Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118565144
label
[Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board - Unplanned Parenthood, April 1974 (2 of 2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565144
contentType
document
title
[Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board - Unplanned Parenthood, April 1974 (2 of 2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118565144
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
45c69cc5bfa9d16b
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board -
Unplanned Parenthood, April 1974 (2 of 2)
Box: P39
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
parental consent is necessary before medical care can be provided to a
minor; otherwise the care constitutes an unauthorized touching - the tort
or wrong against the person called battery. But there have always been
exceptions to this rule. Harriet Pilpel and Nancy Wechsler review these
exceptions in their two excellent articles on this subject in Family
Planning Perspectives, Spring 1969 and July 1971. Since many of us fall
into the trap of saying that parental consent is always necessary before
medical care can be provided to a minor, let me review the exceptions:
- in cases of emergency (one might view lack of contraception
for a sexually active minor as an emergency)
- when the minor is emancipated, which is a question of fact (e.g.,
married, in the armed forces, living away from home, self-supporting)
- in cases of parental neglect (one might view refusal or failure
of parents to consent to contraception for a sexually active minor
as parental neglect)
- when the minor is a 'mature' minor, the procedure is for the
benefit of the minor, and the minor can understand its nature
and consequences (increasingly the emerging doctrine of the
mature minor is being recognized by courts in varying
circumstances). (Legal Aspects of Access to Family Planning
Services)
There is a clear intent on the part of some family planning agencies and
clinics to subvert the long-standing rule of law relating to parental
consent. The only argument that can be made in support of this position
is that "the end justifies the means". This attitude is always dangerous,
but it is especially so when a third party is interjected into the
relationship between the child and his parents.
Family planning information and counseling may be given to a minor without
the parent's consent or knowledge; however, upon the state permitting such
an intrusion into parental authority the state then assumes the responsibility
to assure that those persons providing such informational and counseling
services are sufficiently trained in accordance with statewide standards
established by the Department of Health. A minor child is permitted to
obtain contraceptive devices from trained medical personnel without obtaining
parental consent upon such medical practitioner determining that there is a
likellhood of conception unless such device is provided. A minor child may
obtain prescriptive contraceptives provided they are prescribed by a licensed
doctor, if he finds the prescription is necessary to prevent conception.
The use of prescriptive contraceptives may continue subject to the parent's
right to modify or terminate such course of treatment.
Ideally, parents should take responsibility for initiating ongoing discussion
of this very sensitive and important subject with their children. This
lost opportunity on the part of parents and the information void, from the
standpoint of the children, is being partially filled by family planning
clinics.
-76-
What is clear is that in recent years there has been a substantial increase
in the availability of birth control information to children and adults
alike. This service is provided through a vast number of public and private
agencies funded through the use of donated funds and tax funds. It is
also clear that this information resource will continue to undergo significant
expansion in the coming years. A further aid to expansion is the fact
that under the new Social Service Regulations published by the United States
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in May 1973, family planning
(birth control) is one of those services which is mandated and will receive
more favorable funding consideration.
The Board supports the broad availability of birth control information
services to adults as well as children under certain circumstances. In
this context, however, the Board is concerned about two important points.
First, there are Insufficient standards or guidelines to define and assure
the provision of quality services in all types of public and private birth
control information programs. Most responsible public and private agencies
have established their own independent guides and standards; however, such
a fragmented approach does not provide adequate protection to the public.
The California State Department of Health, as the appropriate state agency,
should develop guidelines and standards for birth control services and take
the necessary steps to ensure that these requirements are met by providers
of birth control services throughout the state.
The second major problem in the viewpoint of the Board is the fact that
there are essentially no qualifications which individuals providing birth
control information services are required to meet. This state and/or its
political subdivisions licenses doctors, teachers, psychologists, contractors
and barbers as well as a host of other professional individuals and craftsmen,
many of whom are engaged in activities having far less significant social im-
pact than do those persons involved in disseminating birth control information.
Many individuals currently providing birth control information services are
highly qualified professional persons who have adequate background and training
to provide such services. It is the Board's contention, however, that the
significant and rapid growth in the family planning field has resulted in a
substantial number of people with notably little background or experience being
placed in the position of providing such services. There is a need to establish
some basic qualifications in terms of education, experience or training which
the Individual purveyors of family planning services would have to meet.
