immigration would help to reduce inequities in present and possible future applications of immigration laws; (3) while reduction of family preferences would probably survive constitutional challenge, it would run counter to the value of family reunification, which has loomed large in recent policy; and (4) proposals geared to control the location and distribution of immigrants might be constitutionally acceptable if not too severe (e.g., not involving mandatory requirements). Nonetheless, it remains clear that the combination of fundamental and unique American values which come to bear on immigration policies requires further exploration in the future.

ETHICAL CONCERNS AND VALUES OF
AMERICAN INTEREST AND
PROFESSIONAL GROUPS

The American ethical, legal, and political tradition is rich in the elaboration of basic values which have been present since the beginning. That is why it is possible to speak of an American tradition, one which joins the mainstream of the Western tradition as a whole. The United States is also constituted of many different racial, ethnic, class, religious, and professional groups, each with value perspectives special (if not necessarily unique) to themselves.

The formation of population policy must take account of these realities, not only because a traditional commitment to pluralism requires it, but also because any population policy formulated in ignorance of these realities will stand in dire political jeopardy. The purpose of this section is to explore the particular values, moral logic, and interests of some important groups in American society. Our investigation of the groups centered on the questions of (1) what the value concerns and commitments of the different groups are; and (2) their implications, in terms of ethical acceptability, for the formation of population policy. What is important to the different groups? What do they value? What do they want, or would find acceptable, as an American population policy? What would they find repugnant?

We will first record our findings on some key racial, sexual, and political groups, then on American religious and economic groups and, finally, on various professional groups. There is no pretense here to have covered all of those American groups with a present or potential interest in population policy. We have tried to deal only with those which seem particularly important and which will, in one form or another, constitute sources of support or opposition to a population policy. Blacks10

Up until the past few years, few whites took seriously the charge that United States birth control

programs were genocidal, regarding it as an irresponsible and paranoic reaction of extremist groups and individuals. In 1971, the charge can no longer be ignored, especially since it is being increasingly articulated by more moderate elements within the black community. Indeed, it may even be serving to bring together ideologically disparate groups in black society, providing a contemporary common resentment of major proportions, comparable in tone and function to the older and deeper resentment of slavery.

The roots of the genocidic fear are deep. They extend to slavery days when the reproductive and family lives of many blacks were systematically controlled or disrupted in the interest of the masters. When slavery was abolished, differential mortality was not, and a long-standing target for rage has been the persistent gap in death rates between blacks and whites, a gap often viewed as advantageous for whites to maintain. In the past few years, the differential mortality issue has hardened into accusations on the part of more militant blacks of a white plan of extermination.

A second source of concern refers to the survival and strengthening of the black family. Recent white concerns over family instability and high illegitimacy rates have raised suspicions among blacks of a plan of cultural genocide. For, in their eyes and on the basis of evidence, single-parent families are not always unstable, and most black families are stable.

However, the most frequent manifestation of the genocidic charge refers neither to cultural nor direct biological extermination, but to the inhibition of black population growth and perhaps the likely decrease in size that will occur by limitation on reproduction. Given such concerns and perceptions about numbers, it is not surprising that blacks regard any white overtures to reduce their population size with suspicion. It is possible to point to many elements of society which lend credence and urgency-to the concern. The best evidence that such motivation exists stems from the fact that in the past decade a number of states, predominantly southern, have considered proposals which would permit involuntary sterilization of those who produce illegitimate children. Public statements of influential citizens are also cited. Because of its combined association with castration and with Nazi attempts to eradicate whole races, blacks view sterilization as the genocidal technique par excellence. The failure of the United States to ratify the United Nations treaty against genocide has hardly allayed suspicions.

