresponsible fortheSupremeCourt's
decisioninRoe. See Garrow, Liberty ix-x.
andSexuality,
MaryZiegleris an OscarM. RuebhausenFellowin Law at Yale Law School

She wishesto givespecialthanksto MarthaMinow,
<mary.ziegler@yale.edu>.
KenMack,andDarylLevinsonfortheirhelpandpatienceduringthecourseof
workon thisarticle.
Law and HistoryReviewSummer2009,Vol. 27, No. 2

of Illinois
© 2009 by theBoardofTrusteesof theUniversity

282 Law and HistoryReview,Summer2009
beforeRoe, havecome to dominatethedebateafterthedecision.However,

byemphasizingrights-based debatebeforethedecision,thecurrent scholar-
ship has mostly missed a significantchange in the rhetoric and coalitions
on eitherside of thedebatethatwas partlyproducedby Roe itself.3
Beforethedecision,a numberofpolicy-basedarguments wereat leastas
important to abortionadvocacy as was rights-basedrhetoric including,most
famously,public healthargumentsabout fatalitiesand injuriesassociated
withillegalabortions.4 A significant,
butless well-known argument involved
abortionas a methodof populationcontrol,designedto checkdomesticor
international populationgrowth. WhenRoe marginalized populationcontrol
arguments, thedecisionchangedthearguments and reshapedthecoalitions
involvedin theabortiondebate.By neglecting thetransition thatRoe helped
to produce,theleadinghistorieshave missedwhatRoe revealsabouthow
judicial decisionsmatterpoliticallyand culturally.By reframing a political
issue,a judicial decisioncan help to reshapethecoalitionsand arguments
thatdefinethedebate.
In thedecade beforeRoe, thecoalitionadvocatingpopulationcontrolre-
formswas a diverseone. Some oftheoldestand longest-standing members
ofthecoalitioncame fromtheeugeniclegal reformmovementof theearly
twentieth centuryand advocatedpopulationcontrolreformspresumably
designedto reduce the ratesof reproduction of the socially undesirable.
Beginningin the 1950s, othermembersof the coalition saw population
controlas an important tool in wrestingeconomicinfluencefromtheSo-
vietUnion in theThirdWorld,minimizingtheattraction of Communism,
3. Thebest-known scholarshipon Roe andtheCourt'sabilityto producesocialchange

questionsthewisdomof SupremeCourtdecisionsaboutpolitically matters
controversial
andarguesthatthosedecisionsmaytrigger backlashesagainsttheresultannounced by
theCourt.See MichaelKlarman, FromJimCrowto CivilRights:TheSupreme Courtand
theStruggle forRacial Equality(Oxford,England;NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,
2004); GeraldN. Rosenberg, TheHollowHope: Can CourtsBringAboutSocial Change?
(Chicago:University ofChicagoPress,1991).RevaSiegelandRobertPosthaverecently
argued thatthese backlash
theoristsoversimplify ofpolitical
theeffects backlashesgenerated
byinfluential courtdecisions.See Reva SiegelandRobertPost,"Roe Rage: Democratic
Constitutionalism andBacklash," HarvardCivilRights-CivilLiberties Review42 (2007):
373-75.SiegelandPostsee backlashas an important partofdemocratic constitutionalism,
"anexchange between andcitizens
officials overconstitutional
meaning." "RoeRage,"379.
In theviewof SiegelandPost,backlashis a natural feature
of a constitutional
system in
whichjudgesmustbalancetheneedforrespectfortheruleoflaw witha desireto create
democratically decisions."RoeRage,"374-75.
legitimate
4. Forexamples ofpre-Roe ofthepublichealthproblems
discussions connectedtoillegal
abortion,see generally MaryS. Calderone, as a PublicHealthProblem,"
"IllegalAbortion
American Journal ofPublicHealth50 (July1960):948-54;Abortion: Legaland Illegal;
A DialogueBetween AttorneysandPsychiatrists,ed. JeromeM. Kummer (SantaMonica:
J.M. Kummer, 1967).

TheFramingofa Rightto Choose 283
and providingan alternative to land redistributionas a way of increasing

individualwealth.For relatedreasons,morerecentconvertsto population
controladvocacy saw populationcontrolas an important tool in the war
on poverty,a way to increasewomen's participationin the workforce,a
meansof increasingtheamountof moneyand attentionavailable to each
childin poor families,or a necessarystepin preservingtheenvironment.
The diversepopulationcontrolarguments madebymembersofthepopu-
lationcontrolmovementplayed a significant, if mostlyunacknowledged,
role in abortionreformadvocacy beforeRoe. While the abortionreform
and populationcontrolmovementsremaineddistinctbeforeRoe, popula-
tioncontrolrhetoricand reasoningplayedan important partin thepre-Roe
abortionreform advocacyoforganizations likeNOW,NARAL, and Planned
Parenthood.This strategy had significantconsequencesforthe coalitions
on eitherside of the abortiondebate. BeforeRoe, supportersof popula-
tioncontrol,now not associated withpro-choiceadvocacy,were willing
to supportabortionreformas a populationcontrolmeasure,designedto
cutwelfareexpenses,reducepollution,or cutillegitimacy rates.In turn,in
spiteof thenumerous,non-eugenicargumentsassociatedwithpopulation
control,some politiciansand membersof thepublic remainedconvinced
thatpopulationcontrolreformers harboredracistor eugenicmotives.Abor-
tionopponentsandpro-lifeactivistsrespondedbyemphasizingnotonlythe
rightsof fetusesbutalso thethreatthatpopulationcontrolreformsmight
pose toAfrican-Americansand disabledAmericans.Partlyforthisreason,
someAfrican- Americanleadersand membersof thepublicwho supported
abortionafterRoe opposedabortionreform when,beforethedecision,abor-
tionwas thoughtof as a methodof populationcontrol.
Roe was not the only reason forthe decline of theseargumentsin the
yearsbetween1973 and 1980. Because some African- Americansidenti-
fiedpopulationcontrolreformswithracism,organizationsthatfavored
legalizedabortionhad reasonto set aside populationcontrolargumentsin
orderto avoid being accused of racismthemselves.Particularlyafterthe
UN Conferenceon PopulationControlin Budapestin 1974,whena variety
ofThirdWorldleadersarguedthatpopulationcontrolprogramswereracist
or economicallyexploitative,therewere new incentivesto minimizethe
role of populationcontrolargumentsin abortionadvocacy.And later,in
thelater1970s and early1980s,as pro-choicepositionsbecame a stapleof
theDemocraticParty,5 groupsthatsupportedlegalized abortionhad more
5. MarkGraberhas studiedthegradualadoptionof pro-choice

normsandrhetoric by
theDemocratic
Partyinthe1980sandtheeffect ofthatdecisiononAmericanpolitics.See
MarkA. Graber, Abortion:
Rethinking Equal Choice,theConstitution,
and Reproductive
Princeton
Choice(Princeton: Press,1996),137-53.
University

reasonto makearguments thatappealedto racialminorities and other

Democratic
traditional constituencies.
ButifRoe was nottheonlyreasonthattheabortion debatechanged,
itwas an important reason.Roe brought rights-based arguments intonew
prominence and shiftedthebalance in thedebate away from policy-based
arguments,including thoserelatedtopopulation control.As a consequence,
populationcontrol waseffectively eliminated as an influence on theabor-
tiondebate.Although discussion
political of population control continues
to thepresent day, that debateis almost entirely separatefrom theabor-
tiondebateRoe helpedto shape.Although Roe is oftenbelieved to show
thatcourtshavea verylimitedabilitytoproduce socialchange, also
Roe
offersan exampleof howjudicialdecisionscan reshapethecoalitions
participatinginpoliticaldebatesandthecontent ofthedebatesthemselves.
By minimizing theroleofpopulation control in theabortion debate,Roe
ultimatelychangedthewaypeoplethought andtalkedaboutabortion, and
changedthecoalitions
as a result, on eithersideofthedebateas well.6
PartI ofthisarticledevelopsan accountofthemainstream population
controlmovement in theyearsimmediately beforeRoe. As partof this
inquiry,PartI examinesseveralofthemostimportant population control
organizations and considerstheroletheyplayedin theabortion debate
before1973.By studying theinternal papersof themostimportant or-
ganizations in thecampaignforlegalizedabortion, NARAL,NOW,and
PlannedParenthood, PartII reviewsthechanging strategiesandrhetoric
ofthecampaign forlegalizedabortion. PartIII studiesthedeclineofanti-
population controlarguments madebyreligiousandotherorganizations
opposedtoabortion. Somemembers oftheAfrican- American community
weresignificantly morelikelyto support abortion afterRoe was decided
andpopulation controlarguments aboutabortion weremarginalized.
I. PopulationControland Abortion
In thedecadebeforethedecisionofRoe,thepopulationcontrolandabor-
tionreform movements frombutalso parallelto
evolvedindependently
oneanother.Members oftheabortionreform movement didnotprimarily
emphasizepopulation rhetoric
control or expressconcernaboutsocial
problems with
associated growth.
population For their
part,members of
hasstudiedthewaysinwhichlawhasincreasingly
6. GordonSilverstein beenseenas a
ormodelforthepoliticalprocessandthereby
substitute hasinfluencedthewaysin which
Law'sAllure:HowLaw
somepoliticalissueshavebeendiscussed.See GordonSilverstein,
Shapes,Constrains,SavesandKillsPolitics(NewYork;Cambridge, England:Cambridge
Press,2008),3-8.
University

ofa RighttoChoose
TheFraming 285
thepopulation controlmovement campaigned fora variety of measures
toabortion,
unrelated including voluntary sterilization
initiatives,maternal
healthprograms, and domesticor internationalcontraception measures,and
somepopulation control groups never endorsed abortion reform.
Notwithstanding thedifferencesbetween thetwomovements, abortion
re-
formerswereattracted topopulation controlrhetoricbecause ofthe popular-
ityandpoliticalinfluenceofpopulation controlpolitics.In otherinstances,
populationcontrol organizationsendorsed therepealorreform ofabortion
bans,andmembers of theabortion reform movement tookadvantageof
theopportunities fornewallianceswithpopulation controlorganizations
thatsharedthesamepolicygoal.An understanding oftheoriginsofthese
groups,theirevolution, andtheirpositions on abortionoffers into
insight
thenatureofpopulation controlin 1970andintotheinfluence ofpopulation
controlpoliticson theabortiondebate.
HumanBetterment AssociationforVoluntary BeforeRoe

Sterilization
The HumanBetterment AssociationforVoluntarySterilization(Human
Betterment), a populationcontrolorganizationthatbecamepolitically
influentialin theyearsimmediately beforeRoe, was one of theonly
majorpopulationcontrolorganizations thathad notendorsedabortion
reform in 1970.7 Formedin 1943, HumanBetterment had succeeded
an openlyeugenicorganization, theHumanBetterment Foundation.8
Eugenics, a term coined by the Francis
geneticist Galton in 1883,9had
come to describetheuse of law to preventthebirthsof personswith
physical,mental,and moraldefects.10 Advocatesof segregation in the
Southandopponents ofimmigration in
joined calling fornew compulsory
lawsin theyearsbetween1915and 1935.n By 1935,more
sterilization
7. See JudyKlemesrud, Is AnswerForMany,"NewYorkTimes,January

"Sterilization
18, 1971,24.
8. TheHumanBetterment Foundationwasfounded in 1929inordertostudythepsycho-
logical,physical, andsexualeffectsofcompulsory eugenicsterilization.
Foran exampleof
theresearch conductedandpublished byHumanBetterment, see PaulPopenoe,"Success
onParoleAfter inCollectedPapersonEugenicSterilization
Sterilization," inCalifornia:A
CriticalStudyoftheResultsof6000 Cases (Pasadena:TheHumanBetterment Foundation,
1930),18.
9. See FrancisGalton, InquiriesintoHumanFaculty andItsDevelopment (London:Mac-
millan,1883),24.
10.See MichaelWillrich, "TheTwoPercent Solution:EugenicJurisprudenceandtheSo-
cializationofAmerican Law, 1900-1930,"Law andHistory Review16 (1998): 67-100.
11. See, e.g.,AlbertErnestJenks,"TheLegal Statusof Negro-WhiteAmalgamation in
theUnitedStates," American JournalofSociology21 (1916):666;W.A. Plecker,"TheNew
FamilyandRace Improvement," HealthBulletin17 (1925): 30-31.
Virginia

thanthirty statesprovidedforthecompulsory of defective

sterilization
persons housed in statefacilities.12
WhenHumanBetterment promoted compulsory eugenicsterilization,
suchlawsenjoyedsignificant popularsupport: morethanseventy percent
ofthosepolledbyGallupin 1937approved ofthecompulsory sterilization
of thefeebleminded andtheinsane.13 HumanBetterment did notintend
suchlaws to reduce thegrowth of thegeneralpopulation. Indeed,Human
Betterment members that fit
argued eugenically persons should havemore
children andopenedmarriage clinicstohelp thefitfindmates and conceive
andrearchildren.14
DuringWorldWarII, newsofthemasssterilizations authorized bythe
Nazi regimeraisedconcerns amongtheleadership ofHumanBetterment.
As theAmerican pressbegan,in 1940,toreport E. S.
thesesterilizations,
Gosney, a leaderofHumanBetterment, wrotethathefearedan association
withNazism:"Wehavelittleinthiscountry toconsider inracialintegrity.
Germany is pushingthat.We shouldsteerclearof it lestwe shouldbe
misunderstood."15 Gosney'sfearsprovedtobe warranted. By 1943,Human
Betterment wasindisarray, forced toliquidateitsassets,havinglostmem-
bersandallieswhothemselves fearedan associationwithNazism.16
Whena newHumanBetterment emergedin theyearsbetween1945
and 1959undertheleadership ofRuthProskauer Smith,theheadsofthe
organization begantoidentify accesstocontraception as bothan issueof
individual rightsandas an international population policy.Smith'sinten-
tionto developa newstrategy forHumanBetterment was evidentin her
ultimately unsuccessful effortstowin the support ofSenator JohnF. Ken-
nedy both for thelegalizationof birthcontroland forHuman Betterment
itself.In herfirst letterto Kennedy, Smithidentified HumanBetterment
notas a eugenicorganization butinsteadas an organization "concerned
withcivilandhumanrights, especially rights couples plantheir
the of to
families."17 Smithalso claimedthatHumanBetterment was concerned
witha potential "'population explosion' which [was] considered bymany
12.Fora contemporary ofcompulsory
study laws,seeJ.H. Landman,
sterilization Human
(NewYork:Macmillan,
Sterilization 1932).
13."GallupPoll,"GallupNewsService,January17, 1937.
14.See MollyLadd-Taylor, andModernMarriage
Eugenics,Sterilization m theUSA:
TheStrange CareerofPaulPopenoe,"GenderandHistory13 (2001): 298.
ThePapersofE. H. Gosneyandthe
15.DavidValone,"EugenicSciencein California:
Foundation,"TheMendelNewsletter:ArchivalResourcesfor theHistory
HumanBetterment
ofGenetics 1996): 13-15.
andAlliedSciences,NewSeriesNo. 5 (February
16.See ibid.
17.See RuthProskauer oftheHumanBetterment
President
Smith, ofAmerica,
Association
toSenatorJohn F. Kennedy SmithPapers,77-M164,
(May4, 1959),inTheRuthProskauer
Carton1,Folder5, Schlesinger Harvard
Library, University.

TheFraming
ofa RighttoChoose 287
a greatthreatto peace and prosperity in theworld."18 However,in the
with
correspondence Kennedy, Smith made clear that Human Betterment
stillsoughtnotonlyto reducethetotalnumberof children bornin the
UnitedStatesandabroadbutalso toprevent thebirths offuture criminals
orpersonson publicrelief.
As theKennedy correspondence suggested, by 1959,theleadersofHu-
man Betterment had startedto see population control arguments as central
to theorganization's effortsto redefine itsimageand to reshapepublic
attitudestowardsterilization. The organization hireda publicity agency
toreform itsimage.19 As partofthiseffort, theorganization no longeren-
dorsedcompulsory eugenicsterilization. In thatyear,HumanBetterment
alsobegana longalliancewithDixieCupCompany founder,HughMoore,
whofurther assistedtheorganization inreshaping itsimagebydistancing
HumanBetterment from eugenicreforms andarguing thatsterilizationwas
insteada method ofpopulation control.20Surprised, MoorewrotetoSmith
abouta recentstatement issuedbyHumanBetterment: "Thestatement of
policyenclosedwithyourletterofthe16th,I thought was excellent.. . .
The onlyquestionI haveon first readingis theHBA is unalterably op-
posedtocompulsory I thought
sterilization. we favored legalsterilization
ofimbecilesandthelike."21
By 1964,Moorehimself understood thatHumanBetterment neededto
distanceitselffromtheeugeniclegalreform movement oftheearlytwen-
tiethcentury. In accepting theposition ofPresident ofHumanBetterment,
Mooreexplained, "I hadbecomeconvinced . . . thatsterilizationis oneof
themostlikelymeansofsavingcivilization andthatthepublicshouldbe
madeawareofitandunderstand whatitis.As a businessman, I havespent
my lifeselling ideas, and by that means products."22 What was needed,
Mooreexplained, was a better effortin "sellingsterilization."23 Giventhe
growing politicalinfluence ofthepopulation control movement, Smithand
Moorewereconvinced thataccesstovoluntary likeaccessto
sterilization,
abortion, was bestframed as a population controlissue.
18.Ibid.
19.Smithhireda publicity agencytohelpHumanBetterment reformitsimageandwas
advisedtoemphasize thatall sterilizations
carriedoutbytheorganizationwerevoluntary.
Cass Canfield,Chairman of theEditorialBoardof HarperBrothers Publishing, to Hugh
Moore(December10, 1959),in The HughMoorePapers,MC 153,Box 15,Folder10,
SeeleyMuddManuscript Library,PrincetonUniversity.
20. See ibid.
21. HughMooretoRuthProskauer Smith(October19,1962),inTheHughMoorePapers,
MC 153,Box 15,Folder6.
22. HughMoore,SpeechMade in Acceptanceof Positionas President of theHuman
Betterment Association
forVoluntary Sterilization
(November20, 1964),in ibid.
23. See ibid.

