Chapter 9, Part I: Are You “Nuts” If You Think It’s About Population Control?

“The United States is seeking to provide the means by which one quarter of the fertile women in the world can be voluntarily sterilized.”[1]

Margaret Ogola, a black pediatrician who runs a hospice in Kenya? for children with AIDS, attended the United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing. She said “It is a question of injustice.? Planned Parenthood only provides contraceptives and condoms and all manner of high-tech contraceptives, and they allow women and children to die of ordinary diseases that could be treated at a quarter of the cost that they spend on contraception.? Why is the interest on contracepting and aborting black women?”[2]

?

H

ealthy People 2000 is a federal document of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Public Health Service.? It is a 692-page manual listing health objectives for the nation, including every possible health-related topic from the percent­age of cavities to the percentage of “unintended pregnancies” to be tolerated.? Objectives include: reducing to no more than 30 percent the proportion of all unintended pregnancies.[3]

Healthy Missourians 2000? is Missouri’s version of Healthy People 2000? that echoes the same goals.? It states:? “unintended pregnancies? are defined as all abortions plus live births and fetal deaths to females younger than 18 plus live births and fetal deaths with spacing less than 12 months for females ages 18-34, plus out-of-wedlock births to females with less than a college education.”? The government’s “special target” is to reduce to no more than 10 percent all pregnancies that are closer together than 18 months!!

Another goal is “increasing to at least 90% the proportion of sexually active, unmarried people aged 19 and younger who use contraception–.”? Sexually active is defined in a federal document titled Adolescent Health Volume I Summary and Policy Options? as EVER having had sex, which would include even those teens who are no longer sexually active, and are practicing secondary virginity.

Page 180 states a goal of establishing school-linked health clinics? to help achieve objectives related to improved–reduction of teen pregnan­cies.[4]?

The slogan “every child a planned and wanted child,” really means planned and wanted by the government, ignoring the fact that every child IS planned and wanted - at least by God, the Creator of all life.? There is a shortage of children to fill the longing arms of families who have spent years on some adoption agency’s waiting list.?

From the United Nations? (U.N.) to the local level we hear the slogans “it takes a village to raise a child,” and “every child a planned and wanted child” which expresses the federal, state and local government’s intervention? (invasion) into the homes and bedrooms of American families.?

On December 5, 1989, the United Nations? held the Forty-fourth session of its General Assembly.? Presented and adopted was a resolution titled the Convention on the Rights of the Child.? Article 24 says all states shall fully implement the right of all children to access health care services, to develop preventive health care and “family planning? education and services.”[5]?

A 1977 Post Dispatch? article titled “U.S. Goal: Sterilize Millions of World’s Women” included an interview with Dr. R.T. Ravenholt, director of the Federal Government’s Office of Population.? The article stated:? “The Office of Population is part of the U.S. Agency for International Development? (AID,) an arm of the Department of State.? The United States is seeking to provide the means by which one quarter of the fertile women in the world can be voluntarily sterilized.? One of the pro­grams that the U.S. is using in trying to reach this goal is a feder­ally financed training? program at Washington University? Medical School.? Dr. Ravenholt listed four reasons, including the protection of U.S. economic interests, why the U.S. should lead world popula­tion control efforts.? About 30 countries have bilateral agreements with the U.S. Government to provide population control programs.? In some countries, ‘political sensitivities’ makes it impossible for the U.S. to negotiate such agreements.? In those cases, efforts are made to set up population programs under the aegis of other orga­nizations, such as the United Nations? Fund for Population Activities? and the International Planned Parenthood? Federation.? Both groups receive heavy U.S. Funding.”[6]?

Contraception Technology 1980-1981, authored by supporters of universal health care for adolescents through school-community-linked services, says “Contraception, abortion, and sterilization are vital components of a voluntary, comprehensive family planning? program.”

Planned Births, the Future of the Family? and the Quality of American Life: Towards a Comprehensive National Policy and Program is a June, 1977, document prepared by a consortium? of population controllers including The Alan Guttmacher Institute? (which is the Research and Development Division of the Planned Parenthood? Federation of America,) which advocated universal health care.? It states, “If a national health insurance program is to be phased in progressively, the full range of voluntary? fertility-related services — that is, contraceptive services, abortion, sterilization–and genetic testing in specific high-risk situations —would rank high–for inclusion.”

