U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature Author(s): Robin Elliott, Lynn C.

Landman, Richard Lincoln, Theodore Tsuoroka Reviewed work(s): Source: Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. i-xvi Published by: Guttmacher Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2133834 . Accessed: 08/02/2012 15:03
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.

Guttmacher Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Family Planning Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

U. S. Population Growthand FamilyPlanning: A Review of the Literature

4C

"wZ1.

IL,

vit

444
TT

Jr

Ii,

Al.

ij

WI

.4

eAt

and FamilyPlanning: U.S. PopulationGrowth A Reviewof the Literature

ByRobin Elliott, Lynn Landman, C. Richard Lincoln and Theodore Tsuoroka U.S. population growth recently has as argument emerged a prominent Another relatesU.S. population growth dwinto national concern. 20 oreven10 years Yet particularly non-replaceable ago,whengrowth to rates dlingworldresources, minerals werehigher thanthey today, are in interest theissuewas negli- and fuels.This country, withsome six percent the world's of gible.Duringthe 1930s,in fact, preoccupation rather was in with population 1966,consumed percent theworld's 34 of energy 29 a potential of declinein theU.S. population. What,tllen, and explains production, percent all steelproduction, 17 percent of all thetimber thetoneofthecurrent cut.4 debate? Suchfigures to thereasoning each lead that The interest be tracedto two general birth may areasof concern: American contributes moreto the drainon worldrefar thandoes,say,an Indianbirth by morethan25 times, population pressures worldwide, urbanand environmentalserves and deteriorationhome. at suggests biologist WayneDavis.5The problem becomesmore apparent the UnitedStatesbecomesincreasingly as dependent for continued its industrial growth upontheresources thedeof World Population Resources and veloping world.Sincethe 1930s,the U.S. has shifted from the RecentU.N. estimates the size of the worldpopulation in position a netexporter minerals thatof a net of of of to importer, theyear2000 rangefrom to 7.0 billion 5.5 persons, to twice with up heaviest reliance outside on sources suchbasicresources for its present size.' Present ratesadd to our population some70 as crudeoil,ironore,copper, lead and zinc.6Meanwhile, some million persons each year,or another six geologists New YorkCityevery claim,serious shortages amongcertain minerals are weeks.Impliedin theseprojections thatpopulation is growth developing. quotetheCommittee Resources Man of To on and continuing present at rateswillconflict, perhaps critically, with theNational Academy Sciences: of thepossibilities modernization for among developing the nations, Trueshortages orthreaten many exist for substances that andwillinthelongrunthreaten ecology theentire the of world. are considered essential current for industrial society: According demographer to Nathan Keyfitz: mercury, tungsten helium, example. tin, and for Known and now-prospective reserves thesesubstances be of will Ifcurrent ofpopulation rates increase notabate,world do nearly exhausted theendofthis by or in century early the population 2050 could approach18 billion in peoplenext.. .7 well overhalfthe number worldcan everhope to the sustain, evenat a levelofchronic near-starvation all.2 for Somescientists claimthat American demand foreign on sources of supply willdepleteresources whichmight be otherwise left Thesegrim statistics beenappliedtotheAmerican have scenein for development modernization those and in a number ways.It is suggested, example, of for thattheUnited available industrial at date,8and thatin the longer runthe deStatesshouldput itsown 'population house'in order it is to countries a future if themselves find may their internal external and maintain international goodwillas it lends active support to velopednations of drying In thissense, moveto curbU.S. up. the population control the developing in countries. U.S. growth sources supply demand primary for products through population conmaybe modest relation ratesin most in to developing countries aggregate line against anticipated (lessthanonepercent annually, compared with world a average trolmaybe seen as thefirst of defense shortages, alleviation which the of might otherwise ofmore have thantwopercent), nonetheless population but U.S. may resource through restrictions rising on standards living. of double 70 years in evenas policies control beingsponsored to be sought of are Nutritionist Mayer Jean writes: abroad. Thus,ecologist Ehrlich Paul writes: The earth's streams, woodsand animalscan accommoForus to succeedinpersuading other peopleto decrease datethemselves better a rising to poorpopulation than to their birth rateswe must able to advocate"do as we be a rising population. rich Indeed,to save theecology the aredoing," "do as we say."3 not population havetodecrease thedisposable will as income Robin Elliottis Coordinator PopulationActivities of and Theodore Tsuoincreases.9 roka is ProgramPlanningAnalystof Planned Parenthood-World Population.RichardLincolnis Editorand LynnC. Landmanis AssociateEditorof Ben Wattenberg takesissue withthisposition a recent in Family Planning Perspectives.The report was prepared in behalf of article. What, asks, Dr. Mayer's he is prescription?
Planned Parenthood'sPopulation Education StaffCommitteeas a basis fordiscussion and actionon theU.S. population of problemby thePlanned Parenthood nationalorganization.

Is he against affluent peoplehaving babiesbut notpoor people,eventhough affluent relatively anythe have few

ii

The linkis drawnby a number ecologists other of and bioscientists between "ecocatastrophe" the (Paul Ehrlich's descripthe who Economist Robert Heilbroner, supports Mayer-Ehrlichtion17) environmental of pollution and the size of population. that: position, draws from their analyses conclusion the Writes Lamont Cole: C. . . . the underdeveloped countries can never hope to . . . there nowayfor tosurvive is us except haltpopulato with' developedcountries. Givenour achieveparity the or tiongrowth completely even to undergo periodof a there not present prospective and technology, aresimply population decrease as I anticipate, if, definitive studies rate enough resources permit "Western" ofindustrial to a showourpopulation be already to beyond whattheearth billion of exploitation be expanded a population four to to cansupport a continuous on basis.Just we must as control - much lesseight billion persons." our interference the chemical with cyclesthatprovide theatmosphere itsoxygen, with carbonand nitrogen, so and Fisher12 Some writers, notably FrankNotestein, Joseph must control birth we our rate.18 HaroldJ.Barnett, have takenissuewiththosewho claimthat beSaid Dr. Notestein we facea shortage natural of resources. EcologistBarryCommoner sharesthe concernof his col1970: in fore Population the Association America April of leagueswith environmental butsaysthattheproblem the crisis, is notprimarily population growth, the failure political but of Thanks, indeed,to the highconsumption the develof institutions assertcontrol to over the use of technology. He the and oped world, have generated knowledge techwe writes: and niquesthathavegreatly expanded boththesupplies in thereserves . . . rawmaterials theworld.13 of Myownestimate that areunlikely avoidenvironis we to AndDr. Barnett concludes: mental catastrophe the 1980s unlesswe are able by by thattime correct fundamental to the incompatibilities of returns Natural resource scarcity and diminishing majortechnologies withthe demandof the ecosystem. bear.14 through arenota curse time that society must Thismeans that willneedtoputintooperation we essentially emissionless versions automotive of vehicles, power He points technological factor to development "thedynamic as plants, refineries, millsand chemical steel plants.Agricomin the declining cost trendforagricultural mineral and cultural will technology need to find waysof sustaining modities." productivity without breaking down the naturalsoil or cycle, disrupting natural the control destructive inof sects.Sewageand garbage willneed to treatment plants DomesticUrbanand Environmental Problems be designed return to organic wasteto thesoilwhere, in Often Rate Attributed Population to Growth it nature, belongs. will Vegetation need to be massively reintroduced urbanareas.Housingand urbansaniinto In largepartthecurrent growth concern withU.S. population tary facilities needtobe drastically will In improved. my decay, maybe tracedto domestic issuessuchas environmental in view,unlesstheseactions taken, the 1980slargeare urban blight, urbanviolence, crowded highways parksand and scale environmental disasters likely occur, least to are at whichashightaxlevels.The literature aboundswiththeories inthehighly developed regions theworld.19 of our social sumeor attempt establish relationship to a between maladiesand our increasein numbers. Amongthe problems Among images the most frequently by thosewhowould used whichone finds attributed partor in whole to the size or call attention the U.S. population in to problemis crowding the crowding peoplein cities growth ofourpopulation disruption theecology, rate are of of and ofcarson highways, restricting socio-psychological stressesof urban society,and economic freedom movement reducing of and each person's of enjoyment strains, especially high taxes. scarceland resources suchas beachesand national parks.It is John Chapman D. defines ecologist one who "sees the suggested the as thatcrowding creates strains stresses theinand for natural in worldas a seriesof inter-related systems a stateof dividual which toofrequently expressed disruption all are in and dynamic equilibrium which into Man intrudes an unbalancing violence thegroup. as for Studies animal of behavior (forexample, factor."'5 pollution waterand airwithindustrial wastes, those rats The of of conducted John Calhoun NIMH20) cited of by B. are and as evidenceof the debilitating chemical and rise fertilizers gasoline fumes gives tochemical effect can crowding have upon in thermal injury socialandsexual changes thebiosystem which deliver immediate Writes Keyfitz: Dr. relationships. totheenvironment in addition, off chainofdistortions and, set a Food riots occurin Bombay, and civilriots Newark, in in thepattern plantand animallifethroughout system. the of and even Washington, D.C. This ultimate Memphis, of Such imbalances, ironically, a directoutgrowth Man's are manifestation population of whichcolorsthe density, his and capacityto manipulate environment, are mostwidesocialhistory all continents,a challenge can no of is that in whichare technologically most spreadand serious countries longer deferred. willnotceaseuntil be It conpopulation advanced. Under a Prodpresent conditions,highGross National is trol a fact.21 is uct tendsto producepollution, thisin turn, and ironically, in population to historian Suggesting a recentarticlethat "spiralling likelyto add further the GNP. Writeseconomic is growth" responsible "many our tensions failures," for of and Robert Lekachman: Representative Morris Udallgives someexamples: If a new pulp mill discharges chemicalwastesinto a The numbersof people jammed into our large cities are hitherto cleanstream, GNP willgo up, notonlybethe increasinglyominous. Crime rates soar. Freeways and cause of the mill'svaluable outputbut because other airportsare overloaded with traffic. enterprises municipalities and locateddownstream from Some schools are in
iii

the way?Or perhaps it thathe is justagainst idea of is letting more any poorpeoplebecomeaffluent people,beand causethey willthen too consume many too resources causemore pollution?10

thepolluter be compelled invest cleansing will to in devicesrequired return waterto usablecondition.16 to the

doublesessions. racialstrife, rotting Thereis poverty, the of our centralcities,the formless and ugly sprawlof urbanization.22