The California Business and Professions Code Section 17800 et seq. governs
the licensing of persons engaged in marriage, family or child counseling.
A legal interpretation of this section reveals that the provisions do not
apply to persons engaged in providing family planning services. It is the
Board's viewpoint that this section of the Business and Professions Code
should be amended to provide for licensing of family planning practitioners
and that the basic qualifications as suggeste above, when met, should
represent a prerequisite for state licensing.
-77-
D. Psychological Vulnerability in Birth Control
Earlier sections of this report have primarily dealt with the dissemination
of birth control information to children and the importance of this factor
as it relates to their protection, especially during the time of the child's
awakening sexuality. In fact, there are a number of circumstances and stages
which occur during the individual's lifetime which have been found to have
a significant affect on the individual's motivation with respect to birth
control protection. Dr. Miller has reported on his research of women who
were seeking a therapeutic abortion. He was interested in determining why
these women got pregnant, their subsequent behavior (request for abortion)
indicating that the pregnancy was rejected and they did not want to have
the baby. He identified a number of situations and circumstances which
resulted in psychologically vulnerable stages in the life of the fertile
woman which affected her motivation to properly utilize birth control tech-
niques and devices. These stages of vulnerability as identified by Dr. Miller
are as follows:
1. During early adolescence,
a. when fecundity is absent or low, but increasing, and as a
consequence, contraceptive diligence is infrequently developed.
11. At the start of the sexual career,
a. at the time of the first few intercourses, for which there
is typically no contraceptive preparation;
b. during the six months afterwards, until the woman recognizes
and acknowledges the beginning of her sexual career.
111. In relation to a stable sexual partner,
a. while the relationship is in the stage of development, before
a stable sexual and contraceptive pattern has been established;
b. during conflict or separation, when patterns of communication
and cooperation are disrupted and the sense of interpersonal
loss may be acute;
C. after breakup with the partner with whom a particular sexual
and contraceptive pattern have been established;
(1) when situationally reexposed to the old partner, but
without access to the previous contraceptive method;
(2) when exposed to new partners with different sexual and
contraceptive styles.
IV. After geographic mobility,
a. when there are major changes in social fields such that
sexual contraceptive norms and opportunities change;
-78-
(1) after moving away from home and family;
(2) after moving to a new socio-cultural area.
V. In relation to marriage,
a. just before or just after, a contraceptive diligence is
relaxed;
b. during conflict or separation;
C. after separation or divorce.
VI. After each pregnancy,
a. during the postpartum period, when there is subfecundity,
altered sexual activity and, often, the use of interim
contraceptive methods;
b. when a new level of contraceptive diligence is required
as a result of the demand brought about by a new baby.
VII. In relation to the end of child bearing,
a. when the decision to stop having children is being dealt
with.
VIII. During menopause,
a. when fecundity is decreasing and as a consequence,
contraceptive diligence is waning.
A significant part of the activity and resources of public and private family
planning agencies is directed toward providing birth control information
to teen-agers. The youthful age groups have been identified as a target
group within which there is a significant need for these services. The
Board generally concurs with this viewpoint; however, it suggested that
such agencies need to recognize other factors which affect conception vul-
nerability and to broaden their program to include these target groups as
well. It is suggested that the kinds of research summarized above, can serve
to identify such other target groups which should be Included in the expanded
programs.
E. The Moral Issue in Family Planning
Another major issue in agency rendered family planning services is the method
of presentation of the material. Basic to this issue is the concern that
the simple presentation of cold factual information to the child without
some moral frame of reference a possibility which can more easily
arise in a clinical environment than in a parent-child relationship will
represent nothing more than a "how-to-do-it" approach. There are those
family planning advocates who tend to deny that they have a responsibility
beyond simply providing information and permitting the child to make his
own choices.
-79-
This attitude is similar to providing a young person with the knowledge
required to fire a rifle without acquainting him with safety measures and
the legal and moral implications of injuring another person or taking a
human life. It is a question that has been much debated, but never resolved.