The blacks who publicly express the genocide charge are usually articulate and forceful, but how representative of the black communities are they? Various pieces of evidence exist that they may represent

minority, yet very possibly a growing one. One survey, r instance, found that 28 percent of the blacks rveyed agreed with the statement that, "Encouraging acks to use birth control is comparable to trying to minate this group from society."11 Males agreed with e statement significantly more than females. Yet the umbers who do accept such arguments are enough to eserve serious attention. In particular, the opinions of lack leadership are crucial both in their own right and terms of impact on public policies and programs. here there is considerable disagreement among black aders on the question of population, there is one spect of the population issue on which most blacks gree-its low priority compared with other pressing eeds. The fact that many whites give population problems top priority has infuriated blacks at a number of conferences. They often see the large family as a ymptom or consequence of deeper problems, not the cause of such problems. They see the new governmental concern as based on the assumption that it is the large family, broken homes, and the like which are a major source of poverty. Rather, they believe that it is poverty and racism, together with poor health care, which are the major cause of the ills of the black and the poor. The blacks want better health and better levels of living. They are suspicious of the aims of birth control and population programs, mainly out of a concern that the achievement of a secondary goal such as birth control might jeopardize the achievement of more pressing goals.

One point is of critical importance. Even the most liberal black groups will find anything but a voluntarist population policy unethical as well as repressive and possibly genocidal. For blacks, group survival and power-through which survival can be assured-are primary values. Other values, freedom and justice, for instance, have no meaning for blacks without definite evidence of a guarantee of the values of survival and power. Any nonvoluntarist population policy would, in the eyes of blacks, further pressure and result in repression for black men and women without insuring the realization of their full share in the American dream.

Spanish-Americans1 2

Americans of Spanish-speaking origins make up the second largest minority group in the United States. As they have been largely ignored until very recently, their size often comes as a surprise. Estimates based on a 1969 survey by the Census Bureau suggests a total of 9,230,000 individuals of Spanish-American descent. Are there any values, attitudes, and social institutions that are distinctive of Spanish-American culture? Indeed, is there a Spanish-American culture at all? The evidence on hand cautions against facile generalizations about

Latinos, or even about specific groups. There are numerous variations in attitudes and behavior according to residence, social class, age, and length of time in the United States. Manhattanites of Puerto Rican origin differ in many ways, for instance, from MexicanAmericans in the Southwest. Although there is little basis for precise statements on the value patterns characteristic of each of the various subgroups of Spanish-American minorities in this country, it is possible to point up certain values and institutions which are relatively prominent in most Latin cultures.

A typical description of Spanish-American culture, including its United States variants, emphasizes the centrality of the family. In general, family ties, including relationships with the extended kinship group, provide the most secure basis for trust and the source of the most abiding obligations for many Spanish-Americans. There is little doubt, therefore, that governmental intervention on population questions would touch a core area of culture for this group.

Closely bound up with the family are cultural expectations for the two sexes. According to traditional norms, men are dominant and strong, women submissive and weak. The general pattern of male dominance in Spanish-American culture carries to the relationships between marriage partners, though this pattern seems to have been weakened by acculturation. According to custom, men are the commanding figures and the final authorities in family decisions, at least in theory. There is also a limited sphere of communication between husbands and wives. The barriers to communication seem particularly strong in the areas of concern in this discussion-family size and sexual behavior. Two of the major sources of male opposition to female contraception are, on the one hand, a fear of losing control over their wives and, on the other, fears of their infidelity.

For various reasons, children occupy a special place within Spanish-American culture. For the man, the arrival of a male heir is proof of machismo. For the wife, a child of either sex is also critical in fulfilling her self-definition as a woman. Thus, a policy which would limit the number of children to two, especially if it made no allowance for the sex of the children, might well impose greater hardships on Spanish-Americans than on other subgroups in American society.