Somewriters believethatsuch strains our society on spring notfrom howmuchpopulation growing, from wayin is the but which is distributed. it James of Sundquist theBrookings Institution,forexample, calls fora national policyof population reEconomicCosts distribution: ... [to] encourage accelerated an rateof growth the in smaller naturaleconomiccenters the country's of less densely populated regions, the alternative further as to concentrations population the largermetropolitan of in
areas.23

are no worsein thosecountries thanhere.... We must attackthe problems pollution, of urban deterioration, juvenile delinquency thelikedirectly, ifsensible and and programs evolved,continued are population growth in the orderof one-percent annually would not make the programs tangibly effective. less

to retard economic growth all but a veryfew countries in in specialcircumstances (such as Australia). Coale statesthe Dr. simply: In a similar veinare recent statements Herman by Chief argument Miller, ofthePopulation Divisionof the U.S. Bureauof the Census,24 In the shortrun,not onlydoes a population withreand the Reportof President Nixon'sNationalGoals Research ducedfertility enjoythebenefit dividing national of the Staff.25 Miller: Says product among smaller a number consumers; enjoys of it theadditional benefits having larger of a national product We haveserious population problems and they are today todivide.29 likely intensify thenext15 years. to in Theseproblems relate to the geographic distribution to thevalues of and For the UnitedStatesspecifically, economist StephenEnke our people rather than to theirnumbers and ratesof argues: growth. . . . an evergrowing is population noteconomically desirTheWhite Housegroup concludes follows: as able. . . in fact,per capita incomeswill be higherthe sooner stationary stable a and population attained.30 is . . . onedecision which not appears tobe urgent that is of overall ofthepopulation evenafter effects a size the of According Dr. Enke,theU.S. economy to wouldbenefit from considerable amount immigration takenintoacof are a reduced zerorateofpopulation or growth twoways: in count. The issueofpopulation distributiona different is * In the short run,it would decreasethe number young of and matter, one to be taken of seriously regardless what dependents, thereby reducing private and public (i.e., tax)exmaybe theupper limit population of size. for penditures education, training, subsistence other and support Ansley Coale,Director Princeton of University's Office Popu- for dependent the of population. lation Research, agreesand takesissuewithwhathe sees as the * In thelonger itwouldincrease run, capital/labor ratios (and simplistic too often link drawn between population growth and henceproductivity), the smaller as cohorts beginto enterthe ecological disruption urban and stress. writes: He laborforce. Economist AlanSweezyadds another dimension thearguto . . . it has becomefashionable blamealmost to every nament, that suggesting someofthemore undesirable concomitants tional failure shortcoming rapidpopulation or on growth ofeconomic and are growth (e.g., pollution congestion) caused - theugliness andhopelessness slum of life, and wasteful moreby the population-increase thantheyare by component irritating traffic jams, unemployment delinquency and economic between development se. He drawsa distinction per among disturbingly fraction adolescents the large of who dropoutofschool, pollution airand water two kindsof economic the development: rising per capita income of and the disappearance thenatural of beautyof our country beunder conditions constant of and stationary population, per hind a curtainof billboards and under a blanketof He of capita incomeunderconditions increasing population. Kleenex beercans....26 and writes: He decries attempts "blame" to population growth theseills: for The larger population in the the component growth, more increased and of outputwill take the form necessities Fertility theurban in ghettoes fallifdiscrimination will is long-established comforts life. The moreincreased of if alleviated, educational employment and opportunities output takestheform necessities, harder willbe of the it areequalized.... Pollution causedbyinternal is combusto gainconsideration ecological, aesthetic recreaand for tionenginesas operatedat presentand by the unretional valuesifthey standin theway ofexpanding prostricted of discharge noxious fumes from othersources duction.31 intotheatmosphere. Similarly, water is pollution caused of bythedischarge noxious effluents rivers, into lakesand oceans.A population halfor three-quarters current the Goals U.S. Population one in the U.S. could ruinthe potability our fresh of watersuppliesand poisonour atmosphere the unreby Whatare thegoalsof thosewho call attention a 'population to stricted discharge waste.... In fact, of most thesocial of in problem' theUnitedStates?Is there optimum an population andeconomic problems ascribed ourexcessive to populaor an optimum are rateon whichmostcommentators growth tionin the U.S. or to its excessive rate of growth are moregenerally 'slow down' the to agreed,or is the objective affected moreby how ourpopulation chosento dishas current of growth? rate What are the demographic constraints tribute itselfthanby itssize.... The density populaof upon achievinga givenrate of growth(e.g., the relationship betionis muchhigher France,theUnitedKingdom in and Netherlands. pollution, Yet tween currentfertility traffc jams and delinquency rates and futuregrowthrates) and what
iv

per capita income.27'28 the contrary, On population growth tends

Most economists longerbelievethatsubstantial no population growth essential confident is to investment activity and rising

distribution? ... growth orofpopulation of Problem population Crowding: Urban

arethedemographic implications (e.g.,age structure) a popu- currentand projected growthrates. Writes sociologistWilliam of Petersen: lation given orgrowth of size rate? One point leastis clear:thenecessity theeventual at cesfor One is on firmer ground to contend . . . not that the sation population of growth As worldwide. Dr. Coale observes: United States is overpopulated,but that its population growth been, and probablywill remain,so greatthat has A long-range of average growth zerowillbe theinevitable the disadvantages consequent fromit will become inlimits on the one hand, consequenceof inevitable creasingly evident.36 extinction.32 standing room only, ontheother, and The relevant question, then, notif the U.S. and other is nationsshouldat sometimeactively support reducedrate of a growth, when, but howandat whatcostthis rate reduced should be achieved. question given tospeculations tothe The as has rise 'optimum population' theUnited for States. The concept optimum of population of implies existence the independent criteria (e.g., wealth, livingspace,per capitaincome,quality life)uponwhichthejudgment of maybe based. In theory, 'optimum' be defined a given the at may for society a given stageoftechnological development, willchangeover and time. practice, In however, concept the appearselusive. Writes demographer Lincoln Day:
It is this theme- reductionin the U.S. population growth rate,ratherthan establishment an optimumsize - whichhas of been mostprominent thediscussion populationgoals. in of Reducing the GrowthRate

Of thosecommentators who believe thatthe presentU.S. population growth rate is too high,some would have it reduced to a fraction the presentrate,while otherswould strivefora zero of or even negative rate. David Lilienthal,for example, calls for "a slowerrisein thesize ofourpopulationrather thanthepresent steep increase,"37 while William H. Draper would have "the UnitedStatesconsiderand thenaccept a zero growth rateas our nationaloptimumgoal here."38 Lee DuBridge, whilehe was Dr. So faras optimum is concerned thedependence size ... of humanwell-being the interplay manydiverse PresidentNixon's science advisor,urged "everyhuman instituon of elements permits to setonly us very broadlimits. Recogtion- school,university, church,family, government interand nition thefort ecological, of of resource sociallimits and nationalagency [to set reductionof our populationgrowthrate setsthe maximum number people who can be supof to zero] as itsprimetask."39 ported thereby and narrows range; there the but remains, Part of the reason forthis sense of urgencyrestsin a simple nevertheless, considerable a latitude within whichthe demographictheorem:thata zero growth rate would be two or optimum canbe located.33 size threegenerations distanteven if fertility were reduced now to Whilemost writers haveshiedawayfrom assigning specific the level of the replacement.If this rate were achieved today, a valueto optimum population, fewhave claimedthatpresent accordingto estimates a preparedby Tomas Frejka,40 stationary a size population exceedsit. Dr. Day, forexample, holdsthatit populationwould not be reached until60 or 70 yearsfromnow wouldhave been "better" the U.S. population stopped - the period of time required forthe population age structure if had growing 150 million at persons, thatsuch an "optimum" to assume a stationary and pattern.Dr. Frejka warnsthatto achieve population wouldafford individual the "serenity, it dignity, order, zero populationgrowthimmediately, would be necessaryfor leisure, peace,beauty, elbowroom . . necessary thecultiva- each family limititself one childonlyforthenext20 yearsor . to to to tionofthewholeperson." WayneDavis believes that"we have so, with two-childfamiliesnot permissibleuntil afterthe year far more peoplenowthan cancontinue support anything 2000. As Dr. Coale pointsout,thiswould so skew the age strucwe to at neartoday's levelofaffluence."34 Referring world to population, ture of the populationas to disruptthe normalworkings the of theCommittee Resources Man suggests "A human society. and on that population thanthepresent wouldoffer besthope less one the Similarconclusionsto thoseof Dr. Frejka have been reached forcomfortable livingforour descendants...."35 by economistStephen Enke; by his estimates,"the population The inherent problem definitiontheconcept 'optimum ceilingforthiscountry of in of may be no lower than about 350 million population' limited usefulness thediscussion popu- and achievedno soonerthanabout 2065 A.D."'4 has its in of lationgoals and policy.More usefulhas been the notion of Census Bureau projectionspublished in 1967 assume that
v