Family planning agencies must come to grips with this issue now in order for
their credibility to be accepted by the public. Since these agencies are
injecting themselves into a subject matter which has a very deep and lasting
social and family significance, they must go far beyond the mere providing
of cold clinical information.
Consider one comment on the related subject of sex education:
"If indeed, a person by understanding what I like to call education for
human sexuality rather than just sex education, goes ahead and engages
in sexual activity, is this harmful? We have never been able to find any
kind of proof that if we remove the telltale symptoms, such as pregnancy
and venereal disease, that sexual activity is harmful. If there is no
venereal disease, because we are so educated that we know how to prevent
it, if we have no pregnancies, because we are also educated to prevent
pregnancy, what indeed is the harm of sexuality?"
This statement is not only simplistic, but it is inconsistent with family
attitudes upon which our social norms are based. The attitude expressed
in the above few sentences represents the nub of the problem associated
with providing birth control and sex information to minors.
A common feature of relatively new and rapidly developing social programs
is that they tend to draw together those individuals who are prone to express
what they view as the advanced thinking of the profession. While the Board
certainly favors creative thinking and innovation, it suggests that in the
area of birth control, especially as related to minors, the public expression
of extreme viewpoints does a disservice to the profession as a whole, par-
ticularly in such a sensitive area as birth control.
It is suggested that one way in which the public and private family planning
agencies can encourage greater acceptance of their service would be to recruit
the membership of their policy making boards from among interested citizens
and concerned parents residing in their service area. With citizen input
into their policies, such agencies might better reflect community attitudes
on sexuality, particularly in the area of service to teens.
F. Other Considerations in the Delivery of Birth Control Services
At the present time, birth control services are provided throughout the
State of California by a host of public and private agencies on a drop-in
basis. In spite of the fact that such services have reached vast numbers of
people in this state, those persons served thus far represent only a small
part of the target or vulnerable groups which need such family planning
services.
-80-
Family planning services should also be offered on a voluntary basis to other
target groups who do not now have these services generally available to them.
For example, reference is made to the number of women who are residents
in public and private medical and psychiatric hospitals and in county
and state penal facilities. In many instances, the contraceptive program
used by women are seriously disrupted when they enter such institutions are
either on a temporary or longer term basis. Their release and return to
normal family relationships without adequate provision for birth control
information and resumption of their contraceptive program makes them par-
ticularly vulnerable.
Early efforts to provide family planning services, particularly to women
incarcerated in county and state penal institutions have met with much
success. Some progressive county jails have permitted the development
of voluntary family planning programs operated by local volunteers and
the acceptance of these programs by female inmates has been enthusiastic.
Another example of such an Innovative approach on a broader scale is a highly
regarded family planning program directed toward young men functioning within
California Youth Authority facilities. The significance of these kinds of
programs points out the need for public and private family planning agencies
to develop approaches for bringing these services to men and women who are
facing a time of high vulnerability.
Another important concern relates to the role and responsibility of the
welfare system for providing information and referral services to their
clients needing family planning services. At present, family planning
services to current, former and potential recipients of welfare in California
are provided by local health departments under a contract between the State
Department of Benefit Payments and the State Department of Health. Local
welfare staff has responsibility for providing information and referral
services and local agencies outside the welfare department are responsible
for providing the birth control services. Too often, local welfare staff
members have not received sufficient training and experience in family
planning services to feel comfortable in raising this issue with their
recipient-clients. In too many instances, information and referral services
to a family planning resource means simply providing the recipient with the
name, address and telephone number of the service agency. The same kinds
of motivational problems exist with respect to the woman making her way
to the family planning agency as exists in the woman using birth control
information and devices once they have been provided. Welfare staff needs
to be sufficiently informed and trained about family planning considerations
so they will be able to speak comfortably about this subject and further
consideration must be given to follow-up activities to ensure that the
recipient actually reaches the family planning agency to which she has
been referred.
Motivating the individual to recognize the need for birth control services
and effectively utilizing such services remains a significant problem.
Motivational considerations require that the presentation of birth control
-81-
Information must go far beyond the mere presentation of factual clinical
data. The entire conception process must be explained in sufficient detail
and understood so that the recipient of these services, male or female,
will have a clear concept of his vulnerability and need for protection.