In general, Spanish-Americans seem comparatively little concerned about excessive population growth. For many, the problem of survival as individuals and as a group is so pressing that there is little time available for thinking about more remote questions. Probably the only sense in which this group feels that population is a problem is at the level of their own family. In particular, Spanish-Americans would be suspicious of any govern

mental intervention in the area of population control. More often than not their experience with government officials has been negative. Mexican-Americans are particularly inclined to view governmental programs with distrust. For many years, their contacts with the border patrol, the local police, the Texas Rangers, and other officials have been unrewarding, if not fraught with conflict. There is little doubt that governmental policies involving further interference with family life, such as deportation of illegal immigrants, would be deeply resented by Mexican-Americans.

The question of genocide has been somewhat less salient for Spanish-Americans than for blacks. Nevertheless, the genocide issue is raised with some frequency by militant Puerto Rican groups such as the Young Lords. (Some women, however, in the Young Lords are in favor of family planning and abortion as a means of feminine liberation.) Among Mexican-Americans, on the other hand, accusations of race or class genocide are quite rare. Some of the better-educated militant Chicanos, however, see population control as part of a larger process of cultural genocide-the destruction of the MexicanAmerican heritage. The Anglo concern with contraception, in their view, is symptomatic of a technologically inspired rationalization which will ultimately obliterate unique elements of ethnic identity.

Perhaps the most common argument against population control among both Chicanos and Puerto Ricans, and one which is tied to the issue of genocide, is the simple question of power. There is a general belief that increased numbers is either a good in itself or is an effective avenue to increased bargaining power with the larger society.

Of all the population-related issues, immigration policies may well cause the greatest concern and controversy among Mexican-Americans. While there is serious disagreement among Mexican-Americans over what United States policy should be, there is more agreement on how policy should be formulated. Any immigration policy which affects the lives of MexicanAmericans will be more successful if it is worked out with them and enforced by units including a representation of Spanish-Americans.

Finally, despite the many reservations and concerns among Spanish-Americans concerning a governmentinitiated population policy, it appears that large numbers of Spanish-Americans are interested in and seeking out family planning assistance. Though this demand will probably continue, several cultural factors may work against the adoption of family planning at the level seen in the larger society: an emphasis on the family, male opposition to contraception, lack of information, female

modesty, and the persistence of certain Roman Catholic traditions.

American Indians 13

The American Indian is the one group in American society which is not of immigrant origins. Our land was originally their land, and they have not forgotten that fact. As with the blacks and Spanish-Americans, there is a tremendous concern for group survival, as well as a concern for the preservation of Indian cultural traditions. Like the other minority groups, there are many variations in the attitude of Indians, and many distinctions to be made among different Indian tribes, in the setting of Indian life at present in the United States. Nonetheless, group survival, justice, and freedom are of prime importance to the Indian. Closely related to these, are the values of respect (particularly among themselves), affection, and beauty, as well as reverence and respect for nature. A sense of the wholeness of life, of man's harmony with time and the earth, and the indivisibility of sacred and secular are important Indian values.

Like other racial minority groups, Indians would be greatly resistant to any involuntary population policies.. Perhaps no one has more reason to cry "genocide" than the American Indian. Although the Indian wars have long ceased, and although numbers of Indians are increasing, cultural genocide continues and receives the greatest activist attention among Indians. Any possible threat to further inroads on the integrity of Indian culture, which would be seen in involuntary policies, would be vigorously resisted.

Since Indians have experienced relocation-violent in the past, somewhat less coercive but still highly disruptive to the present day-Indians are suspicious of and in most cases highly likely to be resistant to any but the most voluntaristic policies of population distribution. They would not, however, be likely to oppose a reduction in, or cessation of, immigration; they see themselves as the victims of the immigration of others to the North American continent.

Women's Liberation14

Birth control is the technological sine qua non of the Women's Liberation Movement. Earlier feminist movements were handicapped by inadequate technology and restrictive laws conceming contraception and abortion. The emergence in the 1960's of new technology, permissive legislation, and state provision of services, would seem to provide an ideal environment for revolutionary change in the relations between the sexes. Nevertheless, as with the blacks for instance, new birth control technology and services have been accepted with a great deal of ambivalence and distrust.