But whileHumanBetterment increasingly used populationcontrol

rhetoricin theearly1960s,itsprograms relatedat firstonlyto domestic
population controlefforts.The programs of theearly 1960s wereintended
toshowthatsterilization, as populationcontrol,helped reduce poverty in
poor ruralor African-American communities, consisting of those Smith
called"thepooranduneducated whostandinsuchdesperate needofhelp
incontrolling family size."24In the
1961, organization beganoperating a
voluntary sterilization in a
program FauquierCounty, Virginia, hospital
thatservedthemedically indigent.25 Withthereception ofsizeabledona-
tionsin 1964and 1965,HumanBetterment, renamed theAssociation for
Voluntary Sterilization in
(AVS) 1965, up set the "Hartman" and "Mc-
Clintock" Plansforproviding similarservices.26Organizational publicity
stillemphasizedpopulationcontrol,bothat homeand abroad,butthe
programs oftheearly1960sfocusedprimarily onthesterilization ofpoor,
American women.
However,Moore'sinterest in domesticand international controlwas
genuine andrelated tohisbeliefsabouttheColdWarpolicyinterests ofthe
UnitedStates.Moorewasbestknownforthe1955pamphlet ThePopula-
tionBomb,whicharguedthat"foodshortages andpopulation pressures
are alreadycontributing to theconditions thatcan lead to social unrest
andwar."27 In 1964,theyearhe becamePresident ofthenewlyrenamed
AssociationforVoluntary (AVS), he reiterated
Sterilization arguments
thatpopulation growth threatened worldstabilityandAmerican military
andeconomicinterests in theThirdWorld.28 As President, Moorehoped
to changeAVS's rhetoric and programs to emphasizesterilization as a
method ofinternationalpopulation control.29
Nonetheless, before1968,theorganization reliedon therhetoric of
internationalpopulation control withoutevercreating a program toimple-
mentitsarguments.30 Thiswasthecase fora variety ofreasons.First,the
organizationhadtoovercome tosterilization
hostility expressed byfamily
planning administrators andpersonnel abroad,especiallyinLatinAmeri -
NewYorkTimes,October7, 1962,Al.
24. "ClinicDefendedon Sterilization,"
25. See ibid.
26. See note22.
27. HughMoore,ThePopulation Bomb(December1959),14,inTheHughMoorePapers,
28. In Moore's1966pamphlet, FamineStalkstheEarth,he arguedthat"hunger brings
turmoil, andas we havelearned,createstheatmospherein whichthecommunists seekto
conquertheearth."See PaigeWhaleyEager,GlobalPopulation Policy:FromPopulation
Control toReproductive Hants,England;Burlington,
Rights(Aldershot, VT: AshgatePub-
lishing, 2004),94, note26.
29. HughMooretoJohn Ragueetal.,Memorandum (April25, 1967),inTheHughMoore
Papers,MC 153,Box 15,Folder7.
30. Ibid.,2.

TheFraming
ca.31As importantly, AVS hadnotyetcommitted significant resources to
internationalpopulation control efforts.
The 1967 budgetplan set aside
$150,000dollarsforpublicity, $50,000forresearch, andonly$30,000for
any international initiative.32
Indeed,the InternationalPopulationCom-
mittee, in
created early1959, had notmet orreceivedanyfunding bythe
springof 1967.33
Still,intheearly1970s,becauseofthepoliticalattraction ofpopulation
controlarguments, AVS stressedsimilarrhetoric in itscampaignforthe
removalof sterilization restrictionson Officeof EconomicOpportunity
(OEO) family planning funds.As partofthatcampaign, in theyearsbe-
tween1969and 1971,AVS ledconferences abouttheroleofsterilization
inconservation andpopulation control andgavepressinterviews
efforts,34
abouttherising popularity andbenefits ofvoluntary sterilizationas a meth-
od ofpopulation control.35
In thesameperiod,AVS beganusinghighlypublicizedtestcases to
promote voluntary sterilizationas a methodof population control.With
theACLU,AVS beganProjectLawsuit,a seriesoftestcases initiated in
EastCoasthospitals, intended toshedlighton "irrational" policiesagainst
voluntary sterilizationandto illustratetherelationship of thosepolicies
to problems of population control.36Struggling financially, someof the
womenwhoservedas plaintiffs wereindigent, on
dependent municipal
healthcare,alreadysupporting fiveormorechildren, andunableto seek
outother methods ofcontraception.37 Project Lawsuitthus offered examples
ofhowvoluntary sterilizationcouldservethosewhowerecontributing to
theproblems associatedwithpopulation growth.
Although thestrategies usedbyAVS changedbetween1970and 1972,
theorganization remained committed to population controlrhetoric, and
between1971and1972,thiscommitment proved worthwhile. In 1971,the
OEO finally removed sterilization and a
restrictions,38only yearlater, AVS
31. Ibid.
32. AVS Budget(April1967),inibid.
33. HughMooreto theBoardof Directorsof theHumanBetterment Associationfor
Voluntary Sterilization
(October5, 1966),in ibid.
34. BayardWebster, "Overpopulation Unites2 Groups,'NewYork October
Times, 2, 1969,
49. AVSleaderstoldthepressthattheNationalConference onConservationandVoluntary
heldinthefallof 1969,wasmeanttoshowtheroleof"voluntary
Sterilization, sterilization
as a majorsolution tofamily andpopulation problems."Ibid.
35. See, e.g.,EllenGraham, "VasectomiesIncreaseas ConcernOver'Pill,'Overpopula-
tionGrows,"WallStreet Journal, November 11, 1970,1.
36. See,e.g.,"Mother of 10 SuesOverSterilization,"
NewYorkTimes,February 10,1971,
71; DeborahCarmody, "HospitalShiftson Sterilization,"
NewYorkTimes,July4, 1970,18.
37. See above,e.g.,note36, "Mother ofTen."
38. LouisKohlmeier, "In '72, U.S. Financed100,000Sterilizations,"
ChicagoTribune,
December2, 1973,A 12.

USAID grantto pursueinternational

receiveditsfirst populationcontrol
reform
Fortheabortion
research.39 movement,thesuccessofAVSdemon-
strated
thepotential control
ofusingpopulation
benefits AVShad
rhetoric.
itsownimageandtheimageof sterilization,
rehabilitated winning allies
ingovernment andinpublicinterest like
organizations theACLU.
ThePopulation CouncilBeforeRoe
Otherpopulation controlorganizations, unlikeAVS, endorsedabortion
reform and thusoffered members of theabortion reform movement the
of
possibility forming productivestrategic alliances.One such important
organization was thePopulation Council.Foundedin 1952,theCouncil
had also originally welcomedsomeleadersof theeugeniclegalreform
movement oftheearlytwentiethcentury, including Frederick Osborn, who
servedsimultaneously as theCouncil'sfirst president andas President of
theAmerican EugenicsSociety.40Attheorganization's founding conference
in 1952,somemembers arguedthateugenicproblems of"quality" werein-
extricablylinkedtoproblems ofpopulation growth.41Someofthosepresent
agreedthat"[a] removal ofselectionwhichnormally balancesthedetrimen-
talmutations necessarily ina downward
results trendinthegenetic quality
ofthepopulation."42 Yet,evenin 1952,founding members disagreed about
therelevanceof eugenicissues.43 Ultimately, theorganization's mission
statement omitted anydiscussion ofeugenics,insteaddetailing a mission
toreducehunger andpromote population control byconducting research,
providing funding, andinfluencing publicopinion.44
Moresignificantly, thefounding members discusseda blueprintformak-
ing internationalpopulation control more effective. the
First, members
proposed, theCouncilshouldfundtheeducationof foreign doctorsand
theestablishment offoreign In addition,
facilities.45 somemembers sug-
gestedthat "birthcontrol programs could be putacross betteras maternal
39. See ExecutiveDirector's Report,

Progress in TheAssociationforVoluntary
Steril-
izationRecords,Box RC 110,Folder21, Social Welfare HistoryArchives, of
University
Minnesota.
40. John "OntheOrigins
D. Rockefeller, ofPopulation
Control," andDevelop-
Population
mentReview3 (December1977):493. Foran exampleofOsborn'swritings whilehe was
servingas president seeFrederick
ofbothorganizations, Osborn, Problems
"Population and
theAmerican Science,May 1954,3A.
EugenicsSociety,"
41. Rockefeller,
"Population 496.
Control,"
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.,494.
45. Ibid.,498.

ofa RighttoChoose
TheFraming 291
healthmeasures"andproposedthatmaternal and childhealthprograms
be combined withfamily planning.46 As the Council testedthisblueprint
overthenextfewdecades, the leaders of the organization stressedthat
population controlreducedpoverty and hunger in the Third Worldand
thuspromoted internationalstabilityandpeace.47
Thisstrategy beganto proveeffective when,in 1963,theCouncilre-
ceiveditsfirstgrant from theFordFoundation tocontinue workwithPaki-
staniofficialsinproviding family planning services.48 Between1964and
1971,theorganization completed a number ofsimilar"feasibility studies"
inninecountries, includingTunisia,Taiwan,andIndonesia.49 TheTunisia
program wasexemplary; theCouncilworked therewiththegovernment to
educatelocalmedicalpersonnel, midwives, andsocialworkers aboutcon-
traceptionandthenconstructed maternal healthcenters thatbothprovided
medicalcareandpromoted theuse of contraception.50 Councilofficials
explained thattheTunisiaprojectwasdesigned toreducepoverty, improve
individualstandards ofliving,andstrengthen existing democracies.51 Inthe
press,the Council citedthe effortas evidence of the relationshipbetween
population control, publichealth,andinternational stability.52
Theorganization refineditsmessageandprogram severaltimesbefore
1971,whenPresident BernardBerelsonannounceda uniform planthat
"wouldprevent millionsofunwanted birthsandatthesametimeimprove
maternal andchildhealth."53 Berelsonlaidouta planformaternity centers
andsatelliteclinicsdesigned to"capitalizeonthefactthatwomenaremost
receptivetofamily planning rightaftertheyhavegivenbirth."54 As leader
of theCouncil,Berelsonaffirmed thatpopulation controlreflected both
genuine concern about healthcarein the Third World and a beliefthatthe
poor were not of
alwayscapable making right the family planning choices
withoutinducement, persuasion,orevenmanipulation.
Between1970and1972,as thePopulation Councilgradually increased
itspublicsupport forlegalizedabortion, members oftheorganization fo-
46. Ibid.,499.
47. See below,notes50-51.
48. Joseph Call forCurbsonPopulation
L. My1er,"Scientists Growth," WashingtonPost,
April18, 1963,E2.
49. JaneBrody,"Population GroupOffers CarePlan,"NewYorkTimes, April20, 1971,
36.
50. "TunisiaPutsHopein BirthControl," NewYorkTimes,December27, 1964,21. For
an exampleof a similarprogram, see Seymour Topping,"TaiwanProgram CurbsBirths,
Contraceptive LoopsPraised,"NewYorkTimes,June13, 1965,10.
51. See above,note50, "TunisiaPutsHope,"21.
52. See ibid.
53. See above,note49, Brody, "Population GroupOffersCarePlan, 36.
!)4. Ibid.

cusedon similarissues,especiallytheeffects oflegalizedabortion on the

health,economic well-being, and rates of reproduction poor.John
of the
D. Rockefeller the
III, longtime chairman of theCouncil,wasappointed by
Nixonin 1969to lead a newCommission on Population Controlandthe
American Future.55AfterRockefeller's appointment, ina six-month period
betweenJanuary andJuneof 1972,theCouncilfundedtwopro-reform
studiesbyDr.Christopher Tietze,whohadbeenassociatedforsomeyears
withthepro-reform Association fortheStudyofAbortion.56 One of the
studiesnoted a decrease in illegitimacy resulting legalizedabortion
from
andpredicted thatlegalized abortions would be safer, as a matter ofhealth,
as wellas moreavailableto thepoor.57 The abortion studies releasedby
theCouncilin 1972thuspresented abortion as serving thesamegoalsas
diditsinternational efforts:
reducing population growth, fightingpoverty,
andpromoting maternal health.
In thesameperiod,somemembers oftheCouncilbegantoattend con-
ventions on howbestto achievetherepealofabortion bansandto make
thesamepolicy-based population control arguments thathadcharacterized
Tietze'sstudies.Forexample, EmilyMooreoftheCouncilwasoneofthe
keyconservative voicesat theJuly1971Women'sNationalConference
on Abortion.58 One delegateat theconference calledfortherecognition
ofbothlesbianism andabortion as issuesof women'srights.59 Speaking
totheNewYorkTimeson behalfoftheCouncil,EmilyMoorecalledthis
requeststrategically "fool[ish]."60"I recognize," she added,"thattheis-
suesoffeminism and[women's] control oftheirownbodies[areinvolved]
in abortion,butthiswas an abortion meeting, nota feminist meeting."61
MoorespokeforthoseintheCouncilwhoviewedabortion as a method of
population controlthat could and should be separated from the advocacy
ofwomen'srights. She believedthatusingpopulation controlarguments
was a moreeffective way to achieve therepeal of abortion bans.62"We
haveto be single-minded," shetoldtheNewYorkTimes."Wehaveto go
beforegray-haired legislaturesall overthiscountry."63
In early1972,theCouncil'sassociationwiththemovement forabor-
55. "PopulationStudent,"NewYorkTimes,March17, 1969,27.

56. See above,note1, Garrow,
Liberty 341; "LegalAbortions
andSexuality, AreTopicof
Study,"Washington Post,January "StudyFindsas LegalAbortions
6, 1972,A7; JaneBrody,
Rise,SaferProcedures AreSoughtMore,"NewYorkTimes, June8, 1972,53.
57. See above,note56, Brody,"StudyFinds,"53.
58. LaurieJohnston,"NationwideDriveforAbortionPlannedParenthoodin3-DaySes-
sionHere,"NewYorkTimes, July20, 1971,30.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.
62. See ibid.
63. Ibid.

ofa RighttoChoose
TheFraming 293
tionreform culminated in thereleaseofThe ReportoftheCommission
onPopulation ControlandtheAmerican Future(theRockefellerReport),
whichendorseda broadvarietyof economic,social, and educational
measures, including a call fortherepealofall criminalabortionlaws.64
The Reportdescribedtherepealof criminalbans as a populationcon-
trolmeasure.65 Publicattention was directedalmostexclusively toward
theReport'srecommendation on abortionbe
thatall legal restrictions
removed.66 The ChicagoTribune echoedthesentiment ofmanywhenit
calledtheReport"theAbortion Report."67
By thelate springof 1972,a fullydevelopedpoliticaldiscussionof
abortion as a formofpopulation controlhademergedin responseto the
Report. Atthe1972Republican andDemocratic Conventions, manyabor-
tionreform advocatesusedtheterms"abortion" and"populationcontrol"
interchangeably.68 Republicans and Democratscouldbe foundon either
sideoftheissue.President Nixon,a Republican, "from
explained: personal
andreligious I consider
beliefs, abortion anunacceptablemeansofpopula-
tioncontrol" atleastinthecase of"unrestricted abortion
andabortion on
demand."69 SenatorEdwardKennedy, a DemocratfromMassachusetts,
similarly rejectedabortion reform as a kindofpopulationcontrolreform
becauseofa "deepmoralfeeling."70
By 1972,theCouncilhad offered a powerfulexampleof thestrate-
gic alliancesavailableto abortion reform withthosein the
organizations
population controlmovement whosupported therepealofabortion bans.
As importantly, theCouncilhad demonstrated thepossibleuses of anti-
poverty, cost-saving arguments tiedto population controlin arguingfor
abortion reform.
ZeroPopulation Inc.BeforeRoe
Growth,
alliancecamewithZeroPopula-
fora strategic
A moreobviousopportunity
tionGrowth, (ZPG).
Incorporated Founded in 1968bya Mystic, Connecti-
RichardM. Bowers,theorganization
cut,lawyer, roseto nationalpromi-
64. See, e.g.,"TheAbortion

Report," ChicagoTribune, March20, 1972,20.
exerta
65. The Reportstatedthat"thereis littledoubtthatlegalandillegalabortions
downward on theUnitedStatesbirthrate."
influence See Populationand theAmerican Fu-
ture:TheReportoftheCommission onPopulation Growth andtheAmerican Future(New
York:NewAmerican 1972),85-89.
Library,
66. See above,note64, "TheAbortion Report,"20.
67. Ibid.
68. See MarleneCimons,"Women'sCaucusWillOfferStrongRightsPlankto GOP,"
LosAngelesTimes, August16, 1972,H3.
69. NickThimmesch, Abortionandthe1972Presidential Race, ChicagoIribune,July
25, 1971,A5.
70. See ibid.