There is ample research to demonstrate that, for the most part, conceptions
of unwanted pregnancies result more from human failing than from ineffectiveness
of a particular birth control device or method. For example, in the Board's
two-county survey of 259 paternity cases (Appendix 6i), 46% of the mothers
had received some type of training in birth control and a larger percent
had an awareness of the subject matter. However, 88% of the mothers in
these cases falled to use any protective device or method during the period
of conception.
Effective pregnancy prevention requires planning and self-discipline. Many
young girls are reluctant to consider consciously the possibility of inter-
course in advance and, consequently, do not take adequate precautions.
Unfortunately, the female has had to assume major responsibility for guarding
against conception due to the relative ease and increased use of the pill.
In the minds of many males, they are relatively free of responsibility.
They tend to relate the use of the condom more to venereal disease prevention
than to pregnancy prevention. As stated earlier, when researchers asked
a group of young unwed fathers why they had not used this form of protection,
the usual response was, "She's not that kind of a girl." This attitude
places an unequal and an unfair burden on the woman.
Birth control services have the potential of resulting in great public
good. The broad and effective dissemination of this information can help
childless couples with their problems; can assist other couples in determining
the number and spacing of the children they will have; and assist others,
particularly teen-agers, by providing protective information as a means of
preventing conception outside of marriage. There are many serious unresolved
problems connected with the providing of these services, and there continues
to be a heated controversy over many of the issues. Although the proposals
suggested herein by the State Social Welfare Board do not purport to address
themselves to all of the problems, the Board suggests that the adoption
of these principles and recommendations will represent significant progress
toward the development of a rational public policy on this sensitive matter.
-82-
VIII. ABORTION
In 1971 the State Social Welfare Board was requested by James Hall, Secretary
of the California Human Relations Agency, to make a study of abortion. Therefore,
testimony on the subject and its possible impact on society was sought at the
public hearings on illegitimacy. This section deals with information gleaned
from the hearings, related extensive research, and observations gained from both.
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy via expulsion of the fetus or an
embryo from the uterus. There are two types of abortion: spontaneous,
commonly referred to as miscarriage, and induced. Between 10 and 15 percent
of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Over 116,000 legally induced
abortions were performed in California in 1971. The terms legal and therapeutic
are used interchangeably in this report to describe certain induced abortions.
This specific type of induced abortion is the subject of this section.
A. Philosophical and Historical Perspective
As was stated in the earlier section on family planning, legal abortions
became more socially acceptable as a result of the merging of previously
divergent viewpoints with respect to women's rights, population
control, the problem of illegal abortions, and the attitudes of certain
segments of the medical profession. This was not an easy transition.
The passage of legal abortion acts in states across the country did
not occur without heated debate and the subsequent court decisions
related to these statutes served to spark additional dialogue.
The fact that California enacted its Therapeutic Abortion Act on November 8,
1967, has not quelled the debate in this state. Essentially, the
pro-abortionists defended the act and sought further liberalization
based upon their protestations that every child should be a wanted child;
that parents should be able to determine the number of children and
the spacing of their children; and, it is the right of every woman to
determine whether or not she will bear children. Birth control techniques
and devices had come into increased use. However, not all of these proved
to be totally effective and most require planning and self-discipline
which tend to be inconsistent with the timing and emotional nature of
sexual relations.
"Abortion, then, appeared as the surgically certain way of
eliminating accidents, the completely effective way of preventing
unwanted children. Through abortion, the individual's control
of the consequences of his sexual freedom was affirmed." The
Morality of Abortion
In discussing this "backstop" concept of abortion, Dr. Kingsley Davis
has stated:
"In current thinking, legalized abortion is also often regarded
as a preventive measure. In my view, it is likely, at
least in the short run, to be more effective than stepped-
up contraceptive programs in reducing the number of children
with inadequate parents. Since sexual intercourse is an ephemeral
-83-
activity engaged in under many kinds of situations and under
varying degrees of emotional rationality, it is not always
compatible with a systematic utilitarian use of contraception.
Further, the best contraceptives from the standpoint of female
health (the condom and spermicidal jellies) are not necessarily
the best from the standpoint of birth control. Abortion, on the
other hand, is a back-up measure that can be used when, for whatever
reason, unwanted pregnancy has ensued. There is plenty of time
to seek objective advice and to make a careful decision. If the
girl has taken a chance and lost, abortion allows her to avoid
the full penalty of having an unwanted child."