by the year2000 completed size of Americans family would have not yet reachedcrisislevels favorbuildingon existing rangefrom highof 3.35 children a low of 2.45 children, motivation. mostof the measures a to For proposed, predictions of which wouldgivetheU.S. a population from to 356 mil- success remain untried speculative. of 280 and lion.Since1966,theseprojections The alternative the (mostly popularly, "low" approaches thepopulation to problem alike are 300 million projection) the haveformed basisuponwhichmost in one respect:theyare directed exclusively towards reducing In writers estimated seriousness theproblem. August fertility, theassumption have the with of implicit anypolicygearedto that 1970,however, CensusBureaureleaseda revised the and con- increase mortality, second the determinantpopulation of growth, lowerrangeof population siderably projections. the would be clearlyunacceptable.The thirddeterminant, Explaining net revision, Bureaucommented only lowest the1967 immigration, rarely the that the of is suggested a target,'though conas it projections (Series D) conformed withactual experiences of tributes increasing an portion (currently, about20 percent) of thesucceeding three years.42 highest the The series under earlier theannualgrowth rate. forecast (SeriesA,basedontheassumption completed of fertility at 3.35 children woman)was dropped,and a new "low" per Planning Experience series(SeriesE, based on theassumption completed of fertilityThe Family at replacement, 2.11 children woman)was added. With The widespread or per adoption nations policies programs by of and of theseassumptions, estimated of theU.S. population the size in fertility control a phenomenon is primarily thepast decade. of theyear2000 ranges 266 from millions 321 millions. to Demo- Even voluntary family planning programs werenotconsidered grapher DonaldBoguecomments theshift expectations: on in seriously a means lower as to fertility until 1960swhen rates the thedevelopment theoralcontraceptive theintrauterine of and is a Population growth no longer major socialproblem in device (IUD) brought new hope thatunwanted could fertility theUnited States.... The eraofzeropopulation growth is nearly uponus.. .. Thisis a very different be eliminated picture from through widedissemination thesehighly of effecthatwhich presented itself onlya fewyearsago [when] tive, relatively simple and inexpensive methods. it lookedas if the U.S. was headingintoa verysevere The first yearsof experience few withfamily planning proIt population crisis. now appearsthatwe have resolved grams someAsiancountries in (notably Taiwanand Korea,and it.43 based mainly the IUD) engendered on considerable optimism aboutthepossibility significantly of AndDr. Notestein Frank reducing birthrates. states: Notestein,47 example,predicted 1967 that population for in It is notat all beyond belief that, withcontraceptives of growth rates developing in countries wouldbe reducedto 1-1.5 everincreasing and efficiency legalabortion, fertility may percent the end of the century a level sufficiently to by low fallbelowreplacement level.44 enablethesecountries achievenecessary to He modernization. (He adds,however, "andofcourse maynot.") it basedhisoptimism four on factors: * development national of policies favoring family planning, The ultimate composition a stationary age in population has * demonstrated publicinterest limiting in childbearing, for somewriters raisedquestions toitsdesirability. Coale, as Dr. * improvementcontraceptive of technology, and for example, notes: * reduction thebirth of ratein several as countries Oriental . . . a stationary withan expectation lifeof population of theresult government control of birth programs (Korea,Taiwan, 70 wouldhaveas many peopleover60 years under as 15. HongKong, Singapore). The median wouldbe about35.45 age He concludes: He suggests under that suchconditions peoplemight more be it Whatever happens, is probable that, short a major of rise conservative less receptive change.Advancement auand to in in thedeathrate, population growth notbe stopped will for thority the aspiring youngpersonwouldbe moredifficult, for somedecades.Giventhenecessary it effort, however, moreover, there since wouldbe as many peopleaged 50 years as does seemlikely thatgrowth be reducedto levels will there wouldbe aged 20. Dr. Day doesnotsee thisas a problem, thatcan be copedwithin a world rapidly of developing science technology. thelongrun, course, and In and points thattheage structure a stationary of out growth of population stop.Quitepossibly, willnotdo so evenifevery it in theUnitedStateswouldbe similar thatof contemporary must to coupleis abletolimit childbearing theprecise its to numSweden Britain. and berofchildren wants. a world which couples it in But all areable tochoosethesize oftheir will family be a world in whichan alteration institutional of constraints would Alternative Approachesto CheckingPopulation Growth prove rather quickly effective. EmphasizeVoluntary Practicesor Governmental Coercion A month after appearance Dr. Notestein's the of 'optimistic' Alternative strategies recommended thosewhoseeka reduc- projections, by Kingsley Davis published majorcritique family a of tionin U.S. population growth range from voluntary family planning a meansto population as control.48 Davis insisted that planning practices coercive to governmental action. The pattern if family planning were to remainthe onlymeanstakenby of policychoicescorresponds rather closely, might ex- governments reducefertility, rateof population as be to the growth pected, thesenseofurgency which to with eachwriter viewsthe wouldcontinue an unacceptable at level,bothin industrial and 'population problem.' Thosewhosee ecological crisis nearly upon in developing countries: us tend to favormore draconian measures, such as putting Zero population growth the ultimate [is] goal,because in sterilants thewater supply, whilethosewhoconsider we that
One of the few who call for a net immigration rate of zero is Stephen Enke,himself advocateofzero population an growth.4'
*

any growthrate,if continued,will eventuallyuse up the earth . .. at most,familyplanning can reduce reproduction to the extentthat unwanted birthsexceed wanted

vi

U. S. Population and BirthRate, 1800-1970 and "High" and "Low" Projections for 1970-1990 Births Thousand per _ Populationin Millions **.g
400

Projected"High" Birth Rate * Projected"Low" Birth Rate _

Projected"Low" PopulationGrowth Rate ***** Projected"High" PopulationGrowth Rate --

*

55

350 Population in Millions 300

___

-

-

0 Births per Thousand 5

4__

-

-

250

_____40

200
150

35____

3;1___0

100

2

50

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_20

0

1800

_

_

_

_

1820

_

_

_

_

1840

_

_

_

_

1860

_

_

_

_

1880

1900

_

_

_

_

1920

_

_

_

_

1940

1960 1970 1980 1990

15

Source: 1970-1990 ProjectionsfromCurrentPopulation Reports,Series P-25, No. 448, 1970.

Two years followingthe publication of the Notestein and Davis articles,BernardBerelsonof the Population Council comassumption on are piled an analysisof the various mechanismsproposed forpopuof Mill:ons dollars beingspent thefalse plancan by control be achieved family thatpopulation contraceppointvoluntary Taking as his starting lationcontrol.53 the ... ningprograms couplescan find meansto reduce mission tion (familyplanning), which in additionto its primary any if fertility theywantto do so, without family their as a socio-medicalserviceto individualsand familiesis currently to planningprograms help them....49 the only accepted method of population controlin the United policies which governplan- States,Berelsonexamined29 alternative family defined critics, likemostsubsequent Dr. Davis, de- mentswere being urged to take beyond,or in additionto, family of for ningas a euphemism the distribution contraceptive such"volun- planning.While the scope of Dr. Berelson'sreviewis worldwide, withrejecting planners family vices,and charged and as measures legalization encouragementthe examples he quotes are all relevantto the debate over U.S. control tary" birth of forms sexual populationpolicy.His proposalsare arrangedaccordingto eight and and sterilization "unnatural of abortion categories,paraphrasedbelow: intercourse."*

births wouldstill of births.... The elimination unwanted high leavean extremely rateofmultiplication.

a on the planning major that mentation makes emphasis family control."52 to obstacle population

he article, declared: In another

of problems of planners neglecting He also accuses family of onlywiththe numbers and motivation of beingconcerned he devices."Overlooked," womenwho acceptedcontraceptive of says,"is thefactthata desirefortheavailability contracep"thatthe He withhighfertility." also insists tivesis compatible a mustbe changedbefore deliband socialstructure economy As rate in erate reduction thebirth canbe achieved. itis,reliance is 'something being allowspeopletofeelthat planning onfamily painful the without needfor problem' doneaboutthepopulation the "an It socialchanges." represents escape from real issues," population has in thatno country taken"thenextstep"toward on of and and control, in that"support encouragement research is planning]" negligible. policy[otherthanfamily population and thinking experiof this It is precisely blocking alternative

promolegalizationof abortion,55 care services,54 tionofmaternal sterilization. tionof voluntary

InstitutionalizaControl. * Extensions Voluntary Fertility of of Addition Control. * Establishment Involuntary Fertility of

and "child licenses,"57 to sterilants the water supply;56 temporary compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock "child certificates";58 pregnancies;59compulsorysterilizationof men with three or morechildren.60

population Introducing Educational Campaigns. * Intensified
* Male sterilization planning has played a centralrole in the Indian family and therapeutic in femalesterilization the PuertoRican program, program, does not indicate "unabortionin the Japaneseprogram.The literature of component a governas of naturalforms sexual intercourse" an official program.50'15 planning family ment-sponsored

vii

Somesee government coercion onlyanswer population the to control.