This document provides a table of proposed programs for improving population control? which includes:? adding teenage contraceptive service components to family planning? and school health services, developing a national network for early detection of pregnancy through all available and appropriate agencies, encouraging states to clarify laws on services for minors, developing community information and outreach programs, devel­oping school-based education programs, amending the Social Security Act? (Title XIX-Medicaid) to specify basis for reimburse­ment of nonhospital clinics, and mandate fertility control informa­tion and services in EPSDT? (Early Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Test) now called HCY (Healthy Children and Youth)[7]? (emphasis added).

This strategy became a reality in Missouri with the passage of Missouri’s Universal Health Care Reform Bill, HB564? in May, 1993, due to the support of Missouri Catholic Conference!![8]? Review the chapters titled “Creative Financing” and “Church Convinces Public School District to Become a Medicaid Provider.”?

Population control is possible when free enterprise? and local control? are replaced with socialized government health care and unelected, hand picked advisory councils.

Planned Parenthood’s national organization prepared a report titled U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning:? A Review of the Literature.? The report contained a table titled Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, by Universality or Selectivity of Impact which recommended:
- “Restructuring the family by encouraging increased
? ? homosexuality.
- Educating for family limitation.
- Altering image of ideal family size.
- Using fertility control agents in the water supply.
- Encouraging women to work.

“Suggested economic deterrents and incentives:
- Substantial marriage tax.
- Child tax.
- Removal of parents’ tax exemption.
- Additional taxes? on parents with more than 1 or 2
? children.
- Eliminate welfare payments after first 2 children
- Limit/eliminate public-financed medical care,
? scholarships, hous­ing, loans, and subsidies to families
? with more than (N) children.

? “Suggested social controls:
- Compulsory abortion? of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
- Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children
? except for a few who would be allowed three.
- Confining childbearing to only a limited number of
? adults.
- Requiring stock certificate-type permits for children
- Discouragement of private home ownership.
- Stop awarding public housing based on family size.”

? “Measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy:
- Provide payments to encourage sterilization,
? ? contraception, and abortion.
- Provide abortion and sterilization on demand.
- Allow certain contraceptives to be distributed non-
? medically.
- Make contraception truly available and accessible to all.
- Make family planning? a core element of maternal health
? care.”

This same publication also promoted:
- “Approaches via political channels and organization
? (which) insist on population control? as condition of
? foreign aid.
- Creation of powerful super-agencies for population
? ? ? ? ? control.
-? Promotion of Zero Population Growth? as world or
? ? national policy.
-? In attempting to change the fertility behavior? of the
? ? U.S. population, these and other writers would select
? ? from a range of measures, varying from moderate (e.g.
? ? population education) to extreme (e.g., placing fertility
? ? control agents in the water supply).? They are not
? ? usually posed as mutually exclusive options for a
? ? society, but rather as alternative approaches which
? ? might be tried in progression.”

The U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning:? A Review of the Literature stated that, “In a recent editorial in Science, for example, Garrett Hardin argues as follows:

‘How can we reduce reproduction?? Persuasion must be tried first.? Tomorrow’s mothers must be educated to seek careers? other than multiple motherhood.? Community nurseries are needed to free women for careers outside the home.? Mild coercion may soon be accepted - for example, tax rewards for reproductive nonproliferation.

‘But in the long run a purely voluntary? system selects for its own failure: non-cooperators outbreed cooperators–If parenthood is a right, population control? is impossible’.”[9]

The Council on Foreign Relations? echoed this sentiment in their March/April 1996 issue of Foreign Affairs that contained an ad by Negative Population Growth, Inc.? They accuse overpopulation? of being the root cause of all environmental “problems.”? In an effort to “create an economy that will be sustainable over the very long term” they recommend:? “eliminate the present Federal income tax exemption for dependent children born after a specified date; give a Federal income tax credit ONLY to those parents who have not more than two children.? Those with three or more would lose the credit entirely; give an annual cash grant to low-income parents who pay little or no income tax, and who have no more than two children.? Those with three or more children would lose the cash grant entirely.”

Steven Mosher, an exchange student from Stanford University? traveled to China? to study rural life.? He returned to tell the United States of China’s brutal one-family one-child population control? policy that included forced abortions.? He tells of a family he personally came to know and cherish.? The wife was pregnant with her second child.? “I heard the Party official shouting before I entered the room, ‘China must develop into a strong social­ist state!? That depends on controlling our population! None of you has any choice–your pregnancy affects everyone in the commune, indeed everyone in China.? You will stay until you agree to an abortion.’”[10]

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? publishes a “Five-Year Plan for Family Planning Services and Population Research pursuant to Section 1009 of Public Law 94-63. This Report, prepared annually by the Office of Population Affairs, contains a plan for family planning? services and population research to be carried out over the next five years.”[11]

The Five-Year Plan for Family Planning Services and Population Research submitted in 1980 by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) explains the work of their grantees to create an antipregnancy vaccine:?