This "backstop" concept, cited by Davis and others, is held as justification
for aborting the unwanted child and, in many cases, has replaced the
former practice of giving life to the child and then placing it in
an adoptive home where it is wanted.
Antiabortionists plead for the right to life of the fetus and express
concern about the moral and social consequences to the individual and
members of a society which legitimize pregnancy termination on a wholesale
and "demand" basis. In support of their argument that the fetus is
an unborn child endowed with life, they point out that the fetus has
a heartbeat within 18 to 25 days; has human brain waves within six
weeks; moves within six weeks; and, breathes within 12 weeks.
The debate continues to rage at both the state and national level,
and there is every reason to believe that it will continue into the future.
A constitutional amendment banning most abortions has been proposed by
a member of Congress. The proposal in effect defines life as beginning
at the moment of conception, a position which is disputed in medical circles
and among abortion advocates. Also, on this particular subject, welfare
laws and regulations have coped with an issue which has, so far, been
sidestepped by law makers and social planners. As soon as a female welfare
recipient has a verified pregnancy, her grant may be increased to account
for the additional "person" (the unborn child). This factor suggests
that two realities must be faced: That life begins at the time of conception
and that abortion is, in fact, the taking of a life. With this in mind,
more rational decisions should be made with respect to public policy on
the important question of abortion.
It is clear that societies in western civilization have long demonstrated
a moral, social, legal and religious abhorrence toward abortion. Generally,
the only recent exception to prohibiting abortions was in those cases
when the procedure was necessary to save the life of the expectant mother.
The exception has now become the rule, changes have been made in abortion
statutes tending to overlook moral, legal and religious considerations
and without a basis of facts on social consequences, good or bad.
It was in the midst of this controversy and debate that the California Legislature
enacted the California Therapeutic Abortion Act which became Section 25950,
et seq., of the Health and Safety Code. The particular provisions of these
sections, the court decisions affecting them, the particular applications
and misapplications of this law will be the subject of this section.
-84-
B. Statistical Perspective
The year 1968 was the first year of full implementation of California's
Therapeutic Abortion Act. In that year, there were 5,018 abortions
performed under the provisions of this act and within four years,
this number had increased 23-fold to more than 116,000 therapeutic
abortions in the year 1971. The increasing number of abortions
performed each of the four years is shown in the following chart.
Therapeutic Abortions Performed in California
1968
5,018
1969
15,339
1970
65,369
1971
116,749
Appendix 10 describes some of the selected characteristics of the
women having abortions in California during the years 1968 through
1971. Some of the significant characteristics shown in Appendix
10 are the fact that over half the women receiving abortions in
1971 had never been married. Over 31 percent of the abortions
performed in that year were performed on women under the age of
20 years. Ninety percent of the abortions performed in 1971 were
performed in private hospitals as opposed to county medical facilities,
and more than 30 percent of these surgical procedures were paid
for at public expense. Another significant feature is the increased
representation of black women in the population receiving abortions
from 7.2 percent of the total in 1968 to 13.7 percent of the total
in 1971.
Of the 116,749 abortions performed in the year 1971, 104,844 were
performed on women who were residents of the State of California.
The startling fact is that over 1,100 of these abortion procedures
were performed on young girls between the ages of 10 and 14 years.
These children are included in the 31 percent of the abortions
performed in California in 1971 on girls age 19 and under. The
following chart reflects the numbers of abortions performed in
the various age groups.
Therapeutic Abortions Performed in California in 1971
By Age Groups
Age Groups
Number
10-14 years of age
1,166
15-19
31,806
20-24
35,988
25-34
27,940
35-44
7,944
-85-
As stated in the section "Dimensions of the Illegitimacy Problem", there
seems little doubt that the increased use of therapeutic abortions in
California has had an effect on illegitimate births. For example, of the
65,529 abortions performed under California's law in 1970, 48,205 were
performed for unmarried women (never married, widowed, divorced or separated).