Dr. Berelson's paperprovides useful a basisfordiscussion of themechanisms proposed population for control, whichare ar* Incentive Programs. Providing direct payments delay- rangedbelow in two categories: for thosewhichaim to change ingpregnancy,63 beingsterilized,64 accepting for for preferences if thatfails,to resort moredirect contracep- fertility and, to tion.65 meansofinfluencing family (e.g., theDavis position), size and * Tax and Welfare Benefits Penalties. example, and For sub- thosewhichare predicated existing on to motivation prevent stituting anti-natalist an system socialselvices theexisting unwanted of for pregnancy (e.g., the Notestein position). pronatalist system, withdrawing by maternity benefits child or and family allowances after Nthchild,66 by limiting or govern- 'Direct'and 'Indirect' Means ofAltering Fertility Behavior ment housing, scholarships loansto families fewer and with than Based on OverallSocial Needs
satelliteTV.62

and family planning material the schools;6' in use of national

* Is the scientific/medical/technological available or base likely? . . . the principalcause of . . . [population] growthin the United States [is] the reproduction * WilltheGovernment behaviorofthe majorapprove? ity of Americans who, under present conditions,want * Can theproposal administered? be families morethanthreechildrenand thereby of generate * Can thesociety afford proposal? the a growth ratefarin excess ofthatrequiredforpopulation * Is the proposalacceptableethically, morally, philosophistability.9' cally? * In the short run, however, Dr. Hardin concedes the possibilitiesof * Willitwork? Says the On a timescale of 10-20 years,Dr. Berelsongave highest voluntarism. he: "I am surethatwe can do a lot towardsbringing birthrate in this country down to a mere replacement level if we make scoreson all countsto family planning programs, intensifiedit reallypossibleforeverybody have birthcontrolat the time and the to educational efforts augmented and research. place thathe or she needs it."86
viii

tors, includingPaul Ehrlich,87 KingsleyDavis,88and Alice Day.89 Reference frequently is made to such sourcesas the 1960 Growth powerful super-agencies populationcontrol;80 for promotion of AmericanFamilies study,90 which the average familysize in of Zero Population Growthas world or nationalpolicy.8' preference marriedwomen was reportedas 3.2 childrenper of * Augmented ResearchEfforts. Social research discover to family. This number,it is pointedout, exceeds the average commeansofachieving lowerfertility;82 biological research toward pleted familysize which is associated with population stabilizaimprovedcontraceptive technology;83 determination sex retion (approximately2.11). If a stationary population is to be search.84 achieved, it will be necessaryfirst motivateparents to have to In evaluating each of the alternatives, Berelson Dr. asked a smallerfamilies.JudithBlake, Chairman of the Departmentof series sixquestions: of Demography at Berkeley,expressesthe point as follows: on population controlas conditionof foreignaid;79 creation of

of typearepredicated thebelief on thatadequate singleand childless persons, thosehaving and less thanN chil- Measures this reduction dependuponchanges themotivations will in dren;69 provision State of N yearsfreeschooling each fertility by to with and nuclear family, be allocated family desired;70 to by as pensions uponwhich(orinthefreedom which)peopleconceive bearchildren. critical The point hereis thatcurrent motivations for poorparents with fewer thanN children.7' relate individual to these preferences, that and may * Shifts Socialand Economic in Institutions. example, For in- andfreedoms creasing minimum ofmarriage;72 age promotion requirement bear no relationto overallsocial needs. To quote Garrett or Hardin:85 of femaleparticipation laborforce;73 in selective restructuring of family relation the restof society;74 in to of promotion two The sumtotalofpersonalchoices about family size on the types marriage, childless theother of one and licensed chilfor partof individualcouples actingin theirown self-interest dren;75 encouragement long-range of social trends leadingtomay verywell add up to ruinousdemographicconditions wardlowerfertility;76 improved status women;77 of continuing forsocietyas a whole.* efforts lowerinfant childdeathrates.78 to and The pointhas been stressedby a numberof othercommenta* Approaches Political via Channels and Organization. Insist

N children;67 tax on births;68 reversal of tax benefitsto favor

In attempting changethe fertility to behaviorof the U.S. population, theseand other writers wouldselect from range a of to measures, varying moderate from (e.g.,population education) extreme in (e.g., placingfertility control agents thewatersupply). Theyare notusually posed as mutually exclusive options fora society, rather alternative but as whichmight approaches be triedin progression. a recenteditorial Science,for in In Garrett as Hardin example, argues follows: mustbe How can we reducerepeoduction? Persuasion Tomorrow's mothers triedfirst. must be educated to seekcareers other than motherhood. multiple Community outside nurseries neededto freewomenforcareers are thehome.Mildcoercion maysoonbe accepted forexample,tax rewards reproductive for nonproliferation. Butin thelongruna purely voluntary system selects for its own failure:non-cooperators outbreedcooperators . . . If parenthood a right, is is population control im-

Someofthemoreadventurous chemical approaches involunto tary fertility control, chemist Carl Djerassipoints in a recent out article, and willcontinue be beyond reachof contraare to the ceptivetechnology manyyears.Of such "Orwellian" for proposalsas theaddition temporary of sterilants wateror staple to foods, Djerassisays: Dr. . . . it is perfectly clearthatthe development suclh of a universal birth control agentis outside realm posthe of in . sibility thiscentury. . . Immunological approaches, though probably slightly moreeasilyimplemelntedan in 'Orwellian' society thantheaddition a sterilant food of to and water, stillso faraway thattheydo notmerit are serious consideration within context [this the of article].94 Someoftheproposals wouldhave universal impact, whereas others would have selectiveimpactdepending the socioon economic status theindividual of (see Table 1). The latter distinction maybe important terms the anticipated in of political response each program. to Programs designed restructure to the family (forexample, postponing by marriage by increasing or employment opportunities women for outside home) might the carry certain economic political or costs, they but wouldat least to apply everyone equally. Theycontrast programs with designed to eliminate welfare payments mothers for withmorethantwo children, sterilize to unwed mothers, to abort all out-ofor wedlock pregnancies; measures such tendto strike selectively at thepoor- and in specific instances havedoneso. Thus,a number of billshave been introduced sterilize to mothers welfare

possible.92

Kingsley Davis' pessimism somewhat is more qualified: measures Withindirect that [that measures leavepeois, ple freeto maketheir own reproductive decisions but the which alter conditions those affecting decisions], one hopesthatcompulsory measures notbecomeneceswill sary. can be argued It that over-reproduction-that is,the bearing more of than four children-is worse a crime than mostand shouldbe outlawed. One thinks the possiof bility raising minimum of marriage, imof the age of posing stiff penalties illegitimate for pregnancy, comof sterilization a fifth birth.93 pulsory after

who have more than one out-of-wedlock child,95though no legislation been introduced sterilize has to parentsingeneral who

Table 1. Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, Universalityor Selectivity of Impact by UniversalImpact Social Constraints Restructure family: a) Postponeor avoid marriage b) Alterimage of ideal family size education of chilCompulsdry dren Encourage increasedhomosexuality Educate forfamily limitation SelectiveImpactDependingon Socio-Economic Status EconomicDeterrents/Incentives tax Modify policies: a) Substantial marriage tax b) Child tax morethansingle c) Tax married d) Removeparents' exemption tax e) Additional taxeson parents withmore than 1 or 2 children school in Reduce/eliminate paid maternity leave or benefits Social Controls Compulsory abortion outof of-wedlock pregnancies on Compulsory of sterilization all who have two children exceptfora few who would be allowed three to Confine childbearing only a limited number adults of Stock certificate-type permitsforchildren HousingPolicies: Discouragement priof vate home ownership b) Stop awarding public housing based on family size MeasuresPredicatedon Existing Motivation Prevent to Unwanted Pregnancy Payments encouragesterilization to Payments encourage to contraception Payments to Payments encourageabortion to Abortion sterilization detmand and on Allow certain contraceptives be to distributed non-medically Improvecontraceptive technology Make contraception truly available accessibleto all Improvematernalhealth care, with family planningas a core element

Reduce/eliminatechildren's or family Fertility control control agentsinwater allowances agentsin water Fertility alloand supply Bonuses and greater Bonusesfordelayedmarriage Encouragepwomen work child-spaeing marria) child-spacing Encouragewomento work Pensionsforwomenof 45 withless than N children EliminateWelfarepayments afterfirst 2 children Chronic Depression Requirewomento workand providefew childcare facilities medical Limit/eliminate public-financed loans and subcare, scholarships, housing, morethanN children with sidiestofamilies