nenceafterthepublication of ThePopulation Bomb,a bookbyStanford

biologistPaul Ehrlich.71In spite of Ehrlich's reputation as an alarmist,72
ZPG provedto be a moderate organization, different in significantways
fromothermembers ofthepopulation controlcoalition.One difference
involvedtheorganization's earlysupportforabortionreform: byApril
1969,Bowers, the founder of ZPG, arguedinfavorofthecomplete legal-
izationof abortion as a population controlmeasureand tiedpopulation
controlto thepreservation oftheenvironment.73 Another difference,ap-
parentby 1970, involved the organization's membership, whichconsisted
ofeducated, mostly white,menandwomen,oftenteaching inorfounding
studentbranches ofZPG atuniversities fromCalifornia toConnecticut to
UnliketheCouncil,ZPG promised,
Virginia.74 in theearly1970s,to be
morepoliticalby usingeducationand lobbyingto promotepopulation
controlpolicies.75AndunlikeeitherAVS or theCouncil,ZPG primarily
usedenvironmental arguments topromote population policies.76
Thepressoften justifiably
grouped ZPG withother newenvironmentalist
organizations
forming on collegecampuses.77 In February 1970,Professor
Robert Feldmeth ofUCLA stated thatZPG sought toreducedomestic popu-
lationgrowthinorder"[t]oreducepollution . . . [andthe]drying up ofour
naturalresources."78
Rankandfilemembers advancedsimilar arguments to
thosemadebyZPG national president,LarryBarnett, whostated inOctober
1970"thatthebestwaytosolvetheproblems ofpollution andpoverty is to
workonthemwhilepopulation is heldatitspresent level."79
7 1. RayRipton,"FearforEnvironment ReachesGrassRoots,"LosAngelesTimes, Febru-

ary15,1970,WS1.
72. Ehrlichpromoted "involuntary"populationcontrolmeasures, theelimina-
including
tionofaid to countries withgrowing populationsandtheintroductionofluxurytaxeson
itemslikediapers.See "Dr.Guttmacher Is Evangelist
ofBirthControl,"NewYorkTimes,
February 9, 1969,SM32.
73. See "ForumSetonAbortion," HartfordCourant,April9, 1969,10B.
74. See above,e.g.,note71,Ripton, "FearforEnvironment,"WS1 (describingoperation
ofUCLA branch);"CampusMeetingScheduledon OverPopulation," HartfordCourant,
March4, 1970,14D (describing formation ofZPG unitat EasternConnecticutCollege);
"GroupFormsto QuellPopulation," Los AngelesTimes,July18, 1970,56 (formationof
Caltechunit);"ZeroPopulation UnitSeeksVa. Legislation,"Washington Post,May 12,
1971,B 13 (formation ofUniversity ofVirginiabranch).
75. See above,note71, Ripton, "FearforEnvironment, WS1.
76. See ibid.
77. See ibid.
78. Ibid.
79. JillLandesfield,"OverpopulationAdherent," Los AngelesTimes,October26, 1970,
566(describing Barnett's Judy
position); Klemesrud,"ToThemTwoChildren AreFine,But
ThreeCrowdTheWorld," NewYorkTimes, June12,1971,30 (relatingtheviewsofseveral
members ofZPG NewYork).

ofa RighttoChoose
TheFraming 295
BetweenOctober1970 and March1972,ZPG activistsincreasingly
campaigned forbetteraccesstoalternative reproductive techniques as a tool
topreserve theenvironment and achieve zero population growth. Because
abortion wasseentobe onesuchtechnique, state-level ZPG affiliates par-
ticipated inralliesforthecomplete legalizationofabortion inConnecticut
andIllinoisandworked as partofthenational legalization effort.80
Whereas
theCouncilbecameassociatedwithabortionreform primarily because
ofthestatements of a fewprominent members likeJohnD. Rockefeller
III and Christopher Tietze,therankand fileof ZPG oftenparticipated
actively inpro-reform TheZPG leadership,
protest.81 inturn, consistently
characterized abortion as an important formofpopulation control.82
However, ZPG's endorsement ofvoluntary sterilizationas another "al-
ternative" method ofpopulation control affectedpublicperceptions ofthe
group'sabortion-legalization rhetoric.In 1971,LarryBarnettand other
ZPG leadersparticipated inAVS's ProjectLawsuit,83 serving as plaintiffs
in testcases and providing low-coststerilization clinicservicesto men
andwomen.Barnett, theformer president ofZPG, servedas theplaintiff
in a testcase brought in California andpursuedbyZPG, theACLU, and
AVS.84 EvenbeforeRoe,forsomeAfrican- American leaders,sterilization
inparticular raisedthespecterofracistoreugenicmotives.85
Nonetheless, between1971and1973,ZPG steadfastly supported volun-
tary and
sterilization described it as a method of population control, like
abortion.86 Thus,inspiteoftheorganization's environmentalist orientation
andyoungmembership, ZPG sometimes founditselfinthemiddleofthe
"blackgenocide"controversy surrounding sterilization programs thought
totarget lower-income African-Americans.87
Together, theexperiences ofAVS,theCouncil,andZPG demonstrated
someofthepotential politicalcostsandbenefits tomembers oftheabor-
80. See,e.g.,KitBarnett, "WhereHaveAlltheShrinking VioletsGone,"ChicagoTribune,

May17,1970,W4(describing ofIllinoisbranch
theparticipation ofZPG ina pro-legalization
rally);ElaineJohnson, "AbortionLaw RepealPondered atParley,"HartfordCourant, Janu-
ary17, 1971,9A (describing of state-level
participation in discussionabout
ZPG affiliate
repealofall abortion bans).
81. See, e.g.,ibid.
82. See, above,e.g.,note71, Kipton,reartorhnvironment, WM.
öJ. leacherbues Uvervasectomy Kerusalin sterilizationlest, Los Angeleslimes,
December1, 1971,A3.
84. Ibid.
85. See, e.g., BlacksSay Control ofBirthsIs a Plot, HartfordCourant, November 19,
1972,29.
86. See above,note79, Klemesrud, "To Them,"30.
87. Harry Schwartz, "TheFearthatBirthControl MayMeanGenocide," NewYorkTimes,
May2, 1971,E7.

tionreform movement of adopting population controlarguments before

Roe. By usingmostlyemptypopulation controlrhetoric, AVS hadman-
aged to rehabilitate
voluntary sterilization,winimportant allies in the
conservationmovement, achieve domestic legal reform,and obtain inter-
nationalfunding.The Council'spopulation controlprograms wereeven
betterfunded, andtheorganization had putintocirculation a variety of
effective
arguments tyingpopulation controltoabortion and both of these
to maternalhealth,poverty reduction, internationalstability,and lower
welfarecosts.ZPG brought attention toanequallyeffective argument that
connected abortiontopopulation control andconservation. In thedecade
beforeRoe, thepotentialcoststo theabortionreform movement were
equallyclear.
Some like
organizations, AVS,grew outof theeugeniclegal
reform movement. Othergroups, likeZPG,provoked fearsabouteugenic
motives behindthemovement forpopulation controlbycampaigning for
voluntarysterilization.
Roe and Doe

The SupremeCourt'sdecisionin Roe shifted thebalanceof rights- and
policy-based arguments in pro-reform advocacyandminimized therole
of populationcontrolin theabortiondebate.88 Roe v. Wadeinvolveda
Texaslawthatprohibited exceptthoseperformed
all abortions tosavethe
mother's The law thatwas challengedin Doe v. Bolton,thecom-
life.89
panioncase toRoe,permitted a womanto havean abortion ifherdoctor
foundthattherewas a dangerto herlifeorhealth,ifthefetuswas likely
to be bornwitha seriousdefect,or ifthemother hadbeenraped.90 The
lawalsorequired thatall womenobtaining abortionsbe Georgiaresidents,
thatthehospitalperforming theabortion be accredited
bytheJoint Com-
missionon Accreditation of Hospitals,andthattheabortion decisionbe
approvedor confirmed by a hospitalstaffabortioncommittee and two
licensedphysicians.91Whensevenmembers oftheCourtfirst
conferenced
thetwocases on December16, 1971,a majority agreedthattheTexas
law at issueinRoe,whichprohibited all abortionsexceptto savethelife
88. Somepro-life advocatescontinueto pointoutlinksbetweensupport forlegalized
abortionandsupportforeugenics orpopulation either
control, byplayinguptheinvolvement
ofpro-contraception
figures intheeugeniclegalreformmovement orbyarguingsimilarities
in thegoalsor rhetoricof thecontemporary pro-choiceandearliereugenicsmovements.
See, e.g.,NatHentoff,"TheSpecterofPro-Choice Post,May25,
Eugenics,"Washington
1991,A31; HenryJ.Hyde,"TheirDirtyLittleSecret," HumanLifeReview19 (Fall 1993):
95.
89. Roe v.Wade,410 U.S. 113,117-19(1973).
90. Doe v.Bolton,410 U.S. 179,182-84(1973).
91. Ibid.,184-85.

of themother,was unconstitutional.92 The Conferencewas moredivided

on the constitutionalityof the Georgia statutechallengedin Doe. Chief
JusticeBurgerexplainedthathe "would hold [the] act constitutional."93
JusticeWhiteagreedthat"the statehas strucktherightbalance here,"as
did JusticeBlackmun.94
As importantly, the concernsexpressedabout the statutewere not re-
lated to any rights-basedargumentbut instead were about "whetherin
operationthe systemis discriminatory."95 JusticesDouglas and Marshall
worriedthat,as applied, the statutemightraise equal-protectionissues,
and JusticesBlackmunand Whiteagreedthata hearingaboutwhetherthe
statuteguaranteed"[e]qual protection forthoseon Medicare"mightbe ap-
propriate.96Even JusticeBrennan,who favoredstriking downthestatute's
requirement thata three-doctorcommitteeauthorizean abortion,did not
favortheCourt'sreachinga rights-basedninth-amendment argument.97
However,afterbothcases were rearguedand thenre-conferenced on
October13, 1972,theCourtstruckdownboththeTexas and Georgialaws
anddid so, noton thebasis oftheEqual Protection Clause oftheFourteenth
Amendment, buton thebasis of the Due Process Clause.98Writingfora
seven-justice inRoe,JusticeBlackmunquicklysurveyedthehistory
majority
of law and medicalopinionaboutabortion,devotingparticularattention to
thepositionsoftheAmericanMedicalAssociationand theAmericanPublic
HealthAssociation.99From this survey,JusticeBlackmuncited a list of
important thattheStatehad in regulatingabortion,includingthe
interests
interest"in protectingthewoman's healthand safety"and "in protecting
prenatal life."100
On theotherside of theissue,JusticeBlackmunreasoned,
was a "rightof personalprivacy"rootedin theFourteenth Amendment.101
"Thisrightofprivacy... is broadenoughto encompassa woman'sdecision
whether ornottoterminate herpregnancy," wroteBlackmun,butbecausethe
92. Roe v.Wade,ConferenceofDecember16, 1971,inTheWilliamO. DouglasPapers,

Box 104,Folder1,Library ofCongress;Doe v.Bollón,ConferenceofDecember16,1971,
inibid.
93. Doe v.Bolton,Conference
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid..
96. Ibid.
97. See ibid.
98. Hoe,104-0^;Doe, 194-^, 198.
99. Roe,140-48.InDoe, theCourtsetasideseveralprovisions
oftheGeorgiastatute
on
fourteenth-amendment grounds,
includingrequirementsthatabortions
be performed
in an
accredited be authorized
hospital, bya committee ofphysicians,andbe approved
bytwo
physicians doctor.
anda consulting See Doe, 194-95,198.
100.Roe, 150-51.
101.Ibid.,153.

rightwas notabsolute,ithad to be weighedagainstStateinterests already

set forthby theCourt.102
Afterconcludingthata fetuswas nota "person"as definedby theFour-
teenthAmendment,103 themajorityset out a trimester framework: aftervi-
the
ability, State could proscribe abortion except when necessaryforthe
healthof the mother;afterthe firsttrimester, the State could regulateto
preservethelifeor healthof themother.104 In thefirsttrimester,however,
"theabortiondecision[was] . . . leftto themedicaljudgmentofthepregnant
woman'sattending physician."105
The initialpress coverage of the decision was neutral,if not positive,
closely trackinglanguageof thedecisiondefiningtherightto abortionas
a due-processrightand statingthattheabortiondecision was to be made
by a woman and her physician.106 However,by June1974, the decision
had alreadygeneratedseveralcontroversies. The bestknowndebateasked
whetherRoe was righton themerits.Leading massiveletterwritingcam-
paigns and well-attendedrallies, anti-abortion organizationsquestioned
whetherRoe had correctly analyzedthepersonhoodof thefetus,therights
assignedto it,or theopposingprivacyrightsbelongingto thewomanand
herphysician.107As PartII discusses,pro-reform organizations increasingly
defendedRoe by makingrights-based arguments of theirown,drawingon
or redefiningthedecision.
In the developmentof these argumentsa second, more subtledebate
evolved between 1973 and 1978 about the meaningof the due-process
privacyrightdefinedin Roe. The Courthad describedtherightas one be-
longingto thewomanand thephysician,as partof a gender-neutral rightof
privacy rootedin theDue Process Clause.108But even in early 1973, some
abortionreformadvocatesinterviewedby the press,especially women's
rightsactivists,describedthe decision as one thatprotecteda woman's
right,nottherightof the womanand her physician.Bella Abzug, a vet-
eranwomen'srightsleaderand congresswoman, describedRoe as "a giant
step toward the recognition of the rightsof women to controltheirown
102. Ibid.
103. Ibid., 158.
104. Ibid., 164-65.
105. Ibid., 164.
106. See, e.g., Glen Elsasser,"Top CourtStrikesDown AbortionLaws," Chicago Tribune,
January23, 1973, 1; JohnP. MacKenzie, "SupremeCourtAllows Early Stage Abortions,"
Washington Post,January 23, 1973,Al . The New YorkTimespraisedtheRoe Courtformaking
"a majorcontribution to thepreservation of individuallibertiesand freedecision-making."
See "RespectforPrivacy," New YorkTimes,January24, 1973,40. Similarly,theLos Angeles
Timescalled Roe "a sensibledecision,persuasivebothin itshistoricaland legal arguments."
See "Abortionsand theRightof Privacy,"Los AngelesTimes,January23, 1973, C6.
107. See below,notes259, 265.
108. Roe, 153, 164-65.

bodies and to have abortionsby choice."109 Women's liberationactivists

fromConnecticutto Illinois likewisepraisedthedecision for"upholding
a woman's rightto privacy"or guaranteeingthat"women alone [would]
have theoptionof decidingwhetherto bear a child."110
As PartII describes,Roe broughttheseand a varietyofrights-based argu-
mentsintonew prominenceand therebymarginalizedarguments based on
populationcontrol.However,otherfactorsalso contributed to thedeclining
importanceof populationcontrolargumentsin theabortiondebate. First,
whenabortionwas no longerdiscussed as a populationcontrolmeasure,
populationcontrolorganizationshad fewerincentivesto endorsewhathad
becomea controversial, issue unrelatedto policyor population
rights-based
considerations.The secondfactorrelatesto thecontroversy thatsurrounded
the populationcontrolmovementin the years between 1973 and 1979.
ThirdWorldleaders,no longerwillingto participate in programslikethose
fundedby theCouncil in Tunisia and Taiwan,began arguingthatpopula-
tioncontrolpolicies had been motivatednotby humanitarian concernbut
by racismor colonial economicinterests.In 1973, therevelationthattwo
African-American teenagegirlsin Alabama had been involuntarily steril-
ized createda scandalthatsetoffa wave of lawsuitsand accusationsabout
sterilizationabuse and itsconnectionto thepopulationcontrolmovement.
The experiencesofAVS, theCouncil,and ZPG afterRoe demonstrate the
interplayof thesefactors.
AVSAfterRoe
Of thethreeorganizations, AVS would have been themostlikelyto be un-
affectedbyRoe. AVS leadershad neverendorsedabortionreform.Indeed,
JohnRague, a leaderofAVS, had alwayspromotedsterilization as a supe-
rioralternativeto abortion,the"Cadillac" of contraception.111Instead,the
organization was gradually affectedby the sterilization
abuse scandal.
This effectwas not immediatelyapparent:in 1974, AVS still worked
to increase sterilizationaccess by advertisingsterilizationas a method
of populationcontroland by using testcases to attractfurtherpublici-
However,as the initialcontroversysurroundingsterilizationabuse
ty.112
in 1973-1974 grewlaterin thedecade,AVS leaderswereputincreasingly
on thedefensiveaboutwhetherracismhad infectedthevoluntary steriliza-
109.PatriciaStewart,
"'Victory,'
'Slaughter,'Claimed,"Hartford Courant,January 23,
1973,1A.
110.Ibid.;SheilaWolfe,
"BreakthroughorTragedy," ChicagoTribune,
January23, 1973,4.
111.See above,note7, Klemesrud, "Sterilization
Is Answer,"
24.
112.See,e.g.,"Va.Mother SuesOverSterilization," Post,June18,1978,C2
Washington
(testcases);LeslieAldridgeWestoff, NewYorkTimes,September
"Sterilization," 29, 1974,
259 (advertising).