“The possible development of a contraceptive vaccine? has occupied the attention of reproductive scientists for several years–In the recent past, attention was devoted primarily to human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) primarily because of the belief that it appears in the body only during pregnancy and is required for the maintenance of pregnancy.? At least theoretically then, a woman could be protected from pregnancy by treatment with a vaccine which would immunize her against her own hCG.”[12]

“HCG is the hormone present in the chorion (covering) of the fertilized egg and the uterine wall.? It alerts the woman’s body that she is pregnant–hCG? is a hormone essential for pregnancy.? Anti-beta hCG kills hCG.? When a woman has anti-beta hCG in her body, she is incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.? Every time fertilization occurs, the anti-beta hCG would directly attack the fertilized ovum, in which hCG is present.? It would also prevent the build-up of the uterine lining.? It can be said that the Tetanus Toxoid vaccine? if introduced into the body with beta hCG acts effectively as an anti-fertility vaccine.? More than 3.4 million Filipino women of reproductive ages (14-44 years old) have been injected with the Tetanus Toxoid vaccine.? Whether there is an antidote to the sterilizing effect is not yet known.”[13]

A couple of months after HHS submitted its May 1980 Five-Year Plan, the July/August 1980 issue of “Family Planning Perspectives,” a Planned Parenthood? publication, carried an article on their development of an antipregnancy vaccine. It explained that:

? “Circulating antibodies would interfere with ovulation, corpus luteum function, fertilization, early implantation? or maintenance of pregnancy, depending on the antigen selected–After a period of months required for the antibody titers to build up to sufficient levels, contraceptive effectiveness would be maintained for one to three years–effective contraception? could be renewed by means of a single booster vaccination administered in the final months of the effective period.? Two major approaches have been utilized:? The first involved immunizations with an antigen consisting of highly purified beta hCG? chemically linked with tetanus toxoid (emphasis added).

“Theoretically, one problem with this approach is the possibility that cross-reactive antibodies could neutralize other similar pituitary hormones, stopping the function of the target organ permanently, inducing autoimmune tissue injure to the pituitary gland or forming circulating immune complexes that could result in kidney damage.

“Although no such cross-reactivity was found in experiments with women (emphasis added) some researchers have sought to protect against this possible problem; their work has constituted the second major approach to an antipregnancy vaccine.? Those researchers have concentrated on finding a vaccine against a unique fragment of the beta-hCG? chain which does not cross-react.

“Investigation at a much more basic level is also proceeding no antigens derived from the zona pellucida, the outer coating of the ovum at the time of ovulation and before implantation.? Such antibodies are thought to form a deposit on the outer surface of the zona, which prevents sperm penetration and thus inhibits fertilization.? Such antigens have not yet been isolated in pure form and it is unlikely that an effective human vaccine? could be made available in the near future.

“Sperm antigens are also being studied, but so far they have proved relatively ineffective in animal tests.

“Given the very early stage of R&D (research and development) in this area, a minimum of 10-15 years? (author’s note: keep in mind that this article was written in 1980), of sustained, high-priority effort will be needed to produce a vaccine? using either the beta hCG? or one of the other approaches.

“Vaccination is a universally appreciated and understood medical intervention.? The method is unlikely to require any special facilities for delivery, since in most countries there are already facilities for vaccination programs, and paramedical personnel and barefoot doctors are already trained to give injections–The eventual cost would probably be similar to that for other types of vaccinations offered by public-health programs in developing countries.

“Organizations involved:? The ICCR? (the Population Council’s International Committee for Contraception Research), the WHO (World Health Organization), the CPR (Center for Population Research),? and the PARFR? (Program for Applied Research on Fertility Regulation) have all been involved in one or another aspect of vaccine? research.? The WHO was one of the major agencies involved in beta-hCG? vaccine research and in zona pellucida and sperm antigen approaches; the ICCR is continuing its beta-hCG research; the CPR is funding work on zona pellucida approaches; and the PARFR is working on sperm antigens.? At least two pharmaceutical companies are also believed to be active in investigations into a vaccine.