Source: FrederickS. Jaffe, "Activities Relevantto the Studyof PopulationPolicyfortheU.S.," Memorandum Bernard to March 11, 1969. Berelson, ix

kind would inevitablydiscriminate against those who were less

paymentsfor sterilization, have four, payment of all costs of fiveor ten children. similar A judgment applies to government high marriagelicense fees,levyingof a "child tax,"and proposals theelimination taxexemptions children, for of for or abortion, pregnancies be aborted. Less fortheimposition a "childtax,"whichwouldaffect of various requiringthat all out-of-wedlock "sensational"measures considered by Davis include the followsocio-economic groups differentially. for Thosemethods which and involve penalties rewards given ing: to cease taxingsingle persons at a rate higherthan married modes fertility of behavior dependto a largeextent upona prior persons; to stop givingparents special tax exemptions;to abancondition: of equal accessofall individuals themeans effective don income tax policies which discriminateagainst working to leaves; to reduce familyallowbirth control. the absenceof such a condition, law of this wives; to reduce paid maternity a In

able thanothers fulfill requirements. to its Economist Joseph J. Spengler drawsattention thisin connection hisproposal to with basis to rewardsmallfamilies financially on a deferred through socialsecurity the He system. writes: The arrangements cannotsucceedunlessthe meansto control family arewidely size availableaind very cheapin relation theincomes themasses.96 to of Many of those who advocate changinig fertility behavior, whether manipulating by preferences through are or coercion, skeptical abouttheeffectiveness "education" "persuasion" of or programs se. Such programs, per presumably, wouldneed supplementing other, with moredirect, legislative measures. Judith Blake, example, for writes: We have a compelling reason believethatdeveloping to will peoples never merely be or propagandized 'educated' intowanting reallysmallfamilies.... It does not seem thattheir desires larger for families succumb flipwill to flannel charts, leadersor boards, message movies, group 'explanations' aboutthe'advantages' fewchildren.97 of Similarly, Lincolnand Alice Day concludethat"we cannot relyon awareness the factsof population of pressure alone to provide motivation family the for limitation sufficientstabilize to ourpopulation."98 Moreoptimistic projections thepossibilities population of of education include recent a paperbyProfessors B. Charles Arnold, Roger WellsandBetty Cogswell theCarolina B. E. of Population Center. described theApril1970issueofStudies Family As in in Planning: ... [the paper] expresses conceptof sex education a broad to of population enough encompass awareparts the nessapproach well as sex and family as life.... Arnold andhisassociates sex subdivide education four into areas [including] socialscienceaspectsof population (demography, humanfertility, the social determinants and of ... population growth) the Arnoldgroupbelievesthat educational . programs. . couldlead tolower societal ferlowervenereal tility, diseaserates, increase theuse of in contraceptives [and] a rise in positive reexpectations
gardingsmallfamily size.99 A numberof writers have outlined entireprogramsof action which include measures designed to alter fertility preferences or to forcechangesin fertility behavior. KingsleyDavis,100for example, suggests that policies be designed to de-emphasize the family"by keeping presentcontrols over illegitimatechildbirth yet making the most of factorsthat lead people to postpone or avoid marriage,and by instituting conditions that motivate those who do marry to keep their families small." Limiting births within marriages might be achieved by allowing "economic advantages to accrue to the single as opposed to the marriedindividual,and to the small as opposed to the large family."Among the examples he gives are
x

ances; to stop awarding public housing on the basis of family size; to stop granting fellowships marriedstudents;to legalize to abortionand sterilization; relax rules requiringmedical superto visionofharmlesscontraceptives; requirewomen to workoutto side the home or compel them to do so "by circumstances";to pay women at the same rate as men and give them equal educational and occupational opportunities;and to organize social life around the place of work ratherthan around the home. In a similarvein, thoughless preciselyspelled out, is the proadvanced recently the Committeeon Resources and posal 101 by Man of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. University CaliforniageologistPrestonCloud, Chairof man of the Committee, beforethe House Contestified recently servationand Natural Resources Subcommittee.His testimony included proposals that Congress and the Presidentexhort,by formaldeclaration,all Americancouples to have no more than two children; that tax and welfare laws be redraftedto discourage the bearing of more than two children; that legal restraints homosexualunionsbe repealed; and thatabortionson on request be legalized and performed freeforindigentwomen. The committee which he headed called forintensification "by whatevermeans are practicable" of efforts controlpopulation to in this countryand the world, "workingtoward a goal of zero rate of growthby the end of the century.""Population control" forthe U.S. and the world is justifiedon the premise "that the communityand society as a whole, and not only the parents, musthave a say about thenumberofchildrena couple mayhave. This will require,"the Committeeconcludes, "profoundmodificationofcurrent attitudes towardparenthood."The Committee's recommendations were based on a paper contributed Univerby sity of California demographerNathan Keyfitz,who declared (with KingsleyDavis) that "the essential ultimate goal of real than population controlwill require somethingmore effective merelyeliminating unwantedbirths.102 Carl Taylor, of JohnsHopkins University, laments what he calls "the sharpest polarization today between proponents of family planningand advocates of 'population control'[i.e., altering fertility preferencesor coercing changes in fertility behavior],"and proposes a five-stage programwhich borrowsfrom both approaches.103 suggestions as follows: His are can reach 15 percentof target, but will thenlevel off. Unrealistic expectationsbased on rates of initial acceptance can lead to whichwill notbe met. extravagant targets

* Openup clinics and tellwomen where go. This,he says, to

Careful and considerateattention should be paid to quality and convenience of service, to avoid backlash. Prioritiesshould be good follow-upcare; respect for patient's privacy and dignity; and the availabilityof a varietyof contraceptivemethods. dren.As long as parentsthinktheirchildrenmightnot surviveto adulthood,theywill want' 'extra"sons for"insurance."

* Develop good technology convenient and administration.

* Providecomprehensive healthcare formothers and chil* Devise methods economic of control. These will "altera

any policydesigned influence to reproductive behavior prospects itsunderstandand viewofitsowneconomic family's ... must relateto family-size goals [rather thanjust to of (e.g., it is implications morechildren" ing of the financial contraceptive means].105 ones; thansixuneducated to better havetwoeducatedchildren to is children notas valuableas money buya handlaborofextra Planning and thePoor of a eliminatingnuimber pro- Family suggests etc.). Taylor newtractor, to Organized such as tax concessions provisions, natalist and welfare tax programs voluntary of fertility control, theUnited in favored States inthedeveloping leaves, paid welfare allowances, maternity families, large as countries, beengeared have primarily benefits for to servethe poor,who can least afford services private and for housing largefamilies, specialeducational the of womento physicians. He withchildren. advocatesencouraging students Accordingly, attackson the conceptof 'voluntary for dollar incentives peopletounder- family of the work; offering direct planning' thiscountry in havebeen framed themost for for candidates theIUD. He warns, partspecifically telrms poverty-oriented or go sterilization to recruit in of programs. the In are that"mostdirectlegal manipulations politically article however, quotedabove,Judith Blakeclaims: hazardous...." * Publicly supported birthcontrol services not "approare .. in factors motivation. . the most priate theattitudes objectives thepoorand uneducated socio-cultural * Modify to and of to in matters reproduction." general poorfavor beginnow,he says,to try to We difficult implement." should of In the birth coneducation trol and particularly the and age postpone at marriage, to promote further poverty-oriented control birth programs ofwomen. - lessthan themore do affluent. * The poornotonlyhave larger families thanthewell-to-do Needs ControlBased on Individual Fertility Voluntary but"want larger families consider and them ideal." * The notionthatthereare fivemillion poor womenwho as aspirations given, fertility existing assume programs Voluntary "wantand need" publiclysubsidizedbirthcontrol help106 is his to of the to andattempt maximize freedom eachperson fulfill grossly exaggerated, fails takeintoaccount, theactual and to a) or a Theyrepresent continuation preferences. or herindividual of b) and planning, maybe sum- numbers suchwomenwho are at riskof conception, the of of extension thephilosophy family who or fecund, c) and in- percentage are sterile less thannormally services, birth marized thus:to makecomprehensive control control religious other on or availableand accessible thosewho would objectto birth and legal abortion sterilization, cluding grounds. on status, a voluntheir socio-economic to all persons, whatever * The estimate five of million includes thosewhoare already discussedin the last section, tarybasis. Unlikethe measures effective birthcontrol, and assumesthat all poor been measures have historically used practicing fertility control voluntary "needthepill and thecoil."It is "fantastic" seek to to and child health,to alleviate women to primarily enhancematernal "substitute scarce medical and paramedicalattention all for the to and poverty generally strengthen healthand well-being contraceptive methods being now usedbypoorcouples." been has purpose only oftheindividual family; secondarily their * In addition beingineffective, to wasteful fundsand irof in advances Recentand prospective growth. to curbpopulation bothto the needs of the poor and the attainment of withthewideravailability relevant combined technology, contraceptive population stability, birth government-sponsored control prohave raisedthepohowever, oflegal abortion sterilization, and maybe actually dangerous. growth. grams as of fertility control a means limiting tential voluntary of * Rather distribution thanconcentrating the "irrelevant" on rate Reductions the net reproduction to belowreplacement in materials services, says, government and she the (Japan,Hungary, ofcontraceptive level have been achievedin fourcountries mechanisms replacing and in all four themthemethod shouldseek to createnew institutional of Czechoslovakia); Bulgaria, traditional pro-natalist policieswithanti-natalist policies.This on available demand. usedwastomakeabortion of "basicchanges thesocialorganization reproin is control wouldinvolve the of fertility among advantages voluntary Primary and ductionthatwill make nonmarriage, childlessness, small acceptability: and itspolitical ethical than theyare now." far (two-child)families moreprevalent democratic of ... it is a naturalextension traditional for This might accomplished lifting be by penalties such antithe with information natalist each values:ofproviding individual behavior "already as exist among as partofourcovert us the and he needsto makewisechoices, allowing greatest and deviant culture, theone hand,and oureliteand artistic on for out freedom eachtowork hisowndestiny.104 on culture, theother." to which beentried any has it approach Moreover, is theonly and OscarHarkavy, Frederick Jaffe SamuelWishik,107 with S. as stands a challenge took issue with Dr. Blake's assumptions. The very factthatit is operational to degree. Responding her In control. partbecauseof article, declared: to competing methods population of they fertility conitsprivileged ofvoluntary the * Federalsupport family for position, effectiveness of planning programs thepoor to in has one trol reducing growth become ofthecentral has beenbasedon providing them sameopportunities population the for in debate. issues thepopulation as children has beentradiof planthenumber spacing their and on the majorattack family tionally As Kingsley Davis published first Government enjoyedby the moreaffluent. policyhas Blake,has led the also operated theassumption accessto voluntary Judith abroad, hiswife, so programs planning that on family in programs the UnitedStates.She planning planning attackon family from the will programs assist poorin escaping poverty, and maternal writes: and will help reducetheirincidenceof infant and mortality morbidity. . . . for approach, most the planning" Americans, "family families * Dr. Blake'scontention thepoordesirelarger that as of concentrating it does on the distribution contrais birth control thanthenon-poor based "on reless and favor ceptive materials services, irrelevant, and is becausethey
contraceptionand are alalready know about efficient ready "planning" theirfamilies.It is thus apparent that sponses to opinion polls and ignores the three major national studies conducted since 1955, covering larger and properly
xi