The reasons for this, particularly in the organized art of the Women's Liberation Movement, are various. rst, there is a basic distrust of males. If blacks are spicious of birth control coming from the white, omen are suspicious of it coming from the male. Such spicions tend to be confirmed when women find emselves excluded from decision-making on research id programs directed at them. There is much ambivance on female contraception. On the one hand, women elcome it as a way of gaining freedom over their odies, and, on the other, resent the burden and esponsibility this places exclusively on them.

Second, there is a rejection of tokenism. Important s birth control technology may be to women, it is not he major goal of the Women's Liberation Movement, ut only a means to more important goals such as mployment and status equality. They do not want hese goals jeopardized by the realization of short-range ones like birth control services. The farther left one noves in the political spectrum, the more controversial become the objectives and significance of the women's liberation movement and, consequently, the significance of birth control within it.

Third, there is a fairly strong antifamily current which runs through the Women's Liberation Movement. In the mainstream of the movement, the opposition to the concept of family planning or planned parenthood comes not from those who despise the family, but who want childless "families" as an option. Many women feel that the Planned Parenthood movement has always been middle class and has also become "establishment"; additionally, attempts to achieve responsible parenthood within the framework of the traditional family fall short of the goal of "freedom over one's body" for all women-married, single, and childless. Just as blacks have pointed out that their large families are a product poverty, so white women have been quick to point out that their large families are a consequence of the absence of "significant alternatives for women."

Increasingly, we may anticipate that women will ask for "significant alternatives" as their price for restricting their fertility, and the list of demands may be a long

one.

The New Left 15

In at least two ways, the population issue is one which might have considerable relevance for contemporary radical youth-its tendency to divorce sex from reproduction and its close relationship to environmental concems. A radical orientation toward sex is consistent with the Women's Liberation Movement and, of course, with older socialist views on divorcing sexuality from reproduction. These views remained largely abstract and

ideological until modern technology and new views toward sexuality and the family put them within reach of a broad spectrum of contemporary youth.

For all that, the New Left looks upon the concern with population with considerable suspicion if not outright hostility. At the very least, there is suspicion that the whole population and environment concern represents an evasion of more pressing social questionsrace, poverty, the Vietnamese war. No less importantly, and even more bitingly, there is a strong tendency to see the population movement as a means by which the poor will be controlled by and for the rich.

Why is the mere instrument of birth control thought to give the rich real control over the poor? Aside from the seductive semantics of terms like "birth control," there are a variety of reasons. The first is the immediate assumption on the part of the New Left that almost anything seriously proposed by the United States Government is not only in its own self-interest, but also that the self-interest is both concealed and against the interests of the poor. This is very similar to the automatic suspicion characteristic of black militants toward whites, and of feminists toward men. Closely related to this is a suspicion that those who stress the relationship between population and pollution, and then advocate a control of population, are simply serving the interests of industry, which would rather see births controlled than its own polluting ruinous industrial practices.

Few, if any radicals are opposed to contraception when put in the service of individual freedom. Like the women who want jobs and day care to accompany birth control, and like the blacks who want better health services and living conditions to accompany birth control, so the radicals want a restructured world. Neither ecology nor population problems as such are high on the agenda. Instead, the demand is for more just and human social and political institutions. Only when there is greater economic security, full participation of the people in the political structure, and an end to racism and sexism, will the ground be prepared for a meaningful population policy or program. Freedom, justice, and the general welfare are the first priorities for the New Left. In their view, however, nothing less than a major social and political revolution can succeed in bringing these about. Any population policy which was, in the first place, given a high national priority and any policy which, in the second place, seemed to build upon or even contribute to the maintenance of the present political order would be rejected. That nonvoluntary programs with a heavy impact upon the poor and upon minority groups would be rejected-perhaps violentlycannot be doubted.

Religious Groups16

Roman Catholics, Jews, and Protestants encompass a sizable majority of the United States population. There are close to 48 million Roman Catholics, six million Jews, and 81 million Protestants. Church membership in Christian denominations constituted 62.4 percent of the United States population in 1970. Membership in Jewish congregations encompass approximately 54 percent of all Jews and an estimated 65 percent of all Jews are affiliated with some Jewish organization. Members of all three religious groups total an estimated 135 million, close to two-thirds of the 1970 United States population.

Contrary to much popular opinion, it is our finding that fidelity to the teachings of the three major religious groups in America would not necessarily result in high fertility. While it has been common for demographers to note gradations in the level of fertility and desired family size (the Jews at the lowest end of the spectrum, Protestants in the middle, and Catholics at the highest end), it is important to note that most Catholic couples in the United States produce only two to four children, far fewer than would be expected in a population making no effort to control fertility. Furthermore, in Orthodox Judaism, the families of the second or third generation Americans definitely approximate the low fertility of their fellow Jews, despite the stress by Orthodox rabbis on the duty of continuous procreation found in Jewish law. Both within the tradition of all three religions and within contemporary religious thought, there are strands that can move faithful adherents in the direction of low fertility.

In order to see how religious values relate to fertility behavior, contraceptive use, and population policy, it is necessary to examine the following three ingredients of religious thought: (1) the characterization of sexual and marital relations; (2) differential responses to birth control measures; (3) attitudes toward population growth, human welfare, and government intervention. Characterization of Sexual and Marital Relations

Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholic tradition tended to see the primary purpose of marriage as procreative, and its role in providing love and companionship as a secondary purpose. Contemporary Catholic teaching now puts a great deal more stress on the positive values of love and companionship, and on the function of sexual intercourse in fostering such companionship. There are, however, two strands of Catholic thought regarding the way in which these two purposes of marriage are to be understood. First, there is the official teaching, summarized and embodied in the Papal Encyclical, Humanae

Vitae. There is a second strand of thought explicitly in opposition to the Papal Encyclical and in line with the majority view in the Papal Commission on birth control. Official papal teaching takes the view that every sexual act must, in the form that it takes, be open to its natural procreative purpose. This rules out the use of all contraceptives, and, given the prohibitions against sterilization and abortion, limits morally justifiable birth control to the rhythm method or abstinence. Those who oppose this view do not link the procreative intent with each sexual act, but with the total fulfillment of the marriage. This means that the procreative and unitive purposes of marriage are not thwarted by contraceptive practices. Catholic attitudes and practice in the United States have allied themselves with this latter view of marriage and contraceptive practice; the majority of Catholics use birth control methods incompatible with Papal teaching and favor government-assisted family planning programs.

Despite the difference between the two dominant modes of Catholic thought and practice, all Catholic teaching stresses the necessity of limiting family size for the sake of the health and welfare of individual women and children. In both strands of thought, including papal encyclicals, there are increasing references to the responsibility of couples to take into account the relationship between population growth and the welfare of the community in which they live.

Judaism

In Jewish law, the purposes of marriage and the justification of sexual intercourse can be summarized as follows:

1. The duty to procreate is at the core of the religious duty (mitzvah) of marriage. Although this duty is technically and minimally fulfilled by having two children, the duty of procreation is, nonetheless, an ongoing one.

2. Marriage involves another duty, that of sexual responsibility, which devolves upon the husband with respect to his wife's other-than-procreative needs. This duty is also defined as to its minimal fulfillment, but husbands are expected to go beyond the statutory requirements in being alert to the moods and gestures of their wives.

3. The Jewish view of birth control is built on a consideration of the above factors, counterpoised with others. A threat to the wife's health in connection with pregnancy must be balanced against the duties to procreate and to fulfill the relational side of marriage. Since sexual abstinence would subvert both the procrea tional and the relational purposes of marriage, contra