“Current funding:? About 10 percent of public-sector funding for applied R&D was being expended annually by the public sector on all of these approaches as of 1978.? The largest share, about $1.2 million, was going into beta-hCG? research. Private-sector involvement is believed to be small.

“Future requirements:? A broad-scale effort, involving research into a variety of antigens and approaches, is required.? Such a mission-oriented approach would involve costs on the order of $3-6 million per year over at least 10 years (author’s note: 10 years from the date of this article is 1990) but would appear to offer an excellent probability of producing an effective vaccine.”[14]

In 1986 a St. Louis paper carried an article which stated that “Australian doctors are conducting the first human tests of an ‘anti-pregnancy vaccine’ developed at Ohio State University? in Columbus–The experimental vaccine? would act as a contraceptive by immunizing women against a hormone necessary to maintain pregnancy.”[15]

In 1995 Sr. Mary Pilar Verzosa? writes from the Philippines? regarding the mass immunization? of women there who are of reproductive age:

“The vials we tested proved positive for beta-hCG? while the women had anti-bodies against pregnancy.? The women we tested had miscarriages, stillbirth or premature births.? The government has all its forces against us - media is on their side and we don’t know how the judge will turn.? We need your prayers.? This is David fighting Goliath - WHO, UNICEF, Department of Health.? At the last court hearing, the Chief of our BFAD? (FDA) [Food and Drug Administration] admitted that the 3 brands of toxoids did not undergo testing or registration in his office before they were distributed to the public health centers.? He said that WHO confirmation was enough.? However, we know that commercial labs (like those where these come from- Intervax, Connaught, CSL) are for profit and are just too happy if poor countries with weak laws accept substandard products.? We will ask other poor countries to investigate their immunizations.? In India, 12 children died of polio shots.? We cannot keep quiet.? Our women who lost their babies are grieving.”[16]

Whether internationally or locally, the intent is population control.? Missouri’s largest abortion? clinic, Reproductive Health Services, produced a video titled “Abortion For Survival.”? It clearly admits the “absolute necessity of keeping abortion legal for population control, and back-up to failed contraception? for ALL, including minors.”



[1] “U.S. Goal: Sterilize Million of World’s Women,” St. Louis Post Dispatch
Apr. 22, 1977.

[2] Postcard from Beijing, Focus On the Family, Vol. 9, No.11, Nov. 20, 1995, p.2.

[3] Healthy People 2000, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; Public Health Service Publication # (PHS) 91-50212; U.S. Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents p. 191.

[4] Healthy Missourians 2000 Vol. II, Health Strategic Plan, 2nd Edition, Nov. 1992, Missouri Department of Health, pp. 139, 180.

[5] “Convention on the Rights of the Child Resolutions,” United Nations General Assembly, Dec. 5, 1989.

[6] “U.S. Goal: Sterilize Millions of World’s Women,” St. Louis Post Dispatch, Apr. 22, 1977.

[7] “Planned Births, the Future of the Family and the Quality of American Life: Towards a Comprehensive National Policy and Program,” Planned Parenthood, Jun. 1977.

[8] “Schools’ Health Services May Grow,” St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 28, 1993.

[9] “Family Planning Perspectives; U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature,” Planned Parenthood National Organization Source of table: Frederick S. Jaffe’s memorandum to Bernard Berelson, Mar. 11, 1969, “Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S.” pp. viii, ix.

[10] Steven W. Mosher, “A Mother’s Ordeal,” Readers Digest, Feb. 1987, pp. 49-55.

[11] May 12, 1980, “Dear Colleague” letter from Ernest G. Peterson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs attached to the May 1980, Report.

[12] “Five-Year Plan For Family Planning Services And Population Research,” May 1980, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

[13] Professor Hermela Pagayanan, “Discovery of Anti-Beta hCG in the Sera of Women Injected with the Tetanus Toxoid Vaccine,” University of the Philippines Manila Archdiocese Report, Apr. 23, 1995.

[14] “Prospects for Improved Contraception,” Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 4, July/August 1980, pp. 183, 185, 186.

[15] “Vaccine Against Pregnancy Now Being Tested On Humans,” St. Louis Globe-Democrat, July 11, 1986.

[16] April 16, 1995 letter from Sr. Mary Pilar Verzosa, RGS; Pro-Life Philippines; Caritas Building; 2002 Jesus Street; Panda Telephone: 50-63-32/1.