structured randomsamplesof the U.S. population." What is with15 percent amongthenon-poor; amongwomenwith and more,she invalidly equates 'ideal' family size with 'desired' less thana highschooleducation, unwanted fertility more was family size. thantwiceas highas among women with highschooleducation * The threestudiesreferred show near-unanimous to ap- orbetter. provalofbirth control all socio-economic by groups, reveal and For out-of-wedlock births(the 1965 studywas of married nosignificant differencesdesired in family between poor womenonly), the authors size the assumedthe same proportions of andthenon-poor. wantedand unwanted children forbirths as whichoccurred in * The estimate fivemillion of womenwho need subsidized marriage. This assumption, admitted, "undoubtedly they was a family planning help is defended a "reasonable as approxima- bias in thedirection underestimating extent unwanted of the of tion"based on U.S. Census Bureau tabulations the char- fertility." of Another sourceof bias existsin thatwomenasked acteristics thepoorandnear-poor. of retroactively about children alreadybornhave a tendency to * The greater reliance the poor on non-medical less characterize of and them wanted, as eventhough they mayhave been reliable methods birth of control cannotbe attributed their unwanted thetime conception. to at of personal preferences lack of motivation view of theconor "in The authors estimate thatin the six-year period1960-1965 siderable research demonstrating thepoorhavelittle that access there weresome4.7 million births "thatwouldhave been preto medicalcare forpreventive services [and that]whenaccess vented theuse ofperfect by Some of contraception." twomillion to modern family planning services, offered withenergy and thesebirths occurred thepoorand near-poor, whichhalf to of dignity, been provided, response poorand near-poor were to non-whites. 1960-1968, has the of For theyestimate thatthere has persons been considerable. In virtually knownpro- were6.8 million ... all unwanted Their births. comment: grams offering variety methods to 90 percent lowa of 85 of seems that of inescapable theelimination income patients voluntarily chooseeither pills or intra-uterine The conclusion unwanted fertility wouldhavehad a marked not impact the devices, most effective known." methods currently only ourrecent on birth rate, also onthelifesituation but Oscar Harkavyand his colleagues (and Arthur Campbell, ofmillions American in of women ornearpoverty. ReDeputy Director the NICHD's Centerfor Population of search'08)challenged Blake'sassertion Dr. thatdesired family Ofwanted births between 1960-1965, and Drs. Westoff Bumsize amongthepoorwas larger thanamongthe affluent. They pass add that"two-fifths wouldhave occurred laterthanthey did not,however, confront assertion thatfamily the planning did iftheir timing been controlled." had Another result such of programs, essentially as "catch-up" programs thepoor, for would control wouldbe a reduction thenumber children in wanted of be insufficient toinduce zerorateofpopulation a growth (though (and,in a perfectly contracepting society, thosethatare born), Frederick withAlan F. Guttmacher,109 earliersug- sinceeach delaymakes morelikely had Jaffe, it thata woman willchange gestedthatvoluntary control for fertility programs all classes hermind, become or sterile. could have significant in This effectiveness reducing fertility). DonaldBoguetlI predicts wider and availability higher quality and Larry ofvoluntary challengehas been made by CharlesF. Westoff fertility control years come, in to that: suggesting Bumpass.110 Theyexamine whatwouldhappenin the U.S. if are them"couples able to avoidhaving more children they than . . . by [theyear2000] the present methods contraof selveswantand are also able to avoid havingchildren before as ception, highly as effective they willhavebeenreare, placedbynewer, more pleasant, completely and effective wantthem." they Suchperfect fertility control, say,"might they methods whichhave longer-lasting effects. These methwell requiresocial policiesaimed at expanding research for odswillbe easily within economic the citiof grasp every more efficient for as systems their distribution,wellas legalizing zen,and with steadily our of expanding system universal abortion request." on his at ParentSummarizing report Planned medical care,willbe partoftheroutine medicalservice hood's1969Annual Dr. declared: Meeting, Westoff availableto everyone, of irrespective age, marital status, or income. Abortion avoid unwanted to will pregnancy If thefertility patterns thelastdecade continue, of these be legalanda routine ofhealth part care. three measures themselves by couldreduceU.S. populationgrowth considerably. They would not requireany Desiredfamily size,Dr. Boguesuggests, "theonlysupporis change thenumber children in of couplesappearto want tivefactor thatseemscapable of exerting sustained a upward now,thusnotrequiring governmental policiesdesigned thrust fertility [on rates]." comments, He however, that: to changefamily-size norms whichin theory be might muchmore Sinceno one knows any difficult of anyway. The fullimpactupon the society the dysfunctional of alternative measures whichcan holdout thepromise of effects the 'baby boom'is onlynow beginning be of to thismuchof a reduction U.S. population in it growth, and thepressures felt, against bearing children third of seemsapparent thata majorprogram alongtheselines or higherordermay be expectedto get progressively should become first the order business of those inamong as stronger theyears pass. terested reducing U.S. rateofpopulation in the growth. To determine unwanted fertility, authorsanalyzedrethe from 1965 National the sponses that and Fertility Study, found 22 percent births of from 1960 to 1965 wereunwanted at by leastone spouse,17 percent both (the averagewas 19 perby cent). Morethanone-third non-white of births werefoundto be unwanted. Theyfound that incidence unwanted the of births
is negativelyrelated to education and income. Among the poor and near-poor,one-thirdof births were unwanted, compared
xii

preferences.He suggests emphasis in programimplementation as follows:

Voluntary fertility control composes coreoftheapproach the to population control whichis favored Bernard by Berelson.112 Familyplanning programs, claims, he compare favorably with other proposals; "soft" as measures, moreover, theyshouldbe triedfirst before resort takento the "harder" is measures designedto persuadeor compelpeople to changetheirfertility

leading scientists socialtheorists other and and commentators biologists, ecologists, demographers, economists, sociologists whohave addressed themselves thequestion U.S. populato of tiongrowth itsconsequences. and The specialists agreethatworldand U.S. population growth mustat sometimebe brought a halt (thoughthereis conto siderable disagreement to whenthisshould accomplished) as be

if the qualityof lifeis to be preserved, world'sfinite the resources be husbanded future to for generations, theenvironand ment be savedfrom to irremediable pollution degradation. and Theydisagree overthespecific playedbyU.S. population role growth creating exacerbating in or such problems environas mental deterioration, crowding, urban ecological imbalances and worldresource scarcity. Some believe,forexample, thatthese problems stemfrom failure control our to technology; others, thatthe chiefculprit multiplying withhis multiplying is man demands goodsand services. for Somesocialscientists the fear political socialconsequences a stationary population, and of U.S. A voluntary whatis more, meets whatDr. Berelson approach, witha higher medianage and narrower opportunities adfor (after Ansley Coale) describes an "ideal"program populaas of vancement among young:might the there be less scientific, not tion control; he defines a program this as which: technological cultural and innovation with such an age dis* wouldpermit maximum individual a of and freedom diver- tribution? Others suggest thatzeropopulation be growth might sity, economically beneficial, acreducing tax load and possibly the * wouldhelppromote other goalsthatare worth supporting celerating riseinthestandard living. the of on their ownmerits and wouldnotindirectly ... encourage unPerhapsthe sharpest division amongthe experts overthe is desirable outconmes, bureaucratic e.g., corruption, methods shouldemploy achieving in zerogrowth. main The we * wouldnotburdenthe innocent an attempt penalize arguments in to are: theguilty, * Ourfamily preferences innately high, size are too and can be * wouldnot weighheavily upon the alreadydisadvantaged reduced only through coercive sterilizameans(e.g.,compulsory [and] tend further deprive poor, to the and tionafter certain a number illegitimate of or births, temporary * wouldbe comprehensible thosedirectly to affected. . and sterilants thewater . in supply). subject their to response. * Familysize preferences currently notinnately) are too (but high, and can be reduced through or publiceducation, through Summary other means persuasion rewards of (e.g., taxincentives, through thesocialsecurity system). This paper has drawnupon theviewsof someof the nation's . .. on theinformational on encouragement comof side, mercial channels contraception, the use of paraon of medical on and on personnel, logistics supply, thetraining and supervision fieldworkers, approaches of on to special targetsrangingfrompost-partum women to youngmen underdraft into the armedforces.If the field wellwhatitknows did howto do, [family planning] thatin itself wouldin all likelihood makea measurable differenceand one competitive magnitude in with otherspecific the further proposals not to mention impetus an improved of contraceptive technology. * Current family preferences low enough, populasize and are can tiongrowth be sharply reduced perhaps half- merely by byextending abortion sterilization and services to contraceptive, all whowantand need them. call Supporters thisargument of formore and funds research human for in reproduction contraservice rational and a ceptive technology, for more delivery system.