Further, Berkov and Sklar point out certain parallels between the
characteristics of mothers of illegitimate children and those who receive
abortions. In 1971, the age group between 20 and 24 had the largest drop
in the illegitimate birth rate. This age group also had the highest
therapeutic abortion rate in 1970.
C. Relationship of Therapeutic Abortions to Illegal Abortions
A significant feature of the increased number of legal therapeutic
abortions in California is its estimated effect on illegal abortions. For
obvious reasons, the number of illegal abortions performed in California
at any given time is not known. However, a recent study of both
spontaneous and illegal abortions in urban North Carolina indicates that
in the 18 to 44 age group, it was estimated that the proportion of white
women having induced abortions was 13.9 per 1,000 and the proportion of
nonwhite women was 68.1 per 1,000. The Board expresses a note of caution
on the applicability of this data to California, especially in view of
the sparcity of other research information.
The California Department of Public Health has applied these rates to
the number of California women ages 15 to 44, and estimated there were over
80,000 illegal abortions in the state in 1967. Thus, it was not until 1971
that therapeutic procedures exceeded the previous level of illegal abortions.
From 1968 through 1970, it appeared that therapeutic abortions were replacing
illegal ones. This indicates that despite the increases in therapeutic
procedures, the rate of total induced abortions (illegal plus therapeutic)
did not really change until 1971 when the rate for therapeutic abortions
was greater than that estimated for illegal procedures in 1967.
Public attitudes about illegal abortions as reflected in the various
California legal codes are quite clear. For example, Business and
Professions Code Section 601 provides that advertising for producing or
facilitating an abortion is a felony. Business and Professions Code
Section 2377, provides that aiding or abetting or attempting or agreeing
or offering to procure a criminal abortion constitutes unprofessional
conduct by a physician. Under Section 2761, a nurse may be the subject
of disciplinary action for being involved in a criminal abortion. The
license of a vocational nurse may be suspended or revoked for similar
conduct under Section 2878. Similar action can be taken against a
psychiatric technician under Section 4521. Penal Code Section 187-a
defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with
malice aforethought, but further qualifies the definition of murder
involving a fetus so as to be consistent with the provisions of the
California Therapeutic Abortion Act. Several other sections of the Penal
Code describe the punishment for soliciting the use of or supplying
chemicals and/or instruments designed for the purpose of inducing a
miscarriage. From this, it can be seen that public policy took a clear
and opposing view of criminal abortions.
-86-
D. The Therapeutic Abortion Act in Practice
California's Therapeutic Abortion Act was passed in November 1967.
Essentially it provides that the holder of a Physician's and Surgeon's
Certificate may perform an abortion if each of the following requirements
is met:
1. The abortion is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.
2. The abortion is approved in advance by a committee of the medical
staff which is established and maintained according to the standards
of the Joint Commission and if such committee consists of no more than
three licensed physicians, the unanimous consent of all committee
members is required to approve the abortion.
3. The committee of the medical staff finds that one or more of the
following conditions exist:
a. There is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy
would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother;
b. The pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
The law also provides that the above-described committee must consist of
not less than two licensed physicians, but three are required if the
pregnancy is to be terminated after the thirteenth week and in no event
shall the termination be approved after the twentieth week of pregnancy.
The California Department of Public Health estimates that prior to 1967,
there were fewer than 600 legal abortions per year performed in all
California hospitals. It is presumed that most of these abortions were
performed because of the danger to the mother's physical health and
relatively few were performed following rape or incest. Only four years
later, in 1971, the number of therapeutic abortions performed in this state
jumped to 116,749. It is estimated that an excess of 90 percent of these
abortions were performed under Health and Safety Code Section 25951 (c) (1)
holding that the continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the
mental health of the mother.
The term "mental health" as used in Health and Safety Code Section 25951
is defined in Section 25954 and means "mental illness to the extent
that the woman is dangerous to herself or to the person or property
of others or in need of supervision or restraint. This definition
appears to be even more stringent than that contained in Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 5150. This section describes the individual's
psychiatric condition in circumstances when she may be involuntarily
detained for evaluation and treatment. That definition reads "When any
person as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to
himself, or gravely disabled, The enactment of California's Therapeutic
Abortion Act opened the door and from that time on, relatively little
attention was paid to the specific requirements of the statute by a number
of large-scale abortion facilities in the state.