tionor populationcontrolmovements.In thewinterof 1977, thehead of

thefederalHealth,Education,and WelfareDepartment,JamesCalifano,
introduceda series of monitoringand restriction guidelinesdesignedto
prevent sterilization
abuse.113New York City was one of the stateor lo-
cal governmentsto follow.114 A numberof organizations,includingthe
SouthernPovertyLaw Center,the Public Citizens' Health Group,Ralph
Nader's consumerprotectiongroup,and thenewlyformedCommitteeto
End SterilizationAbusehad steppedup lobbyingagainststerilization abuse
between1977 and 1978.115
Faced withaccusationsthatthe organizationhad been anti-womanor
racist,BettyGonzales of AVS told thepressthatthe "greatestabuse" in-
Gonzales' message was notas
volvedthelack of access to sterilization.116
persuasiveas it had been in theearly 1970s. AlthoughAVS stilloperates
todayunderthe name EngenderHealth,partlybecause of the late 1970s
controversy surrounding as a formof populationcontrol,the
sterilization
organization ortheimportance
no longerstressessterilization ofpopulation
control.117
The PopulationCouncilAfterRoe
Unlike the leaders of AVS, some prominentmembersof the Population
Council had endorsedabortionreformbeforeRoe, and the organization
had sponsoredstudiesaboutthepolicybenefits of legalizingabortion.After
Roe, whenpopulationcontrolrhetoric no longerplayeda significantrolein
theabortiondebate,theCouncil distanceditselffromabortiondiscussion.
Thus,whenChristopher Tietze began a 1975 studyabouttherateof legal
abortionsand abortion-related deaths,the Council no longersponsored
his research,and he insteadpursuedfundingfromPlannedParenthood's
Guttmacher Institute.118
Between1974 and 1978,afterThirdWorldleadersat the 1974 UN Con-
theCouncilalso publicized
ferencecriticizedpopulationcontrolinitiatives,
Abuse,"NewYorkTimes,De-
113.NadineBrozan,"TheVolatileIssueof Sterilization
cember9, 1977,BIO.
114.Ibid.
"Moral,LegalDilemmas
115.Ibid.;KayBartlett, SurroundUse ofSterilization,"
Chicago
July3, 1978,16.
Tribune,
116.See above,note115,Bartlett,LegalDilemmas,16.
117.Engenderhealth's websitestresses
current workinproviding
theorganization's "con-
and"informed
traception" choice"in"resource-poor See Engenderhealth,
countries." About
OurWork, availableat<http://www.engenderhealth.org/our-work> March3, 2008).
(visited
118.JaneBrody, "LegalAbortions Up 53% SinceCourtRuledin '73,"NewYorkTimes,
February3, 1975,1.

domesticresearchon thesafetyoforalcontraception ratherthaninternational

programs or abortion studies.The 1974 meeting witnessed a "backlash"
againstpopulation controlproposalsby a bloc of developingcountries,all
of whichrequestedtheremovalof anyreference to familysize in thedraft
of theUN's worldpopulationplan of action.Thereafter, because of a lack
of cooperationby governments in developingcountries,the Council fo-
populationresearch,focusinginsteadon research
cusedless on international
intoor advocacyforaccess to oral contraceptives or other"alternatives"to
abortion.119Because of thedecreasinginfluenceof international population
politicsby 1978,theCouncil'srhetoricno longerfeatured populationcontrol
arguments food supply,or international
relatedto poverty, stability.
ZPG AfterRoe
ZPG similarlystruggledto redefineitselfin the wake of the 1974 UN
Conferenceand thesterilization abuse controversy. As populationcontrol
argumentsstoppedplayinga role in the abortiondebate, ZPG stopped
focusingexclusivelyon protectingabortionrightsor even on access to
contraception.In the summerof 1974, ZPG ExecutiveDirector,Robert
Dennis,spokepubliclyabouta proposalby theorganization to restrict
legal
immigration 90
by percent.120 As Roe contributed to thedecline of popula-
tioncontrolarguments in theabortiondebate,and as politiciansand activ-
istson thepoliticalleftbegan criticizingpopulationcontrolprogramsfor
beingdiscriminatory or racist,ZPG had less reasonto endorseonlythose
causes embracedby thepoliticalleft.Similarly,as thepresscarriednews
of forcedsterilizationsof poor or nonwhitewomen,ZPG identifieditself
withmethodsof populationcontrolnotdirectlytiedto contraception.
This new emphasiswas evidenteven intothe late 1970s as ZPG's in-
volvement in pro-reform advocacycontinuedto decline.Insteadof lobbying
forfundingforabortionsor the appointmentof pro-choicejudges, ZPG
joined the 1977 call forfederally-funded "alternatives"to abortionand
continuedarguingthatimmigration policywas a centralpartof population
In 1978, the Chicago Tribunereportedthatthe organization's
control.121
119.The Counciljoinedotherorganizations in callingon theCarterAdministration
to
provideandfundalternatives to abortion.
See VictorCohn,"Pregnancy Prevention
Plan
Proposed," Washington Post,July20, 1977,A3. Forexamplesof theCouncil'spost-Roe
research,seeWilliamClaiborne, "PregnancyHeldGreater RiskThanChildbirth,"
LosAnge-
les Times,February5, 1976,AI; JaneBrody, "ResearchersSeekNewMaleContraceptive,"
NewYorkTimes,February 21, 1978,18.
izu. Bradleyuranam,cutoacKurgedinLegalimmigration, rost,July3,
wasnington
1974,A6.
121.See above,note119,Cohn,"Pregnancy Prevention,"A3; CarolOppenheim,"Big
ZeroforZeroPopulation's Goal,"ChicagoTribune, December14, 1978,Al.

goals were"immigration reform,expansionof women'sopportunities,

continued on
emphasis family andperhapsa nationalpolicyon
planning,
Yet,
population."122 withonly1,000 members and inadequatefunding to
or
pursuelobbying print ZPG
pamphlets, was no longeras influential
as it
hadbeen.123Oncea majorplayerintheabortion debate,ZPG functionally
124
playedno roleinthatdiscussionby 1978.
Between1973 and 1974,theroleof population controlarguments in
theabortion andthisdeclinehelpedreshape
debatedeclinedgenerally, the
on eithersideoftheabortion
coalitions debate.Partofthedeclinecanbe
observedinthechanging argumentsmadebypro-reform organizationslike
NOW,NARAL,andPlannedParenthood. PartII studiesthisevolutionin
moredepth.
II. PopulationControlor Choice
Thechanging strategies usedbyNARAL,NOW,andPlannedParenthood

totheevolving
testify natureoftheabortion debateandthechanging role
ofpopulation controlarguments in thatdiscussion.Of course,beforethe
decision,population controlarguments werenottheonlyonesmadeby
thatfavored
organizations legalizedabortion.Perhaps thebeststudiedargu-
mentsarethoserelatedto fundamental humanor constitutional rights.125
Beginning in 1967,majorabortion reform organizationsdidmakeuse of
arguments.
rights-based PlannedParenthood argued thattherewasa "right
ofeverypatient todecidewithout coercionofanykindwhether andwhen
tohavea child"126 andthat"theright toabortion mustbe viewedas a cor-
ollarytotheright tocontrol whichwasrecognized
fertility in Griswold,"
theSupreme Courtcase thatdefined a rightofmarital thatcovered
privacy
accessto contraception.127NARALmembers argued thatforced mother-
hood"violates. . . basichuman Rights-based
right[s]."128 arguments played
someroleinpre-Roeabortion advocacy, especiallyinthecontext ofstate
andfederallitigation designedtooverturn abortionlaws.
122.Ibid.
123.Ibid.
124.Ibid.
125.See, e.g.,KristinLuker,Abortion and thePoliticsofMotherhood (Berkeley:the
UniversityofCalifornia Press,1984),91; Condit,DecodingAbortionRhetoric, 199.
126.MeetingMinutes, PlannedParenthood-WorldPopulation Boardof Directors (dis-
seminated February8, 1969),inPlannedParenthood ofAmerica
Federation I, Box49,Folder
9, SophiaSmithCollection, SmithCollege.
127.See above,note1,Garrow, LibertyandSexuality,502.
"National
128.LyleLilliston, GrouptoEndAbortion LawsFormed," LosAngelesTimes,
February 18,1969,El.

However,beforeRoe, policy-basedarguments, designedto sway public

opinion promotelegislativechange,played equal, ifnotgreater,role
or an
in shapingtheabortiondebateandthecoalitionson eitherside ofit.Perhaps
thebestknownpro-reform policyargumentclaimed thatillegal abortions
had produceda public healthepidemic.Followingthe publicationof the
AmericanLegal Institute's(ALI) Model Penal Code in 1962,129 earlypro-
reformefforts oftenreliedon argumentsabout thehealthrisksto women
of unmonitored, unprofessional, illegal abortionsto mothers.130
Some of theseargumentswereeffectivein thelate 1960s. Dick Lamm,
one of theleading figuresbehindtheColorado reformof 1967, made its
supportersagree to emphasize thatthe reformwas justified"only [as]
a health matter."131 In the later 1960s, as abortionreformersbegan to
realize and enumeratethe shortcomings of thenew laws modeled on the
ALI proposal,132 theircalls forthecompleterepeal of abortionbans also
highlighted policy argumentsrelatingto public health.At NARAL's first
conference,Percy Sutton,a foundingmember,describedcriminalbans
on abortionas a "majorhealthproblem."133 In 1970, PlannedParenthood
leaderHarrietPilpel similarlywrotein theNew YorkTimes:"Those of us
who did notgrowup in a rigidreligioustradition... do notlook at abor-
tionas a philosophicalproblem... butas a social and healthproblem."134
In 1971,whenNARAL began a testcase to challengetheconstitutionality
of Michigan'sabortionban,LarryLader and JosephNellis, leadersof the
organization,assertedthatthe statuteshould fall,because "therewas no
legal basis on whicha statecould tell a doctorhow to practicemedicine,
129.ModelPenalCode Section230.3 (American Law Institute proposedofficial

draft
1962).
130.LarryLader,"TheScandalofAbortion," NewYorkTimes, Apr.25, 1965,SM32.
131.See above,note1,Garrow, LibertyandSexuality, 324,326.
132.Lammhimself wouldjoin thosewhoarguedthatreform was "notonlyno com-
promise but is counterproductive."See Dick Lamm, "Therapeutic The Role of
Abortion:
StateGovernment," ClinicalObstetricsand Gynecology 14 (December1971): 1205.The
explanations forthefailure ofreform lawsemphasized thatdoctorswerestillreluctant to
perform abortions aftertheintroductionofreform becausetheyremained
legislation, afraid
ofdamagetotheir reputations
professional oroflegalliability.See,e.g.,"AbortionExperts,
SayingWomenShouldDecideonBirth, AskEndtoCurbs," NewYorkTimes, November 24,
1965,77; LarryPlagenz,"StatesLegislateAbortion Reform, ButHospitalsAreReluctant
toComply," ModernHospital113 (July1969):82-85.Severalcommentators reportedthat
itwas easierto obtainan abortion in a statethatcriminalized thanitwas in
all abortions
a reform state.See, e.g.,RobertMcFadden,"FlawsinAbortion Reform Foundin 8 States
Studied,"NewYorkTimes, April13, 1970, 1.
133.MyraMacPherson, "AbortionLaws:A Call forReform," Washington Post,February
17, 1969,Dl.
134.Harriet Pilpel,"ThePublicandPrivate Aspectsof theProblem," NewYorkTimes,
June14,1970,252.

exceptthathisactionbe in accordwithgenerally acceptedstandardsof

goodpractice."135
The politicalappealof similarpolicy-based arguments dependedfirst
on theperception thatsucharguments wereless divisiveorcontroversial
thanrights-based arguments. As Nellisexplained,"courtswouldmore
easily strikedown stateanti-abortionlawsifthetestcase werepresented
intermsofinterference [with] medicine thanifitweredoneon thebasis
thatmanywomen'srights groups have advocated- namely, therightofa
womanto control her own The of
body."136 support prominent, respected
professional organizations confirmed thepoliticalappealof theseargu-
ments.By 1971,leadingmedicalandpsychiatric organizations,including
theAmerican MedicalAssociation inJuneof1970,hadendorsed therepeal
ofall criminal banson abortion.137By Juneofthefollowing year,several
otherprominent medicalorganizations, including theAmerican Psychiat-
ricAssociation, hadsignedone ofthemerits briefsinDoe v.Bolton,the
companion case toRoe v.Wade.m
Pro-reform activistswereattracted to policy-based populationcontrol
discourse forsimilarreasons:arguments aboutpopulation controlappealed
toa broadspectrum judges,andmembers
ofpoliticians, ofthepublic,and
influentialorganizations in thepopulation movement endorsedabortion
legalization.In theyearsimmediately beforeRoe,thepoliticalsuccessof
population controlreforms increasedthisappeal.In Juneof 1969,when
President Nixonwas considering a bill thatproposedthecreationof a
NationalCenterforPopulationand FamilyPlanningin theDepartment
ofHealth,Education, andWelfare, thepopulation controlmovement was
influentialas wellas diverse.139Sponsoredbytwenty-three Senatorsand
forty HouseMembers, thebillenjoyedstrong bipartisan The
support.140
bill'sprimary sponsors in theHouse, for example, were James Scheuer,
a DemocratfromtheBronx,andGeorgeH. W. Bush,a Republican from
135.EileenShanahan, "DoctorLeads Group'sChallengetoAnti- AbortionLaw,"New

YorkTimes,October5, 1971,28.
136.Ibid.
137.TheAMAusedarguments toNellis's,formally
similar that"nophysician
stating or
medicalpersonnelshouldbe compelledtoperform anyactwhichviolateshisgoodmedi-
See RichardCooper,"AMARelaxesIts Standon Abortion,"
cal judgment." Los Angeles
Times,June26, 1970,18.After byCatholicmembers
efforts torescindtheorganization's
endorsement,theAMA solidified positionin Decemberof 1970.See
itspro-legalization
RonaldKotulak,"A.M.A.WinsFightonEasedAbortions," ChicagoTribune, December3,
1970,12.
138.See above,note1,Garrow, andSexuality,
Liberty 501.
139.See Nan Robinson,"NixonConsidersProposalfora Commission on Domestic
Population NewYorkTimes,
Reforms," June11,1969,20.
140.Ibid.

Texas.141In 1971,a resolutionto declarezeropopulationgrowththeofficial

policy theUnitedStatesenjoyedsimilarbipartisansupport.142
of Political
for
support population controlmirrored popularsupport. A 1972 poll found
thatsixty-five of
percent respondentsagreed thatpopulationgrowthwas a
seriousproblem,and morethanhalfstateda beliefthatpopulationgrowth
caused the nationto use up its naturalresourcestoo fastand produced
social unrestand dissatisfaction.143
Roe helpedtochangetheroleofpopulationcontrolintheabortiondebate.
Althoughrights-based arguments had alwaysbeena partofabortionpolitics,
Roe gave thesearguments new significance. This transitiontookplace for
severalreasons.First,beginningin 1973,anti-abortion organizationsbegan
campaigningforconstitutional amendmentsand statelaw resolutionsthat
would overturn theholdingsof Roe withrespectto therightsand person-
hood of thefetus.In a series of meetings,memoranda,and conferences,
abortionreformorganizationsgraduallyconcludedthatthemosteffective
way to defendlegalizedabortionwas to emphasizerights-based arguments
infavorofRoe. Second,bythemid-1970s,feminist lawyersoccupiedleader-
shiprolesin NOW and NARAL and arguedin favorof theincreaseduse of
rights-based,constitutionalarguments in preservinglegalizedabortion.Of
course,NOW,NARAL, andPlannedParenthood all used different
strategies
thatevolvedin different ways. PartII considersthemin turn.
Planned Parenthood
The associationof PlannedParenthoodwithpopulationcontrolpoliticsis
relativelywell-known.Foundedin 1942,PlannedParenthoodwas thesuc-
cessor to MargaretSanger's AmericanBirthControlLeague and became
the most influentialbirthcontrollobby in the United States, providing
educationand services in clinics operatedby the organization,offering
marriagecounseling,and campaigningforthereformof laws restricting
the distributionor advertisement of contraception.144
By 1961, Planned
Parenthoodhad alreadysponsoreda fundraising effort
knownas theWorld
PopulationEmergencyCampaign.145 When Planned Parenthoodmerged
141.Ibid.
142.VictorKohn,"NewCoalitionAsksCrusadeforHaltingPopulation Growth,"Wash-
Post,August11, 1971,Al.
ington
143.See ErnestFerguson,"ZeroPopulationGrowthIsn'tZero,"Los AngelesTimes,
January30, 1972,17.
144.roran excellent
studyorPlannedParenthoodandtheadvocacyorbirth control
re-
see LindaGordon,
form, TheMoralPropertyofWomen: A HistoryofBirthControl
Politics
inAmerica(UrbanaandChicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress,2002),281-82.
145.RichardEders,"FamilyPlanningIs Goal of Drive,"NewYorkTimes,March20,
1960,32.

withthe Campaign in 1961 to formPlanned ParenthoodWorldPopula-

tion(PP-WP),146 theorganizationfocusedon populationcontroladvocacy
relatedto domesticand international poverty.In 1964, withthe formal
announcement of PresidentJohnson'sWaron Poverty,PP-WP leadersin-
creasedpublicityand lobbyingefforts designedto showthatcontraception
and familyplanningwere necessaryto any attemptto reduce poverty.147
Similarly,between1964 and 1969,undertheleadershipof physicianAlan
Guttmacher, PP-WP also characterizedinternational populationprograms
as anti-povertymeasures.148Until 1968, whentheBoard of Directorsfor-
mallyadopteda resolutionin favorof the repeal of all abortionbans,149
PP-WP was moreof a populationcontroland public healthorganization
thana groupdedicatedto abortionreform.Thus,it was notsurprising that
populationcontrolarguments playedan important rolein theorganization's
abortionreformadvocacy.
The organization'sendorsement of theremovalof all legal restrictions
on abortionwas partlydesignedto reduceconcernsthatabortionor popu-
lationcontrolmoregenerallywas raciallymotivated.In 1968, when the
endorsement was made public,thePP-WP Board also electedDr. Jerome
Holland,an African- Americansociologist,as its new chiefexecutiveof-
Speakingto thepress,Holland stronglycondemnedtheview that
ficer.150
abortionreform was a formofblackgenocideand statedthatproponents of
thetheory"did notunderstandthereal meaningof familyplanning."151
The rhetoricof the abortionendorsementitselfwas intendedto dispel
fearsabout populationcontrol.It describedabortionaccess as the "right
of everypatient"and statedthat"special vigilancemustbe exercisedto
preservethisrightforwelfarerecipients and otherdependent Americans."152
Although the endorsement described abortion access as a right,it was
a strictlygender-neutral one, the rightof a "patient."153Moreover,the
endorsement describedabortionas muchas a policy issue as an issue of
146."Parenthood Aide,"NewYorkTimes,October27, 1967,15.

Rosoffto PP-WPAffiliates,
147.See, e.g.,Jeannie Board,andCommittees (October2,
1964),inPlannedParenthood FederationofAmerica I, Box49,Folder9, SophiaSmithCol-
lection,SmithCollege;DonaldStrauss, Chairman PP-WP,Statement to theCommittee of
ResolutionsandPlatformsofthe1964Democratic Convention (August18,1964),inibid.
148.See,e.g.,PP-WPInformation andEducation Department toPP-WPBoardMembers
andAffiliates,"ATopU.S. Government SpeaksOutontheLatinAmerican
Official Popula-
tionExplosion"(April1964),inibid;FelixBelair,Jr.,"Congress UrgedtoAidPopulation
Control Abroad," NewYorkTimes, July31, 1969,16.
149.MorrisKaplan,"Abortion WinSupportof PlannedParenthood,"
andSterilization
NewYorkTimes, November 18, 1968,50.
150.Ibid.
151.Ibid.
152.See above,note126,MeetingMinutes, 9-10.
153.Ibid.9.

rights.The statement framedabortionas a back-upformof birthcontrol

and "contraception"as the "optimummethod."154 The endorsementcon-
cludedbycallingabortion"a medicalprocedure. . . subjectto appropriate
provisionsof thevariousStateMedical PracticeActs."155 The basic outline
of a pro-reform strategyemerged from the 1968 endorsement. Abortion
reformwould be characterized as an issue of good medicine and popula-
tioncontrol,and populationcontrolmeasureswould be defendedagainst
chargesof racism.
Between1969and 1970,PP-WPleadersdevelopedthisrhetorical strategy.
Thatis notto saythattheorganization madeno rights-based argumentsin the
period.HarrietPilpel,legalcounselfortheorganization, arguedin editorials
thatabortionwas a matterof constitutional rightsforwomen.156 However,
thepublicityand lobbyingefforts of theorganizationfocusedas muchon
policy-basedreform arguments, includingthosebased on populationcontrol.
In a 1969 interview withtheNew YorkTimes,Guttmacher arguedthatabor-
tionreform was a problemcloselyrelatedto the"populationexplosion"and
contendedthatpopulationcontrolefforts, includingabortion,wereintended
to reducepoverty, noteliminatethepoor.157 "We're nottryingto takeaway
anyone'sfreedom,"Guttmacher argued."Whatwe're tryingto do is show
ghettofamilieshow to ... avoid havingchildrentheydon't want."158
In spiteoftheevidentpossibilityof alienatingsomeAfrican- Americans,
Guttmacher, in theearly1970s, stillbelievedthatpopulationcontrolargu-
mentswere an effectivetool in PP-WP's abortionreformadvocacy.Gutt-
macherhad long supportedreformthroughlegislationand attributed the
recentrepealsof all abortionrestrictions in New Yorkand Hawaii to "the
realizationof thepopulationproblem."159 "We'renow concernedmorewith
of
quality population than with the quantity," he toldtheAssociatedPress
in 1970, in commenting on thetwo New Yorkand Hawaii laws.160Similar
populationcontrolargumentswere an important partof PP-WP's policy-
based strategybetween 1970 and 1972. PP-WP fieldworkers advocating
abortionreformwere suppliedwithsheetsof factsthatincludedinforma-
tionaboutthereductionin welfarecosts and illegitimacyratesthatwould
come withlegalized abortion.161 Even in 1972, when HarrietPilpel filed
on behalfof the organizationan amicus briefthatfeaturedrights-based
154.Ibid.,10.
155.Ibid.
156.See above,note134,Pilpel,"PublicandPrivate,"252.
157.See above,note72, "Dr.Guttmacher Is Evangelist,"
SM32.
158.Ibid.
159."Abortion ReformTermedFantastic," Courant,
Hartford March31, 1970,16.
160.Ibid.
161.See, e.g.,PlannedParenthood FactSheet(1973), in The NOW Papers,MC 496,
Box 54,Folder26,SchlesingerLibrary,Harvard see also "TimetoLobbyYour
University;
(April1974),inibid.
Representative"

arguments,162PlannedParenthood leaderscirculated materials explaining

thatabortion,as a method ofpopulation control, didnotrepresent aneffort
toeliminateracialminorities ortoreducetheirnumbers.163
Afterthedecisionof Roe, it graduallybecameclearthatpopulation
controlarguments wouldno longerbe as effective in preserving legal-
ized abortionas theyhadbeenbeforeRoe. Of course,Roe itselfwas not
theonlyreasonthatpopulationcontrolarguments werebecomingless
in themid-1970s.The suspicionsharbored
attractive by someAfrican-
Americans an
provided independent reason for Planned Parenthood and
otherorganizations thatfavored thelegalization of abortion to setaside
arguments thatwererelatedto population control.Similarly, laterin the
1970sand into the early1980s, as the Democratic Party became tiedtosup-
portforlegalizedabortion, of
leaders organizations thatfavored legalized
abortionhadnewreasontomakearguments thatappealedtoDemocratic
constituencies.
Nonetheless, forPlannedParenthood, Roe itselfplayedan important
rolein themarginalization ofpopulation controlarguments. In thewake
ofRoe,abortion opponents floodedCongresswithletters denouncing Roe
v.Wade,anda number ofstatelegislatures beganconsidering resolutions
to givelegalpersonhood to fetuses.164 In response,in Octoberof 1973,
PlannedParenthood leadersmetata strategy sessioninDenver, Colorado.
Theaimofthemeeting wastorevamp thegroup'sstrategy oneverylevel,
includingorganization, fundraising, andpublicity.
In a confidential memorandum, RobinElliott,one of theconference
summarized
organizers, theconclusion oftheConference thataneffective
defenseofRoe was centralto PlannedParenthood's "program gains"in
abortionandevencontraception (Memorandum, 4). "[T]hereversal ofthe
Supreme Court decisions on abortion . . . would merely take the conflict
backone stepfurther," Elliotreported (Memorandum, 4). "Thissociety
cannotafford" (Memorandum, 4).
The questionwas howto "stopthedrivefora constitutional amend-
ment"overruling Roe (Memorandum, 1). Elliottsummarized theconcern
ofPlannedParenthood operatives thatopponents oftheRoe decisionhad
called
successfully into "question . . . Planned Parenthood's credibilityin
itsreferenceto a population problem"(Memorandum, 4). Thosepresent
162.See above,note1,Garrow, andSexuality,

Liberty 502.
163.Foran exampleof thetypesof materials recommended by PlannedParenthood
see RobertG. Weisbord,
organizers, Genocide?:BirthControland theBlackAmerican
Greenwood
(Westport: Press,1975).
164.TheDenverConference Memorandum (November 2, 1973),inTheNARALPapers,
MC 313,Carton 8,PlannedParenthood1973-1974,Schlesinger Harvard
Library, University.
Subsequent inthetextaretothisMemorandum.
references

at theconferencesaw PlannedParenthood' s supportforpopulationcontrol

because pro-lifeorganizershad successfully"soughtto
as a vulnerability,
exploitto theirown advantagesthe fearsof minorities"(Memorandum,
4). Elliottsuggestedthatabortionreformadvocates adopt a new strategy
involving"thereaffirmation of commitment to freedomof choice in par-
enthood"(Memorandum,4).
In elaboratingon this suggestion,Elliottrecommendedthatthe orga-
nizationeitherdiscuss the rights-basedargumentsin Roe or reinterpret
its languageand holding.She suggestedthatPlannedParenthoodpublish
"pieces of ourown describingto ... professionalgroupswhatmighthap-
pen iftheSupremeCourtabortiondecisionswereoverturned" (Memoran-
dum,7). Elliottalso advised Planned Parenthoodto create"[a] series of
straightforward,popularpieces on the[Court's]rationaleforlegal abortion"
(Memorandum,7). In otherinstances,she recommendedthattheorgani-
zation draw on, rework,and even manipulatethe rights-basedlanguage
of the decision. Elliottexplainedthat"an important thematicidea to be
stressedis thatabortionin a pluralisticsocietyis to be consideredas a
matterfordetermination accordingto personal choice" (Memorandum,
6). She advisedPlannedParenthoodoperativesto changetheabortionde-
bate by borrowingtheideas and rhetoricof theRoe decision itself.What
was needed,Elliottexplained,was a "redefinition in the termsof public
debate- forexample,[from]'Abortion:Is It Murder,or Not?' to 'Freedom
of Choice in Abortion:Is it Necessaryor Not in a PluralisticSociety?'"
(Memorandum,6).
AlthoughElliottrecommendedthatPlannedParenthoodactivistsdraw
on argumentsmade in Roe, she was also askingthemto manipulatethe
decision's language and choose only those portionsof the decision that
suitedthenew"thematicideas" thatPlannedParenthood espoused.Planned
Parenthoodorganizerswere not instructedto emphasize the partsof the
decisionthatfocusedon therightsof physiciansor on thetrimester frame-
worksetforthbythedecision.Instead,ElliottadvisedPlannedParenthood
activiststo takesome premisesof Roe at theirmostabstract:Roe protected
rightsto choice,privacy,and pluralism.
The strategy describedat theDenverConferencebecame thedominant
one forPlannedParenthoodonlygradually,and was firmly entrenchedin
thelate 1970s underthe leadershipof Faye Wattleton, the organization's
firstfemalepresident.Between 1974 and 1976,by contrast, whenPlanned
Parenthood was headedbyformer Peace CorpsleaderJackHood Vaughn,165
theorganizationstilltriedto balance rights-based and populationcontrol
165.See, e.g.,"VaughnUrgesBusinessto AssistthePeace Corps,"NewYorkTimes,

February14,1968,12.

arguments. Vaughn'sprimaryinterestand experiencecame frominterna-

tionalhumanitarian workas head of thePeace Corps and later,as Ambas-
sadorto Colombia,and underhisleadership,PlannedParenthood continued
framing abortion as a method
humanitarian of populationcontrol.166
At the
UN Conferencein Budapest,PlannedParenthoodheld a WorldPopulation
Year and International Convocation.167In discussingtheconference,Cass
CanfieldofPP-WP wroteto NARAL leaderBea Blair: "[a]t theStockholm
Environment Conferencein 1972 richand poor countriesclashed bitterly.
We mustpreventthere-occurrence of such confrontations."168
It was only
thefailureof the 1974 Budapest Conference thatconvincedsome members
of PlannedParenthoodthatthepopulation controlarguments had been
that
centralto PlannedParenthood'sadvocacywould no longerbe effective.
As a partof thesearchfornew arguments, PlannedParenthoodorganiz-
ers beganworkingwiththeACLU in itsReproductiveFreedomProjectin
June1974. The projectbilled itselfas a programof litigationand "public
education"designedto "enforcecompliancewithRoe."169Denise Spald-
ing,the programdirectorat theACLU, explainedthatthe publicityand
educationaleffortsof the ReproductiveFreedomProjectwould draw on
therhetoricof Roe ratherthanon a varietyof policy-basedor population
controlargumentsin favorof legalized abortion.170 "The SupremeCourt
gave us a valuable precedentin Doe and Roe," Spaldingwrote."Now we
mustdo the unglamorousfollow-upworkto protecteach woman's right
to have an abortion."171
In thesame year,PlannedParenthoodleadersbegandevelopingan argu-
mentthatRoe stoodnotonlyfora rightto privacybutalso forequal abortion
rightsforpoor,nonwhitewomen.PlannedParenthoodactivistshad always
arguedthatthelegalizationof abortionwould be of particularhelp to the
By 1974,however,as populationcontrolrhetoric
poor.172 was pushedaside,
PlannedParenthood'sequality-basedargumentsbecame moresignificant
and effective.In September1974, when Congress voted to ban the use
ofVaughn'sambassadorial
166.See ibid,fordiscussion appointment,andsee "Vaughn
SwornIn as Envoy,"NewYorkTimes, June6, 1969,29.
ofPlannedParenthood-
167.See Cass Canfield toBea Blair,Executive
WorldPopulation
ofNARAL(April12,1974),inTheNARALPapers,MC 313,Carton8, Planned
Director
Parenthood1975-1976.
168.Ibid.
Freedom
169.See,e.g.,DeniseSpaldingoftheACLU Reproductive ProjecttoJanePlitt
oftheNOWNationalOffice(July12,1974),inTheNOWPapers,MC 496,Box 54,Folder
26.
170.DeniseSpaldingoftheACLU ReproductiveFreedomProjecttoJanePlitt,
Executive
ofNationalNOW(July13, 1974),inTheNOWPapers,MC 496,Box 54, Folder
Director
32.
171.Ibid.
172.See above,note72.

TheFramingofa Rightto Choose 31 1
of federalmoneyto fundabortions,Planned Parenthoodspokeswoman

Diana HarttoldtheWashington Post thatthemeasure"would discriminate
againstlower income women who can'taffordtopayforan abortionwithout
Medicaid."173 supportiveof civil rightspolicies,like
Senatorstraditionally
theEqual RightsAmendment orVotingRightsAct,joined PlannedParent-
PlannedParenthood,
hood's call forequal abortionrights.174 in turn,created
an abortionloan and technicalassistanceprogramexplicitlydesignedto
protectequal rightsto abortion.175
By the end of Vaughn'stenureas presidentof Planned Parenthoodin
thespringof 1976, theorganizationhad decided to focuson rights-based
arguments,includingthose relatedto equality.This change arose partly
because of thereluctanceof eithermajorcandidatein the 1976 presidential
electionto endorsea federalrightto abortionaccess.176In the winterof
1976,pro-lifeCatholicsin Massachusettsand New Hampshireorganizedto
preventthenominationof a pro-choicecandidate,evenfortheDemocratic
Party.177Similarly,expressionsof supportforabortionaccess in thepress
mostoftentook theformof assertionsthattheconstitutional questionof
abortionhad alreadybeen decided and shouldnotbe a subjectof political
discussion.178 An argumentthatabortioncould notbe made a politicalis-
sue was appealingwhenbothmajorpartieswere unwillingto supportthe
outcomein Roe and whenthe mostpopularargumentsabout abortionin
themainstreammedia involvedfundamental rights.
But PlannedParenthood'schangingargumentsalso reflecteda funda-
mentalshiftin theorganization'sstrategy. Vaughn,whose presidencywas
associatedwithinternational, humanitarian work,began arguingpublicly
thatrights-based arguments were the most important partof theabortion
debate. Speakingto theLos Angeles Timeson behalfof Planned Parent-
hood,Vaughnarguedthatabortionwas notand shouldnotbe considered
a politicalmatter.179"Abortionis notthesortof issue whichlends itselfto
... a politicalcampaign,"Vaughnstated."But even ifthiscampaignwere
173."SenateVotesto ProhibitSpendingof FederalMoneyon Abortions," Washington

Post,September 18,1974,A2.
174.See below,notes273-75.
175.ConnieMooney,NARALStateAdministrator, to FrancineStein,Administrator
of
PlannedParenthood- WorldPopulation (May 2, 1975),in The NARALPapers,MC 313,
Carton8, PlannedParenthood 1975-1976.
176.See, e.g.,ChristopherLydon,"AllCandidatesFall Shorton Defining theIssues,"
NewYorkTimes, January 11, 1976,E4.
177.See Christopher
Lydon,"Abortion Is Big Issuein MassachusettsandNew Hamp-
shire,"NewYorkTimes,February 9, 1976,57.
178.See,e.g.,AlexGerber, "Campaign BringsSomeIllogicalFence-StraddlingonAbor-
tion,"Los AngelesTimes,February 22, 1976,HI.
179.JackHood Vaughn,"Abortion: It Has No Place in Politics,"Los AngelesTimes,
March4, 1976,C7.

a model of reasonand cool thinking, thisissue shouldnotbe a partof it.

The privaterightsof citizensare not to be decided at the ballot box."180
Vaughnalso exploitedthe new success of equal-rightsargumentsused
by PlannedParenthoodin congressionallobbying,describinga proposed
states'-rightsamendmentas a "travesty of equal rights"and "an invitation
to unequal applicationof thelaws."181
The organization'srights-based strategy was solidifiedbothby thesuc-
cess of anotherMedicaid bill in 1977 and by theappointment of Planned
Parenthood'sfirstfemalepresident,Faye Wattleton, in 1978.182The press
widelydescribedWattleton'sappointment as a signalthattheorganization
was more committed to women's rightsissues and to thepreservation of
legalized abortion.183
Wattletonalso told the New York Times that she was
likelychosen to head the organization"forbeing a woman and because
[PlannedParenthood]neededto change[its]image."Thatchangein image
involveda more"aggressive"campaignfor"abortionrights"and increased
emphasison rights-and equality-basedarguments.184 Explainingthe or-
ganization'snew emphasison preservingRoe, Wattletontold thepressin
the winterof 1978 that"[w]hat's really importantis thatblack women
have equal access to determinewhenand how theywill have children."185
By selectingWattleton,PlannedParenthoodidentifiedabortionrightsas
a priority and confirmed thatrights-basedargumentswould be centralto
theorganization'sefforts to preservelegalized abortion.The strategy first
proposedin Denver- to use thelanguageofRoe- had been revised.What-
everthelanguageofRoe itselfwas, PlannedParenthoodleaderssuggested
thatthedecision stood bothfora rightof privacyand forequal abortion
access. In broaderterms,however,theDenverstrategy was fullyin forceby
1978: populationcontrolarguments had been pushedaside,and arguments
aboutthetruemeaningofRoe had becomecentralto PlannedParenthood's
advocacy.
NARAL
Of all theabortionreformorganizationsthisarticleconsiders,NARAL's
membership way.NARAL was
and strategieschangedin themoststriking
themostprominent dedicated
organization
single-issue to thelegalization
180.Ibid.
181.Ibid.
182. See AdamClymer, "SenateVoteForbidsUsingFederalFundsforMostAbortions,"
NewYork June30, 1977,1; Judy
Times, Klemesrud, "Planned NewHeadTakes
Parenthood's
a Fighting Stand,"NewYorkTimes, February3, 1978,A14.
183.See above,note182,Klemesrud, "PlannedParenthood'sNewHead,"A14.
184.Ibid.
185.Ibid.

ofabortionbothbeforeand afterRoe. The organization was formedin Feb-

ruary of 1969 by pro-reform of
organizationscomposed doctors,lawyers,
membersoftheclergy,students, women'sliberationactivists,and members
of theAmericanPublic HealthAssociation.186 NARAL's founderswanted
theorganizationto serveas thestrategy centerforthemovementto repeal
abortionbans and to guaranteethatthepro-reform message was coherent
As a
and effective.187 result, NARAL leaders at the foundingconference
had alreadybegun to debate whichargumentstheyshould stressin lob-
byingforabortionreform.188 In particular,therewas seriousdebate about
whetherNARAL shouldcharacterizeabortionas a woman's rightsissue.
At thefirstmeetingof theorganization'snationalBoard of Directors,Betty
Friedan,a foundingmemberof NARAL and a prominent women's rights
advocate,moved thatNARAL "should supportpoliticalgroupsworking
towardthebasic purposeof therightof a womanto decide whento have
or not have children."189The motiondied forlack of a second.190 At the
same meeting,LarryLader movedthatNARAL resolvethat,"to prevent
increasingoverpopulation, Americanparentsin general. . . should adopt
the ... principleof the 2-child family."191The motionpassed 26-18, as
did anotherresolutionintendedto makeclear that"menas well as women
have therightto birthcontrol."192A NARAL assistantexplainedthatboth
resolutions"shouldappeal to groupsconcernedaboutpopulationand con-
servation;thesegroupsare important potentialallies."193
Althoughrights-based arguments play a role in NARAL's abortion
did
reformrhetoricbetween 1970 and 1972, the balance of argumentswas
weightedtowardthosebased on policy,includingarguments tiedto popu-
lationcontrol.Lader himselfsoughtto build close relationshipsbetween
NARAL and major populationcontrolorganizations.In 1970, NARAL
and Zero PopulationGrowthcollaboratedon abortionreformeffortsin
Washington Stateand Colorado.194In Aprilof 1971,thegroupsworkedto-
in
gether supporting Senator Robert Packwood's NationalAbortionRights
Bill.195The close ties between ZPG and NARAL had an effecton the
186.See above,e.g.,note133,MacPherson,
"AbortionLaws:A Call,"Dl.
187.Ibid.
188.Ibid.
189.NARALNationalBoardofDirectors MeetingMinutes(September 28, 1969),2, in
TheNARALPapers,MC 313,Carton1,BoardMinutes.
190.Ibid.
191.Ibid.
192.LindaCisler,Comments on NARALBoardResolutions(1969),2, inibid.
193.Ibid.
194.See,e.g.,LarryLadertoShirley
RadiofZeroPopulation
Growth, Incorporated(Au-
gust20, 1970),inTheNARALPapers,MC 313,File Box 9, ZeroPopulation Growth.
195.See ShirleyLewisofZeroPopulation
Growth, toLee Giddings,
Incorporated Execu-
tiveDirectorofNARAL(April16, 1971),inibid.

focusof NARAL'sreform efforts.Lee Giddings,theexecutivedirector

ofNARAL,begana concentrated in 1971to convincemembers
effort of
theCommission on Population Growth and theAmericanFutureto en-
dorseabortion andtietheCommission toNARAL.Giddings wrotetoJohn
Rockefeller III thatNARALhad"followed[theCommission] withgreat
interest"andhopedthatthereport producedby theCommission would
"give substantial attention to abortionand its to
relationship population
Lorraine
control."196 Cleveland, theheadofNARAL'sFamilyPlanning and
Population Education Program, wrote
similarly Charles Westoff, another
member oftheCommission, thattotalrepealofabortion bans"might go
fartoward reducing unwanted birthsandthe threat of overpopulation inthis
country."197WhentheCommission Reportendorsedabortion reform, the
NARALExecutive Boardcameoutstrongly infavorofproposedpopula-
tioncontrolreform measures.198 ThatNovember, theBoardpublisheda
resolutionendorsing existingfederalpopulation control legislationandrec-
ommending thecreation ofa separateinstitute forpopulation science.199
As importantly, NARALusedthearguments ofpopulation controlad-
vocatesto promote NARAL'sgoals.By 1971,NARAL'sofficialguide-
linesforspeakersanddebaters didincludesomerights-based arguments,
including an assertion thatlegalizedabortion was requiredundera con-
stitutional"rightto privacyin thebedroom."200 However,theguidelines
also emphasized a number ofpolicy-based arguments, including a whole
category relatedto population control.Whenfacedwitharguments that
personsof geniuswouldnothavebeenbornifpeopleused legal abor-
tionforeugenicpurposes,NARAL activistswereadvisedto replythat
"possiblyHitlerwouldn'thavebeenborneither"andthat"[w]e do not
missthemanypeoplenotborn."201 Otherproposedarguments asserted
that"[l]egalabortion willdecreasethenumber ofunwanted children ...
andpossiblysubsequent delinquency, drug addiction, and a host of social
Anotherpopulationcontrolargument
ills."202 stated"[t]hepopulation
explosioncompels us to take every means necessary to curbourgrowth
rate"andcontended: "sincecontraception . . . seemsinsufficient toreduce
196.Lee Giddings III (October29, 1971),inThe NARALPapers,
to JohnRockefeller
MC 313,Carton7, National.
197.LorraineClevelandtoCharlesWestoff (November 2, 1971),inibid.
198.ResolutionoftheNARALExecutive Committee (November 27, 1972),m lhe Betty
FriedanPapers,7 1-62-81-M23,Carton42, Folder1461,Schlesinger Library,Harvard
University.
199.See ibid.
200. NARALSpeakerandDebater'sHandbookExcerpt(circa1972),in The NARAL
Papers,MC 313,Carton7, DebatingtheOpposition.
201. Ibid.
202. Ibid.

ofa RighttoChoose
TheFraming 315
tothepointofourgrowth,
fertility we shouldpermit all voluntary means
ofbirthcontrol(including abortion)."203
Partlybecauseof Roe, NARAL graduallymovedawayfromsimilar
populationcontrolrhetoric and increasingly drewon rights-based, of-
ten constitutional The
arguments. driving force behind this shift was a
transitionin the leadership of theorganization. Between 1973 and the
middleof 1974,whenLarryLadercontinued tobe theheadofNARAL,
theorganization remained committed policy-as well as rights-based
to
arguments. Thus,whentheorganization's ExecutiveCommittee metin
1973,themembers present"agreedthatto emphasize'a woman'sright
to chooseabortion'is sometimes nota good strategy. It is important to
stressthelegal and publichealthbenefits of abortion."204 NARAL and
ZeroPopulation Growth persistedthroughout 1973insharing factsheets,
pressadvice,newsletters, andmembership lists.205In 1974,Ladercontin-
uedbuilding allianceswithpopulation control organizations andsoughta
placeforNARALspeakersat theUN WorldPopulation Conference.206
However,as earlyas thewinterof 1974,somemembers of NARAL
begancallingfornewrhetoric andleadership.In a statement totheorgani-
zation'snational boardinFebruary 1974,Lee Giddings asserted thatitwas
"crucial"thatthegroup"educatethepublicontheSupreme Courtdecision
[inRoe] andon theresponsibilities of thosereceiving andgiving[abor-
tion]service."207Thatspring, SarahWeddington, one ofthelawyerswho
arguedforthevictorious appellantinRoe,toldtheNARALBoardabout
theefficacyofrights-based argumentstiedtogender equality. Afterspeak-
ing to Democratic Senator Birch a
Bayh, supporter of the Equal Rights
Amendment, Weddington reportedthatshehadpersuaded himprimarily
by contending that "women cannottake of
advantage opportunities ...
undertheERA iftheycannotcontroltheirfertility."208 By October 1975,
theorganization's executive committee agreedthatitsmeetings shouldbe
203. Ibid.
204. NARALExecutive Committee Minutes(February 3, 1973),inTheNARALPapers,
MC 313,Carton1,Executive Committee Minutes1973-1974.
zio. òee, e.g.,Margaret Leuerman,canor oi z.eroropuiauonurowin,incorporated,
NationalReport, toLee Giddings (August28, 1973),inTheNARALPapers,MC 313,File
Box 9, ZeroPopulation Growth, Incorporated(sharingadviceon pressconferences);Carl
Pope,Executive ofZeroPopulation
Director Growth, Incorporated,toLee Giddings(circa
October1973),inibid.;BarbaraRossofZeroPopulation Growth, toRoxanne
Incorporated,
Olivo,Executive ofNARAL(November
Director 1, 1973),inibid.
206. See, e.g.,LarryLaderand BettyFriedanto MadameServan-Schreiber (June19,
1974),inTheBettyFriedanPapers,71-62-81-M23,Carton42, Folder1461.
207. Lee Giddings toNARALBoardet al. (February 1974),2, inThe NARALPapers,
MC 313,Carton1,BoardMinutes1973-1979.
208. NARALMeetingMinutes(April13,1975),inibid.

used primarilyto "stresstheimportanceof continuingthenationaleffort

to protecttheSupremeCourtdecision."209 The committeeassertedthatthe
organization'smost importantaccomplishment,as a matterof rhetoric,
had been to "mak[e] people aware of thereal threatto the UnitedStates
SupremeCourtabortiondecision."210 The followingDecember,Weddington
became thehead of theorganization.211 When speakingto thepress,Wed-
dingtonagain insisted thatabortion reform advocateswerewomen'srights
supporters whileanti-abortionactivists "still[thought]thata woman'splace
[was] in thehome barefoot and pregnant."212
UnderWeddington'sleadership,women'srightsand constitutional argu-
mentsbecamemorecentralto NARAL's strategy. In 1977,PresidentJimmy
CarterinvitedNARAL membersto the National Women's Conference
in Houston,a meetingcalled to discuss genderinequalitiesand ways to
overcomethem.213 It was clear thatabortionwould be a contentiousissue
at the conference.A majorityof delegateswere knownto supportlegal-
ized abortion,but a powerfulminority plannedto speak out againstRoe
v.Wade.214PhyllisSchafly,a self-styled familyvaluessupporter and abortion
opponent,was also holdinga "conferenceforthe family"in Houston.215
The NARAL contingent at theNationalWomen'sConferencewas, there-
fore,prominent. The positionsof those presentat the conferencewould
be consideredthepositionsof theorganization.216
The NARAL delegationtooktheconference as an opportunityto endorse
right-to-choosearguments.BettyFriedandescribedNARAL's role at the
conference:"WhenRightto Life menled a noisydemonstration in thegal-
picturesofpickledfetuses,theNationalAbortionRightsAc-
leries,carrying
tionLeague raiseda singleblue and whitebannerwiththeStatueof Liberty
raisinga torchoverthe 'rightto choose.'. . . [Then]some womenstoodto
sing'God Bless America'withthem."217 Later,whenanti-abortion delegates
outsidetheconference centerbegansinging"AllWe areSayingIs GiveLifea
Chance,"theNARAL contingent led a chantof "choice,choice,choice."218
209. NARALBoardMeetingMinutes(October10, 1975),inTheBettyFriedanPapers,

7 1-62-81-M23,Carton43, Folder1462.
210. Executive s AnnualReport(1974),inibid.
Director
211. See JoanZyda,"Abortion RightsLeaderArguesfora FreeChoiceforWomen,"
ChicagoTribune, December9, 1975,Bl.
212. Ibid.
213. See BettyFriedan,DraftofArticleTitled"Houston:HowtheWomen'sMovement
Survived," inTheBettyFriedanPapers71-62-81-M23,Crate35,Folder1182.
214. See ibid.,4.
215. See ibid.
216. See,e.g.,MeganRosenfeld andBillCurry,Womens ConferencePassesAbortion,
GayRightsMeasures," WashingtonPost,November 21, 1977,Al.
217. See above,note213,Friedan,"Houston," 4.
218. See above,note216,Rosenfeld andCurry,Womens Conference, Al.

Afterthe1977 conference, and againundertheinfluenceofWeddington,

NARAL began instructing itsactiviststo focuson rights-based arguments
drawnfromRoe v. Wade. In a 1978 strategymanual,NARAL operatives
were instructed on how to respondto a varietyof commonanti-abortion
arguments.219 proposedresponsesdrewheavilyon Roe itself,quoting
The
directlythereasoningof theopinionaboutwhya fetuscould notlegallybe
considereda person.220 Second,NARAL operativeswereinstructed to deny
any association with population control organizations:"Allegation:That
abortionshould not be used as a means of populationcontrol.[Response]:
Agreed.The decision to have an abortion is and shouldbe a privateone,
freefromoutsidepressuresor interferences. In a democratic,nonsectar-
ian society,womenshouldbe freeto make theirown decisionsregarding
childbearingand contraceptive use. The term'populationcontrol'implies
theuse of coercivepolicies and programsto limitpopulationgrowth.The
UnitedStateshas no such policy."221
If populationcontrolhad been the reason NARAL activistsgave for
supporting legalized abortion,NARAL operativeswere instructed now to
explain: "We are not 'pro-abortion,'we are pro-choice.If we were pro-
abortion, we wouldurgewomento haveabortions(to avoidout-of-wedlock
births,to avoidhavinga defectivebaby... to reducewelfarecosts,to limit
populationgrowth, etc.). However,we do notunderanycircumstances urge
womento have abortions.What we favoris not abortionbut a woman's
rightto choose."222
NOW
The National OrganizationforWomen,or NOW, was foundedin 1966
as a women's rightsorganization,withtask forcesfocusingon equal op-
portunityin employment, education,"social innovationsforequal partner-
ship between the sexes," "a new image of women,"political rightsand
responsibilities,and the "war forwomenin poverty."223 NOW's founders
had intendedthe organizationto campaign forbetteropportunitiesfor
womenoutsidethehome and to challengethen-prevailing images of men
and women.224 In theearlyyears,NOW was a coalitionof olderwomen's
rightsactivistslikeFriedanand younger, sometimesmorediverse,members
219. See NationalAbortion RightsLeague[NARAL],LegalAbortion:A Speaker'sand

Debater'sNotebook (Washington, D. C: TheLeague,1978).
220. See ibid.,3, 5, 6, 7-9.
221. Ibid.,29.
222. Ibid.,7.
223.NOWNational Organizing Minutes
Conference 29-30,1966),inTheBetty
(October
FriedanPapers,7 1-62-81-M23,Carton43, Folder1544.
224. See ibid.

3 18 Law and HistoryReview,Summer2009
drawnfromcollegecampuses.225 Forthemostpart,organization members

that
suggested employment equality should be theorganization's primary
focus:indeed,it was notuntil1967thattheorganization confronted the
issueofabortion, whenBettyFriedan, NOW'sfirst President, proposed that
NOW endorsea constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman'sright
toabortion accessorthecomplete repealofcriminal banson abortion.226
AttheNOWNationalConference inNovember of1967,itsleaderswere
sharply dividedon theabortion question.In thefirst dayofdebate,some
supporters of theabortion reform resolutionargued womenhada right
that
toabortion access,as Friedan had asserted.One member commented that
"nota thought has beengivento women, who are most concerned with
thequestionof abortion." Thoseagainsttheresolution, including Paige
Palmer,worried thata NOW endorsement oftherepealofabortion bans
wouldmaketheorganization seemtooradicalandthat"[p]eople[would]
notjoin [the]organization" iftheresolution was adopted.Thisprompted
a debateaboutwhether abortion, as a methodofpopulation was
control,
racistor insteadpromoted racialequality.AliceRossi statedthatreform
statutesaggravated "the[N]egrocommunities' problemof illegitimacy"
and thatonlyrepealof abortion bansdemonstrated a concernforpoor,
nonwhite women.Another member repliedthat"Negrowomenareforced
togetabortions so theywillnotlosetheirwelfare checks."Inthefirst vote
taken,theopponents oftheresolution hada slightedge:theresolution was
voteddown,forty-two to thirty-one. The nextday,NOW legalcounsel,
PhineasIndritz, changed hisviewwhena different resolution waspresented
whichcalledonlyfortherepealofcriminal prohibitionsonabortion. Indritz
madeeffective, pragmatic arguments about the new resolution's political
practicality.Aftera call forunanimity byFriedananda strong statement
ofsupport by Ti-Grace Atkinson, the Board votedfor the resolution,
fifty-
seventofourteen.227
In theperiodbetween the1967Conference and 1970,NOW arguments
forabortion were,forthemostpart,women'srights arguments. Friedan's
statements inAtlantaat theNationalConference of 1968wererepresen-
tative:"[I]tis thehumanrightofeverywomanto control herownrepro-
ductiveprocess,andto establish thatrightas an inalienable human,civil
rightwould requirethat all abortion lawsbe repealed.. . . The basicidea
225. MinutesoftheNOWNationalConference (November 18-19,1967),in71-62-81-

M23,Carton43, Folder1553,Schlesinger
Library,HarvardUniversity.
226. See BettyFriedan, to theNOW NationalConference
ReportofthePresident (No-
vember18, 1967),inTheBettyFriedanPapers,7 1-62-81-M23,Carton43, Folder1553.
Theresolutioncalledfor"removing
contraceptive andabortion
information fromthepenal
code."See above,note225,Minutes.
227. See above,note225,Minutes.