A'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

Voluntary fertility control perceived many the'ideal'method population is by as of control. xiii

References
1. United Nations, "World Population Prospect as Assessed in 1963," U.N. PopulationStudies,No. 41, New York,1966. 2. Nathan Keyfitz, "United States and World Populations,"in Resources and Man, Committee Resources and Man, National Academy of Scion ences-NationalResearch Council, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco,1969, Chapter3. 3. Paul R. Ehrlich, "Overcrowding and Us," National Parks Magazine, Vol. 43, April1969, No. 259. 4. Luther Carter, "The Population Crisis: Rising Concern at Home," Science,Vol. 166, November1969. 5. Wayne H. Davis, "Overpopulated America,"The New Republic,January10, 1970, pp. 13-15.

25. National Goals Research Staff, Towards Balanced Growth:Quantity withQuality,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., July4, 1970, ChapterII, p. 60. 26. AnsleyCoale, in University: Princeton A Quarterly, Winter,1968-69, No. 39. 27. JosephJ. Spengler,"Populationand Economic Growth,"in Population:The VitalRevolution (Ronald Freedman, ed.), Doubleday& Co., Inc., GardenCity,New York,1964, pp. 59-69. 28. Alan R. Sweezy and George Varky,"Prosperity the BirthRate," and paper presented Planned Parenthood-World to PopulationBoard of Directors, November 1968. 29. Coale, op cit. 30. StephenEnke, "Is a Stationary U.S. PopulationDesirable and Possible?," GeneralElectricTempo,mimeograph, December,1969.

6. JosephL. Fisherand Neal Potter,"Resourcesin the UnitedStates and theWorld,"in The Population Dilemma, (Philip M. Hauser,ed.), Prentice- 31. A. R. Sweezy, "Population, GNP and the Environment," paper deliveredat the California Hall Inc., EnglewoodCliffs, J.,1965, Chapter6. Institute Technology, of N. Conference Technoon logicalChange& Population Growth, May 7-9, 1970. 7. Committee Resourcesand Man, op. cit., Introduction on and Recom32. Coale, op. cit. mendations. 8. Thomas S. Lovering,"Mineral Resourcesfromthe Land;" Committee 33. Lincoln H. Day, "Concerningthe OptimumLevel of Population," paper deliveredat the 136th meeting the American on Resourcesand Man, op. cit.,Chapter6. of Association the for Advancement Science,December30, 1969. of 9. Jean Mayer,"Toward a Non-Malthusian PopulationPolicy," Columbia 34. WayneH. Davis, op. cit. Forum,Summer1969. 10. Ben Wattenberg, "Overpopulation a CrisisIssue: The NonsenseExas plosion,"The New Republic,April4 & 11, 1970, pp. 18-23. 11. RobertL. Heilbroner, "Ecological Armageddon," The New York Review ofBooks,April23, 1970, pp. 3-6. 12. Fisherand Potter, cit. op. 13. Frank W. Notestein, "Zero PopulationGrowth:What Is It?" Family PlanningPerspectives, Vol. 2, No. 3, June 1970; and PopulationIndex, 1970 (in press). July-September 14. Harold J. Barnett,"The Mythof our VanishingResources," Transaction,June1967, pp. 6-10. 15. JohnD. Chapnman, "Interactions BetweenMan and his Resources,"in Resourcesand Man, Committee Resourcesand Man, op. cit.,Chapter2. on 16. RobertLekachman, "The Poverty Affluence," of Commentary, 49, Vol. No. 3, March 1970, pp. 39-44. 17. Paul R. Ehrlich, "Eco-Catastrophe!," Ramparts, September 1969. 18. Lamont Cole, "Can the World Be Saved?," The New York Times Magazine,March31, 1968. 19. BarryCommoner, "Survivalin the Environmental-Population Crisis," presentedat symposium:"Is there an OptimumLevel of Population?," American Association the Advancement Science, Boston,December for of 29, 1969. 35. Committee Resourcesand Man, op. cit., Introduction Recomon and mendations. 36. WilliamPetersen,The Politicsof Population,Doubleday & Co., Inc., GardenCity,N. Y., 1964, p. 15. 37. David E. Lilienthal,"300,000,000 AmericansWould Be Wrong," New YorkTimes Magazine, January 1966. Reprinted 6, PP-WP, #545. 38. WilliamDraper,Jr., Zero PopulationGrowth Answer?,"Popu"Is the lation Crisis Committee, mimeograph, Washington, D.C., December 2, 1969. 39. Lee A. DuBridge,quotedby WilliamDraper,Jr., ibid. 40. Tomas Frejka, "Reflections the DemographicConditionsNeeded on to Establish a U.S. Stationary Population Growth,"Population Studies, November, 1968. 41. Enke,op. cit. 42. Census Bureau Projections, U.S. Department Commerce, of Bureau of the Census, "PopulationEstimatesand Projections,"CurrentPopulation Reports, SeriesP-25, No. 448, August6, 1970, p. 1. 43. Donald J. Bogue, "Population Growthin the United States, 19702000," paper deliveredto a demographers' advisorygroup to the U.S. Census Bureau,April9, 1970. 44. Notestein, cit. op.

20. JohnD. Calhoun,"PopulationDensity& Social Pathology," Scientific 45. Coale, op. cit. American, Vol. 206, p. 32, 1962. 46. Enke,op. cit. 21. Keyfitz, cit. op. 47. Notestein, "The PopulationCrisis: ReasonsforHope," ForeignAffairs, 22. Morris Udall, "StandingRoom Only on SpaceshipEarth,"Reader's October1967. K. Digest,December 1969. 48. Kingsley Davis, "Population Policy: Will Current Programs Succeed?," 23. JamesL. Sundquist,"Where Shall They Live?," The Public Interest, Science,Vol. 158, November10, 1967. No. 18, Winter1970, pp. 88-100. 49. K. Davis, "Will Family Planning Solve the Population Problem?," 24. HermanP. Miller,"Is Overpopulation Reallythe Problem?,"National The Victor-Bostrom Fund Reportforthe International Planned Parenthood Industrial Conference Board Report,Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1970, pp. 19, 22. Federation, Report No. 10, Fall 1968, p. 16. xiv

50. HI. B. Presser,"The Role of Sterilization Controlling in Puerto Rican Fertility," PopulationStudies,Vol. 23, p. 343, 1969. 51. P. M. Boffey, "Japan: A Crowded Nation Wants to Reduce its Birth Rate," Science,Vol. 167, p. 960, 1970. 52. K. Davis, "PopulationPolicy: Will Current ProgramsSucceed?," op. cit. 53. Bernard Berelson, "Beyond Family Planning," Studies in Family Planning, 38, February1969. No.

"The Role of Bonuses and Persuasive Propaganda in the Reductionof BirthRates"; and "Family PlanningProspectsin Less-Developed Countries,and a Cost-Benefit Analysisof Various Alternatives," University of Illinois,MSS 1966-68?; StephenEnke, "Government BonusesforSmaller Families," PopulationReview, Vol. 4, 1960, pp. 47-54; Samuel, op. cit., p. 12. 66. Bhatia, op. cit., pp. 188-9; Samuel, op. cit., p. 14; KingsleyDavis, op. cit.,p. 738-9; RichardM. Titmussand BrianAbel-Smith, Social Policies and PopulationGrowthin Mauritius,Methuen,1960, pp. 130-136.