-87-
In many facilities, the pregnant woman simply makes written application
for an abortion, indicating that unless the abortion is approved her
mental health will be impaired and the abortion is approved solely on
the basis of the unverified written application.
The law specifically requires the establishment of a committee structure
maintained in accordance with standards promulgated by the Joint Commission
on Accreditation of Hospitals. An accreditation surveyed by the Joint
Commission involves a detailed study of the administrative and medical-
psychiatric practices in each accredited institution. California's law
has been in effect for six years and it is curious that the Joint Commission
has not publicly raised questions about the informal functioning of the
Therapeutic Abortion Committee in a large number of public and private
facilities across the state.
The California State Department of Public Health reports that in 1970,
17 hospitals, each performing over 1,000 abortions, accounted for over
27,000, or 42 percent of the total 65,369 procedures. In 1971, the number
of institutions performing more than 1,000 abortions each increased to 22
and they did more than half (51 percent) of the 116,749 abortions that year.
The distribution of therapeutic abortions among medical facilities in this
state is quite interesting. Appendix 11 reflects the number of therapeutic
abortions reported by county and individual hospitals throughout California
in 1971, as well as the abortions performed in these facilities, other than
those in Los Angeles County, in the first quarter of 1972. This information
reveals that reports on therapeutic abortions performed were received from
351 public and private hospitals in 48 counties. It is interesting, however,
to note that four hospitals in Los Angeles County (Avalon Memorial, Los Angeles-
University of Southern California, Parkwood, and San Vincente) accounted for
over 29,000 abortions which represented 25 percent of the total abortions
performed in the State of California in the year 1971.
In its Report to the 1972 California Assembly on the Effects of Therapeutic
Abortion Law on the Medical Profession, Patient-Doctor Relationships,
Relationships Between the Medical Profession and General Public, the
California Department of Public Health stated on Page 2: "Within the
medical community, therapeutic abortions have changed from a rare operation
in 1967 to the most common surgical procedure in the state in 1971. As
mentioned earlier, in relation to the subject of family planning or birth
control, a whole new medical industry has been created with significant
fiscal ramifications. The average cost of a therapeutic abortion is $250
Applying this amount to the 116,749 abortions in 1971 reveals that
the fees for this service totaled almost $30 million during that year,
approximately 40 percent of which was reimbursed by public tax-supported
medical care programs.
Misapplication or misuse of the California Therapeutic Abortion Statutes
is not restricted to the abortion procedure itself, but rather includes
other aspects as well. The same problems identified earlier with respect
to birth control also exist in relation to abortion counseling, but are
considered to be more serious because of the possible consequences. There
are no statewide guidelines which require that individuals or agencies
meet certain standards of quality for the service they perform, nor are
-88-
there requirements that the individuals performing pregnancy counseling
and referral services must meet certain qualifications in terms of their
education and experience. Obviously for the protection of pregnant women,
standards of service and educational and experience criteria must be
established by a responsible agency of state government and then enforced
on a uniform statewide basis.
At one of its public hearings, the Board received testimony from
Stewart Knight who alleged that there exists in the State of California
the practice of referral payments between pregnancy counselors and medical
centers which provide abortion services. The magnitude of this particular
problem is unknown, but the possibilities could be substantial considering
the number of therapeutic abortions performed in California. In that
40 percent of the abortions performed in this state are financed through
Medi-Cal funds, the improper expenditure of public funds also raises
serious questions. As a part of the effort to develop standards for
quality service and minimum qualifications for individuals engaged in
pregnancy counseling, legislation should also be enacted to prohibit
the soliciting or payment of a fee for referral to an abortion service.
The Board is concerned about the apparent conflict of interest involved
in such a situation in which implications of such counseling and referral
services may exert influence on the emotional young women to seek an
abortion.
In the face of the turmoil and emotional debate the United States Supreme
Court, in a seven to two decision, overruled all state laws that prohibit
or restrict the woman's right to obtain an abortion during her first
three months of pregnancy. An analysis of the key features of the ruling
are as follows:
1. For the first three months of pregnancy, the decision to have an
abortion lies with the woman and her doctor, and the state's interest
in her welfare is not "compelling enough" to warrant any interference.