of ourrevolutionis, in theend,self-determination: thatyou cannotdecide

anything about a woman's life,especially such a thingas herreproductive
process, without woman's voice itselfbeing heard."228
By 1970,however,NOW leadersweredebatingwhethertheyshouldalso
describeabortionas a populationcontrolissue or shouldformallianceswith
populationcontrolorganizations. In 1971,theorganization's executivecom-
mitteeheldworkshopson populationcontroland itsrelationship to NOW's
policy on abortion.229The organization's use of population control rhetoric
arose partlyout of a changein thegroup'sleadership.Wilma ScottHeide,
a behavioralscientistand nurse,became the Presidentof NOW in 1970
and counseledNOW activiststo use populationcontrolrhetoricin arguing
forthelegalizationof abortionand theguaranteeof women's rights.230 In
November1970,Christopher Tietzeof thePopulationCouncilasked Heide
if membersof NOW who had had abortionswould participatein a study
on thehealtheffectsof abortionon womenand theriskfactorsthatwould
exacerbatethoseeffects.231 In writing to NOW stateaffiliates, Heide recom-
mendedparticipating, suggestingthat"[t]he requestfromthe Population
Councilrepresents thefactthatwe are viewedas responsibleand stable."232
Whilestillwaitingto hearresponsesaboutthePopulationCouncilproposal,
Heide also represented NOW beforetheRockefellerCommission,arguing
thatwomen'srightsand populationcontrolwere inextricably linked.She
explained:"[F]irstwe mustaffirmatively changethe[roleof women](not
merelynotetheslowlychangingroleofwomenpassively);thenfamilysize
willchange.... On thequestionofoverpopulation . . . , no matterhow safe,
effective,and universallyavailableis anycontraceptive methodforwomen
or men,womenwill continueto be producersof excess children. . . unless
theyhave viable significant alternatives to motherhood.... If you opt for
qualitypopulation,you must adopt this humanliberationmovement."233
When Heide ultimatelyrefusedTietze's offeron behalfof NOW, it was
because the Council did not have manywomen leaders and because the
Councildid notemphasizewomen'srightsand populationcontrolin either
228. BettyFriedan, Is Unique"(January

"OurRevolution 15,1968),inTheBettyFriedan
Papers,7 1-62-81-M23,Carton44, Folder1578.
229. NOWExecutive CommitteeDraftSchedule(May 18, 1971),inThe BettyFriedan
Papers,7 1-62-81-M23,Carton44, Folder1583.
230.WilmaScottHeide,President ofNOW,Statement inSupport ofPublicLaw 91-213,
92dCongress, AnActtoEstablisha Commission on Population Growth and theAmerican
Future(April15,1971),inTheWilmaScottHeidePapers,MC 495,Box 11.12,Schlesinger
Library,HarvardUniversity.
231. ChristopherTietzetoWilmaScottHeide(November 5, 1970),inTheWilmaScott
HeidePapers,MC 495, 14.7.
232.WilmaScottHeidetoNOWBoardofDirectors et al. (Winter1970-1971),in ibid.
233. See above,note230,Heide,Statementin Support,3^.

the RockefellerReportor in its otherabortionreformstudies.234 Heide

argued that NOW should emphasize rhetoric thatlinked genderequalityto
population control and abortion,arguments similar to thoseshe had made
beforetheCouncil.235
By early 1972, NOW had renamedits abortiontask forcethe "Task
ForceforReproduction and Its Controland theDevelopmentofPopulation
Policy."236 February thatyear,theNOW Board consideredpartner-
In of
ing withthe Ford Foundationon a populationcontrolstudy.237 In 1972,
NOW also began workingclosely with ZPG on the campaign abortion
for
reform.238
Even afterthedecisionofRoe v.Wade,whileHeide remainedPresident,
NOW leaders continuedto combinerights-basedand populationcontrol
arguments. WhenNBC airedan episode of thepopulartelevisionprogram
Maude involvingabortion,a numberof anti-abortion organizersled a boy-
cottof the program'sadvertisers.239 In response,speakingon behalfof
NOW about abortion,Heide explained:"The issue is choice, therightof
womento controltheirown bodies. . . . Ignoranceand fearcan no longer
deny us choice of populationquantityand quality.. . . The pressureof
populationson worldfood suppliesis cominghome to America;central
to theissue is thewoman's need forself-definition and self-control."240
Gradually,because ofRoe, rights-based arguments displacedarguments
relatedto populationcontrol.By 1973,NOW beganan abortionfundraising
campaigncenteredon therhetoricofRoe, whichtheorganizationcalled "a
long-overdue, landmarkdecisionforAmericanwomen."241 The truerhetori-
however,occurredwhentheleadershipofNOW changed.In 1974,
cal shift,
KarenDeCrow,anotherfeministattorney, became presidentof NOW, and
shortly after called on the organization clarifyits standon abortion.In
to
theearlymonthsof 1974,NOW had starteda local actionlobbyingproject
withthe "target"of "supporting]the SupremeCourtdecision [in Roe]
and developing] thestrongcommunity supportof individualsand groups
outsideNOW fortheSupremeCourtdecisionon abortion."242 In thesame
234. Ibid.
235. Ibid.
236.WilmaScottHeideto NOW ChapterPresidents, TaskForceCoordinators, Board
Officers,andMembers (January31, 1972),inibid.
237.WilmaScottHeidetoNOWMembers 19, 1972),inibid.
(February
238. See,e.g.,WilmaScottHeidetoMegLetterman ofZeroPopulationGrowth, Incorpo-
rated(October10, 1973),inTheBettyFriedanPapers,71-62-81-M23,Carton44, Folder
1583.
239. PressConference (August17, 1973),inTheBettyFriedanPapers,ibid.
240. Ibid.
241. FundraisingLetter(1973),inTheWilmaScottHeidePapers,MC 495, 11.14.
242. JanLiebmanandAnnScottto NOW StateCoordinators (February vàiI), in ine
WilmaScottHeidePapers,11.12.

year,the organizationpromulgateda Bill of Women's Rightsto Choose

Abortion,designatedabortionrightsan organizationalpriority, dedicated
a lobbyingday to therightto choose, and began a "congressionalreport"
monitoring positionson abortion.243
As importantly,because of DeCrow's influence, theorganization had de-
veloped a formal debating handbook by 1974,recommending thatactivists
emphasizeprimarily rights-based arguments. NOW operativeswereadvised
to compare"theSupremeCourt['s. . . ] recognition]of thefederalconsti-
tutionalbasis fora woman'srightto limitchildbearing" to the"freedomof
religionor freedom of speech."244 particular, debatingguide recom-
In the
mendedthatNOW stateaffiliates avoidall policyormoralarguments infavor
oflegalizedabortion.245"Don't arguethemoralrightsorwrongsofabortion,"
themanualinstructed.246 "[I]nsteadstressthateveryonehas therightto make
theirown moraldecisionforor againstabortion."247 All NOW statelegisla-
tivecoordinators wereprovidedwitha set of materialsfeaturing a copy of
Roe v. Wade itselffromwhichtheycould develop theirown strategies.248
By early1975,underDeCrow's leadership,NOW's majorabortionreform
lobbyingprogramcenteredon efforts to getmembersofCongressto endorse
Roe v. Wadepublicly.249 NOW lobbyingmaterialsadvised coordinatorsto
coach congressmen to use therhetoric ofthedecisionor thewomen'srights
interpretationof Roe promotedby NOW and to "declarepublicsupportfor
theSupremeCourtDecision on theRightto Choose."250
Between1974 and 1977,DeCrow repeatedly called on thenationalboard
of NOW to commitmoreresourcesto protecting Roe and to findnew "lan-
guage, slogans,catchphrases,brochures,leaflets,and press campaign[s]"
to supportthateffort.251Beginningin December 1975, theNOW national
boardapprovedfundingfora publicrelationscampaigndesignedto protect
therightto choose.252By thebeginningof 1976,NOW leadershad optedto
243. RighttoChooseTimeLine(1974),inThe NOW Papers,MC 496, Box 54, Folder
27.
244.Debating NOWRighttoChooseLobbying
theOpposition, Kit,inTheNOWPapers,
245. Ibid.
246. Ibid.
247. Ibid.
248.AnnScottandJanLiebmanto NOW StateLegislative Coordinators 15,
(February
1974),inibid.
249. Ibid.
250. See above,note243, Rightto ChooseTimeLine, 1; JanLiebmanandAnnScott
toNOWStateandRegionalCoordinators (April17,1974),inTheNOWPapers,MC 496,
Box 2, Folder32.
251. JeanneClarkandJaniceGleason,RighttoChooseMobilizationProgram(December
6, 1975),inTheNOWPapers,MC 496,Box 3, Folder15.
252. NOWNationalMeetingMinutes(December6-7, 1975),inTheNOW Papers,MC
496,Box 3, Folder12.

makeRoe itselfpartof thatcampaign.In January1976,NOW chose to use

publicrelationsfunding to payfora publicserviceannouncement made"on
behalfof all womenin thiscountrywho [had] been able to choose to have
an abortion"and "commendfing] theCourton itsdecision"in Roe.253
Arguing that theorganization notmade enoughuse of Roe or made
had
reproductive rightsenoughof an organizationalpriority, DeCrow warned
NOW leadersat theorganization'snationalconferencein April 1977 that
theycould not be "complacentabout our rightto choose" and encour-
aged conferenceattendeesto pass a resolutiondesignedto revitalizethe
organization'sreproductive The resolutioncalled forthe
rightsstrategy.254
development of media tools "similarto those being used in the driveto
ratifytheERA[,] includingpreparation of a filmon thehistoricalstruggle
of MargaretSängerand hersisters."255
The organizationultimatelysettledon a historicalnarrativethathigh-
lightedtheimportanceofRoe and therhetoricof rights.NOW joined with
PlannedParenthoodin a newcampaignfor"reproductive rights,"including
tributesto MargaretSänger and a press conferencedescribinghow her
legacy relatedto the contemporary abortiondebate and the decision of
Roe.256In thenew historyof abortionreformofferedby theorganization,
Roe was portrayedas a partof an ongoingeffortto gain constitutional
equalityand civil rightsforwomenand otherhistoricallydisadvantaged
groups.As one participantat a Sanger colloquy put it, "we cannotsolve
theproblemsof women'srightsand reproductive rightsunlesswe are con-
cernedabout. . . fullemployment, poverty,racism,and economicdecay in
theUnitedStates."257 The influenceof feministattorneys on theorganiza-
tionwas clear. The policy-basedargumentsof the early 1970s had been
replacedby argumentsaboutwhatRoe held,whatRoe meantforwomen,
and how theworkof women'srightsadvocatesled to a victoryin Roe.
III. The Rise of Rights to Life
effecton the compositionof the anti-

Roe v. Wade also had a significant
abortioncoalitionand thearguments anti-abortionactivistsmade. It is true
253. PressStatement
(January1976),inTheNOWPapers,MC 496,Box 30,Folder8.
254.NOWNational ConferenceMinutes (April23, 1977),inTheNOWPapers,MC 496,
Box 24,Folder27.
RightsResolution
255. Reproductive (April1977),inThe NOW Papers,MC 496, Box
24,Folder37.
256.JaniceMall,"AboutWomen," Los AngelesTimes,September 9, 1979,14.
257.AnnCrittenden,"A ColloquyontheSangerSpirit," NewYorkTimes, 18,
September
1979,B8.

thatpriorto thedecision,manyanti-abortion emphasizedthe

organizations
interestsof theunborn,as a matterof bothethicsand of faith.However,
African- AmericanleaderslikeJesseJacksonand civilrightsadvocateslike
Ted Kennedywere also suspiciousof abortionreformwhen it was char-
acterizedas a formof populationcontrollegislation.BeforeRoe, leaders
like Jacksonor Kennedywere morelikelyto belong to the anti-abortion
coalitionthanto any abortionreformorganization.Abortionwas thusof-
fensiveto some, primarilybecause it posed a threatto welfarerecipients
or racial minorities.
In theearly 1970s,anti-abortionleadersexploitedsimilarfears.In May
of 1972,whentheRockefellerCommissionmadepublicitsreport,abortion
oppositionorganizationsattackedit usingtwo primaryarguments.258 One
argumentcenteredon thefetus:whatit looked like,felt,and deserved.259
Equallyimportant werewhatwouldbe called "blackgenocide"arguments:
abortionwas characterizedas a methodof populationcontroldesigned
to reduce the populationof African- Americansor people on public as-
sistance.260 Abortionwas characterizedby abortionopponentsboth as a
takingof innocentfetallife and as a dangerto the rightsof poor people
and racial minorities.
By 1973, shortlyafterthedecisionof Roe, anti-abortionorganizershad
grown in number and had become more A
organized. number of new anti-
abortionorganizationswere formedin responseto thedecision,including
theAd Hoc Committeeon theDefenseof Life,theNationalRightto Life
Committee, AmericanCitizensConcernedforLife, and theRightto Life
League.261 Some believerswhomighthaveeventually cometofavorabortion
as a methodofpopulationcontroldisapproved oftheRoe Court'sconclusions
thata fetuswas nota person,thatwomenwereentitledto have an abortion
undercertaincircumstances, and thatabortionlaw was relatedto women's
In
rights.262 early 1973, however, abortionopponentsstillmade bothanti-
population control
and right-to-life
arguments.Considerthe1973fundraising
brochureof theAd Hoc Committeeon theDefenseof Life.The Committee
brochurestatedthatabortionreformers argued:"[W]e shouldridourselves
of 'unwanted'childrenvia abortion(and nextunwantedold or sickpeople?),
258.Backlashtheorists haveablydocumentedtheeffectsofRoeonreligious anti-abortion

organizations.See abovetextaccompanying note3.
259. See, e.g.,Ad Hoc Committee on theDefenseofLife,Fundraising Letter(October
23, 1973),inTheNARALPapers,MC 313,Carton8, Opposition.
260. See, e.g.,ibid.
261.See SuzanneStaggenborg, "TheConsequences ofProfessionalization
andFormaliza-
tioninthePro-Choice American
Movement," SociologicalReview53 (1988): 585,586.
262. See A. JamesReichley, inAmerican
Religion PublicLife(Washington,D. C: Brook-
ingsInstitution,1985),292.

'stabilize' our growthat no growthat all, whichin practicewould mean,

inevitably, shrinking fromtherichestand mostpowerfulnationhistoryhas
everknownto some third-rate satelliteof an Asian superpower."263
Rights-based anti-abortion arguments also changedin 1973. Manyanti-
abortionactivistsbegan spendingtimerefutingthe reasoningof Roe v.
Wadeitself.In a flurry of lettersto Congress,individualsand organizations
criticizedthe decision's holdingthatthe fetuswas not a personand that
womenhad a rightto abortion.264 One of theletterssentto NARAL in the
wake of the decision is representative of new anti-abortionarguments:
"Every human being gets his or her rightto live, not fromthe Supreme
Court,butfromGod. . . . Wheredoes thewomanget herso-called 'right'
to destroyanotherhumanlife?In short,she does nothave thatright."265
The anti-abortion laws and constitutional amendments proposedin 1973
reflectedtheshiftin anti-abortion arguments. SenatorJesseHelmsofNorth
Carolina proposedwhatwas ultimatelya successfulamendmentto a bill
funding populationcontrolthatprohibited theuse offederalfundsforabor-
tions.266SenatorJamesBuckley,a RepublicanfromNew York,proposed
a constitutional amendmentdesignedto refuteone of thecentralholdings
of Roe. The proposedamendmentprovided"theword 'person' as used in
thisarticleand in theFifthand Fourteenth Amendments to theConstitution
of theUnitedStates [applied]to all humanbeings,includingtheirunborn
offspring."267
The abortionoppositioncoalitionchangedagain in 1974. First,major
anti-abortion organizations liketheNationalRightto LifeCommitteebegan
distancingthemselvesfromCatholicism.268 At thesame time,manyright-
wing organizations,includingthe PhyllisSchaflyReport,theAmerican
Conservative Union,and theJohnBirchSociety,werebecomingprominent
criticsoflegalizedabortion.269 As sociallyconservative organizations
began
263. See above,e.g.,note259,Ad Hoc Committee on theDefenseofLife.

264. See above,e.g.,note164,TheDenverConference Memorandum.
265. MarciaFieldstoNARAL(September 23, 1973),inTheNARALPapers,MC 313,
Carton8, Opposition.
266. See DianTerry,EditedPolicyStatement(April1975),inTheNowPapers,MC 496,
Box 54,Folder26 (explainingthedecisionoftheNOWNationalConference tomakeabor-
tiona national RighttoChooseFundraising
priority); CampaignBrochure (Spring1974),
inibid.
267. See above,note266,Terry,PolicyStatement.
268. Louis Kohlmeier, "Women'sLobbyvs. Rightto Life,"ChicagoTribune, June3,
1974,16.
269.TheCivicResearch Institute, Projected
Incorporated, Research forthePlanned
Project
Parenthood FederationofAmerica(Spring,1975),inTheNARALPapers,MC 313,Carton
8, PlannedParenthood 1975-1976.

extensivelobbyingcampaignsand vowed in the press to make abortion

an electionissue in themid-1970s,Republicanshad new reason to make
theiroppositionto legalized abortionuniformand to highlightthatop-
positionas a partof theirelectioncampaigns.270 By theend of fall 1978,
theAmericanpressreportedthatright-to-life activismwas a majorfactor
in a numberof nationaland stateraces, most famously,in the defeatof
prominentIowa DemocraticSenatorDick Clark by a pro-lifeconserva-
tive,Roger Jepsen.271 As the DemocraticPartygraduallyidentifieditself
withpro-Roepositions,272 and as oppositionto abortiondevelopedintoa
keyelectionissue forsome voters,oppositionto Roe graduallybecame a
stapleof thepoliticalright.
In the same period,over the nextseveralyears,Planned Parenthood's
emphasison equal abortionaccess and theabortionopposition'ssuccess in
restrictingMedicaid fundingforabortionsmade it morelikelythatmem-
bersof thepoliticalleftwould supportlegalizedabortion.SenatorEdward
Kennedy,whohad rejectedtheidea oflegalizedabortionin his 1970 Senate
campaign,led a fighton thefloorof theSenate in 1975 to kill an earlyef-
Medicaidfundingforabortions.273
fortto restrict Kennedy,who considered
himselfa strongsupporter ofcivilrights,
had a hardertimeopposingabortion
whentheissue was framedas one of racialand social equality.Democratic
SenatorWilliam Hathawayput it succinctly:"banningfederalfundsfor
abortionunderMedicaid discriminates againstthepoor."274
Two yearslater,whentheMedicaid ban was passed by Congress,many
DemocraticSenatorswerepersuadedby PlannedParenthoodactiviststhat
abortionaccess was relatedto the issue of racial equality.Commenting
on the vote on theMedicaid ban, DemocraticSenatorBirch Bayh spoke
formanywhenhe statedthattherewas a "remarkableparallel" between
thosewho votedfortheMedicaid bar and thosewho opposed votingrights
or fairhousingforthepoor or formembersof racial minorities.275 Partly
because ofRoe, abortionoppositionwas becomingan issue of thepolitical
right,and abortionreformadvocacy a cause of thepoliticalleft.
270. See,e.g.,MarjorieHyer,"Abortions,
Congress, Churches, andConvictions,"
Wash-
ingtonPost,January22, 1974,Bl; PeterMilius,"RiseofAbortion Issue,"WashingtonPost,
September 17,1976,Al.
271.JohnHerbers, "Convention SpeechStirsFoes ofAbortion," NewYorkTimes,June
24, 1979,at 16.
272. See above,note5, Graber, Abortion,
Rethinking 137-53.
273. "TeddyLeads FightAgainstAnti-abortion Bill,"ChicagoTribune, April11, 1975,
15.
274. See ibid.
275. See above,note182,Clymer, "SenateVote,"1.

Race and Abortion

As noted,manymembersof racial minoritiesopposed legalized abortion
beforeRoe v.Wade.By 1969,thesearguments weresometimesbeingmade
by mainstream African-American leaders. For example,MarvinDavies,
the Florida fieldsecretaryfortheNAACP, statedthatpopulationcontrol
measureswerenot"in thebestinterests of black people. Our womenneed
to producemorebabies, not less. . . . Until we comprise30 to 35% of the
population,we won't reallybe able to affect the power structurein this
country."276
Davies's predictions,to someextent,wouldproveto be correct.By 1971,
PlannedParenthood noteda markeddecreaseinthenumberofAfrican- Amer-
icanwomenusingbirthcontrolservices,a netdecreaseof seventeenpercent
between1965 and 1971.277 A Februarypoll takenby theChicago Defender
foundthatwhileonly26.4% ofAfrican- Americansgenerallyopposedabor-
tionreform, 63.7% ofthosepolledprofesseda beliefthatgovernment-funded
abortionscould lead to "mass genocidein theblack community."278 A poll
conductedlaterthatyearby researchers at theUniversity of Massachusetts
at AmherstamongseveralhundredAfrican- Americanmembersof a New
Englandcityfounda lowerpercentofrespondents wereconvincedthatabor-
tionwouldactuallyresultin black genocide,butamongmales underthirty,
thestudyfoundthatalmosthalfbelievedthatlegalizedabortionwouldlead
to black genocide.279AndrewThomas,the Presidentof the Cook County
Physicians in Chicago and theSecretaryof theNationalMedical Associa-
tion,explained:"We do notwishforanygrandcityplannersto plan forour
welfaremothersto have abortionsas a formof genocideto preventthem
fromgetting welfaremoney.... I can see howitwouldbe possibleforword
to getoutquietlyfromSpringfield forwelfareworkersto tellblack women
withlotsof babies alreadyto end thepregnanciesin abortion."280
Of course,oppositionin theAfrican- Americancommunity was farfrom
universal.281JeromeHolland,an African- American,servedas PP-WP chair-
276. "ReactionsMixed to U.S. BirthPlan," New YorkTimes,July19, 1969, 9.

277. "Decrease in Blacks Using BirthControl,"Chicago Defender,May 22, 1971, 28.
278. See "Blacks Split on Sex," Chicago Defender,February15, 1971, 1.
279. Ted Lacey, "Call WelfareAbortionsGenocide," Chicago Defender,February4,
1971, 1.
280. See ibid.
281. A numberof recenthistorieshave studiedtheinvolvement of African-Americanand
Hispanicwomenin thewomen'srightsmovementand themovementforabortionreform. See,
e.g., KimberlySpringer, LivingfortheRevolution:Black FeministOrganizations,1968-1980
(Durham:Duke University Press,2005); Benita Roth,Separate Roads to Feminism:Black,
Chicano,and WhiteFeministMovementsinAmerica's Second Wave(New York:Cambridge
University Press,2004).

manbeforeRoe and assertedthatlegalizedabortionwould preventtheun-

necessarydeaths of black mothersand babies.282An African-American
physician,EdwardKeener,was workingwithNARAL in theMichigantest
case pursuedin 1971.283 Arguablymoreimportant to the abortionreform
movementwereAfrican-American women'srightsactivistswho spokeout
againsttheblack genocide argument.At NARAL' s foundingconference,
Mrs. Marc Hughesof theNationalCouncil of NegroWomenof New York
receiveda standingovationafterstatingthatshe was "hereto affirm very
strongly[that]we don't believe abortionis Negro genocide."284 Another
African-American women'srightsadvocate,Congresswoman ShirleyChish-
olm,servedas NARAL's honorary presidentin theyearsimmediately before
Roe and frequently arguedthatabortion reform was in the best interest
of
African-Americanwomenbecause, underpresentlaw, "thepoor [and] the
blacksaredenieda choiceavailableto therich."285 African-Americanwom-
en's rightsactivistsoutsideof theabortionreformmovementalso publicly
arguedthatlegalizedabortionwould betterprotectthehealthand rightsof
blackwomen.286 Popularadvicecolumnsin theChicagoDefendersimilarly
advisedAfrican- Americanwomenabouthow and whyto seek contracep-
tionor supportabortionreform.287 Women's liberationactivistsand other
African-American womensupportive of abortionreformwerenotaffected
by arguments characterizingabortionas a formof populationcontrol.
YetAfrican- Americanwomenweredividedon thequestionof abortion
reform, at leastinsofaras itwas framedas an issue ofpopulationcontrol.A
1972 studypublishedin TheAmericanJournalofPublic Healthfoundthat
fifty-onepercentofAfrican- Americanwomenpolled believedthatpopula-
tion growthwas importantforthe survivalof the race, and thirty-seven
percentwere convincedthat"black genocide" was a genuinethreat.288
282. See above,note149,Kaplan,"Abortion 50.

andSterilization,"
283. See above,note135,Shanahan, "DoctorLeads Group'sChallenge," 28.
284. "GenocideDeniedinBirthCurbs,"Washington Post,November 14, 1968,A 17.
285. MyraMacPherson, "MDs FileAbortion Lawsuit,"
Washington Post,September 30,
1969,Bl.
286. See, e.g.,MargaretSloan,"Do BlacksBelonginWomen'sLib?Yes!" ChicagoTri-
bune,June6, 1971,E 12;see also EllenFaulkner,"FromOurReaders," ChicagoDefender,
September 28, 1971,13.
287. See,e.g.,Leontyne Hunt,"Keeping YourFamilytheRightSize,"ChicagoDefender,
January 9, 1971,21.
288. See "FearsofGenocideAmongBlacksas RelatedtoAge,Sex,andRegion,Ameri-
canJournal ofPublicHealth63 (1972): 1029,1029-34.Forfurther
explanation ofthe"black
genocide" theory,seeR. BruceSloaneandDianaFrankHorvitz, A GeneralGuidetoAbortion
(Chicago:Nelson-Hall 1973);BrentRoper,LindaHeathandCharlesD. King,
Publishers,
"Race Consciousness; A New GuiseforTraditionalism?" Sociologyand Social Research
62 (1978):430.

In 1973, shortlyafterthedecisionof Roe v. Wade,some African- Amer-

ican leaders continuedto expressconcernsthatabortionwould be used
as a racistformof populationcontrol.Writingin the Chicago Defender,
The ReverendJesseJacksonwas criticalof thedecision,asserting:"There
are indisputabletracesof genocidein thepossible uses of theruling.For
example,it is no accidentthatNew York,whereabortionhas been legal
thepast two years,reporteda decrease in thenumberof childrenbornto
familieson welfareof over 10,000."289 By March of 1973, Jacksonbegan
a campaignagainstlegalized abortion,arguingit was not in theinterests
of African- Americanswhose "strengthwas in theirnumbers"and who
would be victimizedby doctorsor otherofficialswho wantedto reduce
thenumberof childrenbornto motherson welfare.290 Jacksonsuggested
thatabortionreformwas motivatedas muchby racismas police brutality
againstAfrican- Americanshad been in the South duringthe civil rights
movement.291 "We used to look fordeathfromtheman in theblue coat,"
Jacksonexplained,"and now it comes in a whitecoat."292
Ultimately,however,Roe wouldhavea different effecton African-
Amer-
ican supportforabortion.By marginalizing populationcontrolarguments,
Roe helpedto focustheabortiondebateon theissue of abortionrights.This
inevitablyaffectedtheopinionsof someAfrican- Americansand members
ofotherminority ethnic,racial,or religiousgroupswho had feltthreatened
by populationcontrolpolitics.
A publishedstudyon race and views on abortionconfirmsthisview.293
Drawingon thepooled poll responsescollectedby theGeneralSocial Sur-
veys(conductedbytheNationalOpinionResearchCenterat theUniversity
of Chicago) between1972 and 1980,294 the studyexaminedthe attitudes
of blacks and whiteswithrespectto abortionin threetwo-yearperiods
(1972-74, 1975-77, and 1978-80).295Controllingfora varietyof factors
likelyto determine a person'sviewson abortion,includingfamilyincome,
years of education, regionof residence,frequencyof churchattendance,
and religiousdenomination,296 thestudyfoundthat,in thetwoyearsbefore
Roe, beingAfrican- Americanwas, in its own right,a statistically
signifi-
cant predictorthata personwould be opposed to abortionreform.297 In
289. See JesseJackson, "Country Preacher,"ChicagoDefender,March24, 1973,29.
290. RobertMcGlory, "OpensAbortion March21, 1973,1.
War,"ChicagoDefender,
291. Ibid.
292. Ibid.
293.MichaelCoombsandSusanWelch,"Blacks,Whites, andAttitudes
TowardAbortion,"
PublicOpinionQuarterly 46 (1982): 510.
294. See ibid.,512-13.
295. Ibid.,513.
296. Ibid.
297. Ibid.,516.

TheFraming
theperiodthreeyearsafter Roe,beingAfrican- American was no longera
statistically predictor opposition legalizedabortion.298
significant of to
Similarly, as theabortiondebatefocusedon rights-based arguments,
African-American leadersalso changedtheirpositions on abortion. Jesse
Jackson, whohad led a "waragainstabortion," had describedabortion
as a threat toAfrican-Americans.299 In 1983,whenJacksondeclaredhis
intention torunfortheDemocratic presidential nomination, he promised
feminist leadersto defenda woman'srightto chooseabortion.300 Jack-
son,likeSenatorTedKennedy beforehim,changedhispositionwhenthe
meaning ofa pro-oranti-abortionreform stancechanged.Indeed,Jackson
described a woman'srightto chooseabortion as a civilright, akinto the
right tofairhousing.301
WhenJackson madehisproposaltofeminist leaders, theleft-wing coali-
tionheenvisioned wasalready, tosomeextent, inplace.Supporters offair
housinglegislation tendednowalso tobe supporters ofabortion rights.302
Themembers ofthepre-Roeabortion reform coalitionhadbeenunitedby
support forlegalizedabortion,either as a woman'sright, a matterofpublic
health,or a toolin thefight to curbpopulation growth. AfterRoe,when
abortion was no longerdiscussedas an issueofpopulation control, that
coalitionchanged.By 1980,thesupporters of legalizedabortion tended
also to support therightsofa variety ofminorities: therights ofAfrican-
Americans, Latinos,NativeAmericans, thedisabled,homosexuals, andthe
elderly. Roe had helpedto redefineabortion politics.
Conclusion
Becausethecurrent scholarshiphas focusedon pro-life and pro-choice

advocacy,therehas beenlittle
discussion oftheways in which bothanti-
abortionadvocacy and abortion reform activismchangedfundamentally
andpartlybecauseof,Roe. Beforethedecision,thecoalitionthat
after,
calledforabortionreform did notdo so exclusively by invoking rights-
basedarguments.Populationcontrol arguments,amongotherpolicy-based
arguments,playedas importanta roleas rights-based
arguments inthepre-
ofmajorabortion
Roestrategies reform like
organizations NOW,NARAL,
298. Ibid.
299. See above, note 290, McGlory,"Opens AbortionWar,"1.
300. See "Jacksonthe OratorHas Become Jacksonthe Politician,"Los Angeles Times,
November27, 1983, 1.
301. See ibid.
302. See Mike Davis and Michael Sprinker,
eds.,ReshapingtheUS Left:PopularStruggles
in the 1980s (New York:Verso, 1988).

andPlannedParenthood. Population control organizations likeZPG orthe

Population Council also joined the call forthe removal of legalrestric-
tionson abortion. The abortionoppositioncoalitionwas also different
beforeRoe. Certainly, manymembers oftheanti-abortion coalitionwere
and
Catholics,Mormons, Baptists intent on protecting life,butthe
fetal
coalitionalso includedthoselikeJesseJackson orEdwardKennedy, who
wereconcerned thatabortion,as a methodofpopulation control, would
be usedtoharmtheinterests ofracialminorities.
Roe was a majorfactorin changingthearguments and coalitionson
eithersideofthedebate.Whenformany, abortionwasa population control
issueas wellas an issueofrights orpublichealth,civilrights leadersor
organizations wereas likelyto opposeabortion as theywereto support
it.Roe highlightedrights-based arguments related to privacyandchoice.
Gradually, as abortion reform activists took advantage of and manipu-
latedthisreasoning, andopposition organizations soughttocutoffpublic
funding forabortions, abortionitselfseemedto be an issueofrights for
womenandevenan issueofequalenforcement ofthatrightforminority
women.
Roeis oftencitedas examplebyscholarsstudying thelimited effectsof
judicialdecisionsonpolitical
debatesandtheinability ofcourts toconvince
citizensorpoliticiansto changetheirmindson controversial issues.The
effectofRoeontheroleofpopulation control andrights-based arguments
intheabortion debatesuggeststhatthisaccounttellsonlypartofthestory.
The history ofRoe notonlyshowswhatcourtscannotdo butalso sug-
gestswhyjudicialdecisionson controversial topicsmatter. By reframing
politicaldiscussionon abortion,Roe helpedtochangethearguments and
coalitionsthatdefined thatdebate.


The Framing of A Right To Choose Roe v. Wade and The Changing Debate On Abortion Law.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Framing of A Right To Choose Roe v. Wade and The Changing Debate On Abortion Law.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Society for Legal History

The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

The Framing of a Right to Choose: Roe v. Wade and the Changing

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

The SupremeCourt'sdecisionin Roe v. Wade,arguablythemosthotly

MaryZiegleris an OscarM. RuebhausenFellowin Law at Yale Law School

Law and HistoryReviewSummer2009,Vol. 27, No. 2

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

beforeRoe, havecome to dominatethedebateafterthedecision.However,

3. Thebest-known scholarshipon Roe andtheCourt'sabilityto producesocialchange

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

and providingan alternative to land redistributionas a way of increasing

5. MarkGraberhas studiedthegradualadoptionof pro-choice

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

reasonto makearguments thatappealedto racialminorities and other

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

HumanBetterment AssociationforVoluntary BeforeRoe

7. See JudyKlemesrud, Is AnswerForMany,"NewYorkTimes,January

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

thanthirty statesprovidedforthecompulsory of defective

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

But whileHumanBetterment increasingly used populationcontrol

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

USAID grantto pursueinternational

39. See ExecutiveDirector's Report,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

cusedon similarissues,especiallytheeffects oflegalizedabortion on the

55. "PopulationStudent,"NewYorkTimes,March17, 1969,27.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

64. See, e.g.,"TheAbortion

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

nenceafterthepublication of ThePopulation Bomb,a bookbyStanford

7 1. RayRipton,"FearforEnvironment ReachesGrassRoots,"LosAngelesTimes, Febru-

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

80. See,e.g.,KitBarnett, "WhereHaveAlltheShrinking VioletsGone,"ChicagoTribune,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

tionreform movement of adopting population controlarguments before

Roe and Doe

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

of themother,was unconstitutional.92 The Conferencewas moredivided

92. Roe v.Wade,ConferenceofDecember16, 1971,inTheWilliamO. DouglasPapers,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

rightwas notabsolute,ithad to be weighedagainstStateinterests already

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

bodies and to have abortionsby choice."109 Women's liberationactivists

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

tionor populationcontrolmovements.In thewinterof 1977, thehead of

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

domesticresearchon thesafetyoforalcontraception ratherthaninternational

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

goals were"immigration reform,expansionof women'sopportunities,

II. PopulationControlor Choice

Thechanging strategies usedbyNARAL,NOW,andPlannedParenthood

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

However,beforeRoe, policy-basedarguments, designedto sway public

129.ModelPenalCode Section230.3 (American Law Institute proposedofficial

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM

exceptthathisactionbe in accordwithgenerally acceptedstandardsof

135.EileenShanahan, "DoctorLeads Group'sChallengetoAnti- AbortionLaw,"New

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.193 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:02:00 AM