67. Bhatia,op. cit.,p. 190; Kingsley Davis, op. cit.,p. 738. 54. Howard C. Taylor, Jr. and BernardBerelson,"Maternity Care and Family Planning as a World Program,"AmericanJournalof Obstetrics 68. Bhatia, op. cit., pp. 189-190; Samuel, op. cit., pp. 12-14; Spengler, and Gynecology, Vol. 100, 1968, pp. 885-893. "Agricultural Development notEnough,"op. cit.,p. 30. is 55. K. Davis, "PopulationPolicy: Will Current Programs Succeed?," op. cit., pp. 732, 738; Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, Ballantine Books, New York, 1968, p. 139; Sripati Chandrasekhar, "Should We in Legalize Abortion India?," Population No. 10, 1966, pp. 17-22. Revietv, 56. Melvin M. Ketchel,"Fertility ControlAgentsas a Possible Solution to the WorldPopulationProblem,"Perspectives Biologyand Medicine, in Vol. 11, 1968, pp. 687-703. See also his "Should BirthControlBe Mandatory?,"in Medical WorldNews, October18, 1968, pp. 66-71; P. Ehrlich, The PopulationBomb,op. cit.,pp. 135-36. 57. KennethE. Boulding,The Meaning of the TwentiethCentury:The GreatTransition, Harper& Row, New York,pp. 135-36. 58. William B. Shockley,in lecture at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, reported New YorkPost,December 12, 1967. in 59. K. Davis, "PopulationPolicy: Will Current Programs Succeed?," op. cit. 60. S. Chandrasekhar, reported The New YorkTimes,July 1967. as in 24, 61. K. Davis, op. cit.; Sloan Wayland,"Family Planningand the School Curriculum,"in Family Planning and Population Programs (Bernard et Berelson al., eds.), University ChicagoPress,Chicago, 1966, pp. 353of 62; Pravin Visaria, "Population Assumptionsand Policy," Economic Weekly, August8, 1964, p. 1343. 62. P. Ehrlich,The PopulationBomb, op. cit., p. 162; RichardL. Meiel & Gitta Meier, "New Directions,A Population Policy for the Future," of University Michigan, revised MS, October 1967, p. 11; UNESCO ExpertMission, Preparatory Studyof a Pilot Projectin the Use of Satellite Communication NationalDevelopmentPurposesin India, February5, for 1968; WilburSchramm Lyle Nelson,Communication & SatellitesforEducationand Development-TheCase forIndia, Stanford ResearchInstitute, July, 1968: "FamilyPlanning," 63-66. pp. 63. Michael Young, in "The Behavioral Sciences and Family Planning Programs:Reporton a Conference," Studies in FamilyPlanning,No. 23, Population Council, October 1967, p. 10; Dipak Bhatia, "Government of India Small Family Norm CommitteeQuestionnaire," Indian Journal of Medical Education,Vol. 6, October 1967, p. 189; StephenEnke, "The Gains to India fromPopulationControl,"The Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1967, pp. 29-30; J. William Leasure, "Some Economic Benefitsof Birth Prevention,"Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly,45, 1967, pp. 417-425; MarshallC. Balfour,"A Scheme forRewardingSuccessful Family Planners," Memorandum, The Population Council, June 1962; W. Parker Mauldin, "Preventionof IllegitimateBirths: A Bonus The PopulationCouncil, August 1967; Ehrlich, Scheme," Memorandum, The Population Bomb,op. cit.,p. 138. 64. S. Chandrasekhar, reported The New YorkTimes,July19, 1967; as in Edward Pohlman,"Incentivesfor 'Non-Maternity' Cannot Compete with IncentivesforVasectomy," CentralFamily PlanningInstitute, India, MS 1967?; T. J. Samuel, "The Strengthening the Motivationfor Family of Limitation India," The Journal Family Welfare,Vol. 13, 1966, pp. in of 11-12; K. Davis, op. cit.,p. 738. 69. Bhatia, op. cit., p. 190; Titmuss and Abel-Smith, cit., p. 137; op. Samuel, op. cit., pp. 12-14; K. Davis, op. cit., p. 738; Ehrlich, The Population Bomb,op cit.,p. 136-137; A. S. David, NationalDevelopment, Populationand FamilyPlanningin Nepal, June-July 1968, pp. 53-54. 70. James Fawcett, personal communication Bernard Berelson,Septo tember1968. and Economic 71. Samuel,op. cit.,p. 12; GoranOhlin,PopulationControl Development,Development Centre of the Organizationfor Economic Cooperationand Development,1967, p. 104; W. Phillips Davison, perto October4, 1968. sonal communication Bernard Berelson, 72. David, op. cit.,p. 53; KingsleyDavis, op. cit.,p. 738; also, personal communication BernardBerelson,October 7, 1968; Young, op. cit., to p. 10; Titmussand Abel-Smith, cit., p. 130; Ehrlich,The Population op. Bomb, op. cit., p. 138; BernardBerelson,AmitaiEtzioni, briefformulations,1962, 1967. 73. Philip M. Hauser, in "The BehavioralSciences and Family Planning Studies in Family Planning,No. 23, Programs:Reporton a Conference," PopulationCouncil,October1967, p. 9; K. Davis, op. cit.,p. 738; David, of op. cit.,p. 54; Judith Blake, "DemographicScience and the Redirection PopulationPolicy," in MindelC. Sheps & JeanClaire Ridley,eds., Public Health and Population Change: CurrentResearch Issues, University of Pittsburgh Press,Pittsburgh, 1965, p. 62. 74. K. Davis, op. cit.,p. 737. of 75. Meier & Meier, op. cit., p. 9. For the initialformulation the proposal, see Richard L. Meier, Modern Science and the Human Fertility 7. Problem, Wiley,New York,1959, chapter 76. Philip M. Hauser, "'Family Planning and PopulationPrograms': A Vol. 4, 1967, p. 412. Book ReviewArticle," Demography, 77. United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commissionon the Status of Women, "Family Planningand the Status of Women: Interim ReportoftheSecretary General,"January 1968, esp. p. 17 ff. 30, 78. RogerRevelle,as quotedin "Too Many Born?Too ManyDie. So Says RogerRevelle,"by MiltonViorst, Horizon,Summer1968, p. 35; David M. Level and Desired Family Size," Heer and Dean 0. Smith,"Mortality at paper prepared for presentation Population Associationof America meeting, April 1967. See also David A. May and David M. Heer, "Son Motivationand Family Size in India: A ComputerSimulaSurvivorship tion,"PopulationStudies,22, 1968, pp. 199-210. 79. P. Ehrlich,The PopulationBomb, op. cit., pp. 161-166, passim.The author makes the same point in his article, "Paying the Piper," New Scientist, December 14, 1967, p. 655. 80. P. Ehrlich,The PopulationBomb,op. cit.,p. 138; S. Chandrasekhar, "India's Population:Fact, Problemand Policy,"in S. Chandrasekhar, ed., Asia's PopulationProblems,Allen & Unwin, 1967, p. 96, citinga Julian of Huxleysuggestion 1961; Meier& Meier,op. cit.,p. 5.

81. K. Davis, op. cit.,pp. 731-733. 65. Julian Simon, "Money Incentives to Reduce Birth Rates in LowIncome Countries:A Proposal to Determinethe EffectExperimentally;" 82. K. Davis, op. cit.,738-739.

xv

103. Carl E. Taylor,M.D., "Five Stages in a PracticalPopulationPolicy," DevelopmentReview, Volume X, No. 4, December 1968. 84. Steven Polgar, in "The Behavioral Sciences and Family Planning Internatiofl(l Programs:Reporton a Conference," Studiesin FamilyPlanning,No. 23, PopulationCouncil, October 1967, p. 10. See also the recentsuggestion 104. Coale, op. cit. of research on the "possibilitiesfor artificially decreasing libido," in 105. Judith Blake, "PopulationPolicy forAmericans:Is the Government Approachesto the Human Fertility Problem,op. cit., p. 73. BeingMisled?", op. cit.,pp. 522-529. 85. GarettHardin, "The Tragedyof the Commons,"Science, Vol. 162, 106. Office EconomicOpportunity, of Need for Subsidized Family PlanDecember 13, 1968, pp. 1243-1248. ning Services,United States, Each State and County, 1968, reportpre86. G. Hardin,"MultiplePaths to PopulationControl."Family Planning pared forOEO by the CenterforFamilyPlanningProgramDevelopment, 1969. Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1970, p. 24. 87. P. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb,op. cit. 88. K. Davis, op. cit.,pp. 730-739. 89. Alice TaylorDay, "Persuasionor Coercion:Alternatives Population in Control,"paper deliveredat the SmithAlumnae College, "Man and His Environment: Catastrophe Control," or May 29, 1969. 90. P. K. Whelpton,A. A. Campbell and J. E. Patterson, Fertility and FamilyPlanningin the UnitedStates,Princeton University Press,Princeton, 1966. 107. Oscar Harkavy, Frederick Jaffe, S. Samuel Wish'ik, "FamilyPlanning and Public Policy: Who Is MisleadingWhom," Science, Vol. 165, 1969, p. 367. 108. Arthur Campbell,"FamilyPlanningand the Five Million,"Family A. Plannning Perspectives, Volume1, No. 2, October1969. 109. FrederickS. Jaffe and Alan F. Guttmacher, "Family PlanningProgramsin theUnitedStates,"Demography, Vol. 5, 1968, p. 910.

83. National Academy of Sciences, Committeeon Science and Public Policy, The Growthof World Population, 1963, p. 5, pp. 28-36. This recommendation of coursebeen made on severaloccasionsby several has people: "We need a bettercontraceptive." an imaginative For accountof the impactof biologicaldevelopments, Paul C. Berry, see Originsof Positive Population Control,1970-2000, WorkingPaper, Appendix to The Next Thirty-Four Years: A Context for Speculation,Hudson Institute, February1966.

100. K. Davis, "Population Policy: Will CurrentPrograms Succeed," op. cit. 101. Committee Resourcesand Man, op. cit., Introduction Recomon and mendations. 102. Keyfitz, cit. op.

110. Larry Bumpass and Charles Westoff, "The Perfect Contraceptive Population: Extentand Implications UnwantedFertility the U.S.", of in 4, 91. JudithBlake, "PopulationPolicy for Americans:Is the Government Science,Vol. 169, September 1970, p. 1177. BeingMisled?", Science,Vol. 164, May 2, 1969, pp. 522-529. 111. Donald Bogue,op. cit. 92. G. Hardin, "Parenthood: Right or Privilege?" Science Vol. 169, 112. Bernard Berelson, "Beyond Family Planning," Studies in Family 1970, p .427. Planning,The PopulationCouncil, No. 38, February1969. 93. K. Davis, "Will Family Planning Solve the Population Problem?", Note: References 54-84 were taken, almostverbatim, fromthe excellent op. cit. reviewof the literature preparedby BernardBerelson ("Beyond Family 94. Carl Djerassi, "Birth Control after 1984," Science, Vol. 169, Sep- Planning,"Studies in Family Planning,The PopulationCouncil, No. 38, February, 1969). tember 1970, p. 949. 4, 95. Jiilius of Paul, "The Return PunitiveSterilization Proposals,"Law and Socic1 Review,Vol. III, No. 1, August1968.
Credits

p. i, viii: drawingsby Robert Osborn, Mankind May Never Make It, New York Graphic Society Ltd.; p. v: New York Daily News, U.P.I.; Cole, International PlannedParenthood Federation. 96. JosephJ. Spengler,"PopulationProblem: In Search of a Solution," p. xiii: Bernard Science,Vol. 166, December5, 1969.

97. JudithBlake, "Demographic Science and the Deduction of Public Policy,"Public Health and PopulationChange,eds. Mindel C. Sheps and of JeanClaire Ridley, 1965. University Pittsburgh Press,Pittsburgh, 98. Liincoln and Alice Day, Too Man2yAmericans, HoughtonMifflin Co., Bostoni, 1964, Chapter10. 99. Ozzie G. Sinmmons, Studiesin FamilyPlanning, 52, April1970. No.

xvi

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful