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

ception is mandated where the conception of children must be prevented.

4. Jewish law speaks of the evil of the destruction or improper emission of generative seed. The evil is in the self-defiling abuse of the generative faculties by improper auto-erotic, nonheterosexual semination. This element in Jewish tradition tends to render problematic the use of coitus interruptus or devices that are analogous in their effects. It does not rule out the use of semen for procreative purposes or medical tests to determine fertility.

Contemporary Jewish religious leaders differ significantly with respect to the emphasis they would put upon the continuous duty to procreate. In actual practice a very high percent of Jews use contraceptives and, among the religious groups, they are the most frequent and most effective users of contraceptives. When asked about this apparent discrepancy between the duty to procreate, and the low fertility of Jews, rabbis seem agreed that most American Jews were neither self-consciously following Jewish law nor disobeying it. Their actions are in accordance with another part of Jewish tradition, with its concern for the education and total welfare of one's children and family. There are suggestions also that the stress of being in a minority group has been a factor in effective planning and low fertility as a means toward high socio-economic attainment.

Protestantism

As in Catholicism and Judaism, Protestant tradition recognizes both the procreative and relational aspects of marriage. In contemporary Protestant thought, there is a great deal of emphasis on the achievement of sexual fulfillment and a high degree of genuine companionship within marriage. Unlike Catholic tradition, where a childless vocation has meant celibacy, Protestants have accepted the legitimacy of intentionally childless marriages. Whereas this was very much a justifiable exception in the past, there is now a much more favorable attitude toward such a possibility. At the same time, however, Protestantism continues to stress the positive values and joys of parenthood and the fulfillment that comes through childbearing and especially child rearing.

More than in the other religious groups, Protestant church leaders are explicitly calling upon individual couples to exercise restraint in fertility. Most Protestant teaching now views the choice of contraceptive methods as an aesthetic and not a moral one. Protestant thought stresses the right and the duty of individual couples to achieve harmony and fulfillment in line with their vision of the purposes of their own marriage. Church leaders in some major denominations have opposed restrictions on

the availability of contraceptives for the unmarried and, in some instances, for minors as well.

Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic views of marital love all share some important characteristics. There is; on the one hand, the uniform emphasis each religion places upon the health and welfare of women, children, and the total family unit. This includes an explicit focus on the importance of educating and securing the future of one's own children. There is, on the other hand, in the concept of loyalty to God, a concomitant concern for the welfare of all individuals and for mankind as such. No religious teachings would reduce considerations of welfare to an economic calculus, particularly in the context of an obligation to bear and rear children. Differential Response to Birth Control Methods

Abortion is not considered to be simply one birth control method among others. National polls taken in 1969 show that 87 percent of Catholic women and 80 percent of Catholic men are opposed to abortion to prevent the birth of an unwanted child.17 Among non-Catholics, 79 percent of the women and 76 percent of the men disapprove of abortion under these circumstances. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that religious thought in all groups put moral constraints upon the resort to abortion. (Jewish attitudes deviate, however; 51 percent of the nation's Jews polled in 1967 favored abortion for the sake of preventing the birth of an unwanted child.)18

Catholic Views

The dominant and the official papal view is that abortion is never licit in instances where, in an operation to save the life of a woman, abortion is an indirect effect. Despite this stringent view, Catholic officials and the majority of the United States Catholics have generally defended abortion laws that permit abortion when the health and welfare of the pregnant woman is gravely threatened. There are some Catholics who would argue that, while abortion is morally wrong except perhaps where the woman's life and health is gravely threatened, this should be seen as the view of a Catholic minority and should not be legislatively enforced. The official and dominant view among Catholics is that abortion is the taking of a human life. Generally, human life is seen as beginning at conception, although there are dissident voices on this point.

Jewish Views

Predominant Jewish thought is that abortion does not involve taking a human life because life begins after birth. There are, however, two strands of Jewish tradition and thought. One sees an abortion as an

offense analagous to homicide because potential life is involved. The life of the mother takes precedence, however. This means that abortion is permissible where the welfare and health of the woman are threatened. A defective fetus, though, is not sufficient justification in itself for an abortion. A second strand in Jewish thought takes all of the above into account and adds as a working principle that the "pain of the woman comes first." The use of this principle has an obvious effect in the direction of a somewhat more permissive look. Among Jewish rabbis, there is a spectrum of thinking that ranges from those who would oppose any change in abortion laws that permit abortion only when the life and the health of the pregnant woman is gravely threatened, to those who favor and work for abortion on request.

Protestant Views

Because actual or potential human life is involved, Protestant church leaders and laymen generally do not view abortion as a birth control method. However, Protestant views range from those that favor abortion when the life and health of the mother is seriously threatened to those who favor abortion on request. Within the past 10 years, a number of the major denominations have become critical of currently prevailing United States laws on abortion. These impulses for change express a concern regarding illegal abortion and the rights of women. Suggestions for change range from the American Law Institute proposal, espoused, for example, by Southern Baptists and the Massachusetts Council of Churches, to abortion on request, espoused, for example, by the Methodists.

Sterilization, like abortion, is not generally viewed as one birth control method among others. Official and dominant Roman Catholic thought sanctions sterilization only where it is a medical necessity. There is some evidence in the United States that medical necessity is very permissively defined to favor the general welfare of the woman and her family.

The general thrust of Jewish tradition is in the direction of limiting sterilization to instances where questions of health are involved. The stringency of contemporary Jewish views is contingent upon the extent to which the continuous duty to procreate is stressed. As we have seen, contemporary Jewish thought varies in this regard.

Protestants have roughly exhibited the same reservations about sterilization that we saw in Judaism and Catholicism. However, there is a growing tendency to see voluntary sterilization as an option that individual couples could justify for purposes of limiting their family. It is usual, however, to warn individuals of the irreversible nature of this step and to urge them to seek

medical and spiritual counsel before taking such a step.

It is important to note that there is a strong consensus among all religious groups that abortion and sterilization should not be involuntary. As to whether the government should encourage these practices, there is wide disagreement that runs through all groups. As we have noted, papal views restrict licit birth control methods to that of rhythm. However, as we have noted also, Roman Catholic practice is rapidly assimilating itself toward the dominant Protestant thought and practice, which is to view birth control methods, other than abortion and sterilization, as matters of individual conscience to be decided by reflection on how to achieve the purposes of fulfillment in marriage, both procreative and sexual. Jewish thought and practice regarding contraceptives has already been discussed.

Attitudes Toward Population Growth, Human Welfare, and Government Intervention

When it comes to the nature and extent of government involvement in policies that directly affect fertility behavior, there is widespread disagreement within and among religious groups. Religious leaders generally agree that the government has some legitimate role in this area. For example, the Catholic church believes that governments can facilitate the voluntary use of the rhythm method as well as support research to render it more exact. Roman Catholics in the United States are increasingly agreed that the church should change its stand on birth control to endorse contraceptives and programs that make them more readily available to everyone who wishes to use them. In 1965, 56 percent of the Roman Catholic membership in the United States thought that the church should change its stand on birth control; in 1967, 61 percent expressed this view. Religious teaching in all religious groups accepts and encourages governmental regulation of marital relations. Some religious leaders among all groups are especially concerned to see more government efforts in the direction of strengthening marital ties and improving the conditions of domestic security and harmony that enable couples more freely to plan the size and assure the welfare of their families. Racial justice is an important part of that concern. Although there is wide agreement on such general goals, some Protestant churches and church leaders are urging decreasing government regulation in areas such as homosexual behavior, divorce, and availability of contraceptives to minors and single people. Such policies may diminish rather than augment family stability. In 1967, 46 percent of the Roman Catholics in the United States and 53 percent of the non-Catholics favored a policy of