2. In the second trimester of pregnancy, a state may regulate the abortion
procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health, such
as licensing and regulating the persons and facilities involved.
3. For the last ten weeks of pregnancy, the period during which the fetus
is judged capable of surviving if born, any state may prohibit abortion,
if it wishes, except where it may be necessary to preserve the life or
health of the mother.
The California State Supreme Court in December 1972 threw out all
requirements for abortions in California except that they be performed
by licensed physicians in accredited hospitals before 20 weeks of
pregnancy. The U. S. Supreme Court decision went beyond this and threw
out all requirements in the first trimester (12 weeks) except that the
abortion be performed by a licensed physician. Further, the decision
provides for abortion up to 24 weeks as compared with California's
20-week restriction.
-89-
The force and effect of both the California Supreme Court decision and
the United States Supreme Court Decision on this state was not that
significant. Essentially, what the courts have done was to simply
legitimize a practice which already existed in California resulting from
the misuse of this state's therapeutic abortion statutes.
Even the United States Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1973 and a
February 26 denial of petitions for rehearings by Texas and Georgia failed
to settle the social issue or quell the debate. By the end of February at
least nine states had introduced legislation that would bring their laws
into conformity with the decision and an equal number were working on new
legislation. One state legislature which had acted by that time, the
State of Virginia, rejected a bill that would have brought its law into
line with what the court said. In more than a dozen states, attorneys
general or local courts have declared existing abortion laws null and
void, but in at least five states legal or judicial authorities have
supported the old restrictive laws. However, despite actions of
the court, various efforts are being made to nullify the recent Supreme
Court decision:
1. A constitutional amendment was introduced in Congress which would
call for legal protection of life from the moment of conception.
2. Another proposed constitutional amendment was introduced in Congress
to give states the unqualified right to make their own abortion laws.
3. Several state legislatures have introduced (and one state passed)
resolutions to endorse a federal constitutional amendment to supersede
the Supreme Court decision.
E. The Process and Procedures
There has been a rapid growth of pregnancy counseling services since the
Therapeutic Abortion Act became effective. Preliminary survey data from
the California State Department of Health indicates about half the
women obtaining abortions in 1971 used counseling services. The effect
of such services tends to limit the physician's role to a medical assessment
of the patient and the application of his technical skills. Pregnancy
counseling and, in particular, abortion counseling represents a new and
unique service. The Department has identified 110 pregnancy counseling
agencies in California. The following kinds of organizations are providing
these services: Planned Parenthood-World Population, county health and
welfare departments, The Children's Home Society, University Hospital and
Health Services, free clinics, Community Crisis Centers, Women's Liberation,
Zero Population Growth, and the Association to Repeal Abortion Laws. Private
individuals are also offering pregnancy counseling services.
The Board has previously expressed its viewpoint on the need for criteria
to assure quality service and the establishment of qualifications for
individuals providing pregnancy counseling services.
-90-
The pregnancy counseling agency is acting as an intermediary between the
patient and the doctor. There is no specific legal authority for this
practice. After the patient makes the decision as to whether or not the
pregnancy will be continued, she is referred to the appropriate medical
resource for either prenatal care or therapeutic abortion. The exchange
of information about pregnancy alternatives, assessment of emotional
needs, and even the institution of follow-up, if any, is carried out
largely by the counseling service. The role of the physician is limited
to the physical assessment of his patient and implementing the medical
procedures whether it be abortion, prenatal care, or contraception.
The Board has also expressed its position that such pregnancy counseling
agencies should be prohibited by statute from soliciting or collecting a
fee for their service from the medical practitioner or the medical facility
to which the client is referred.
Essentially, at the time the pregnant woman reaches the doctor or hospital,
her decision has already been made with respect to the abortion. It is
interesting that pregnant women seeking a therapeutic abortion tend to use
medical facilities other than those that they would use for normal procedures.
Although there has been a marked increase in the number of therapeutic
abortions, with over 300 hospitals in California reporting one or more
procedures. For example, in 1970, 24,000 abortions, nearly 40 percent of
the total, were performed in only 17 hospitals and these same 17 hospitals
accounted for less than seven percent of all total births. These figures
make it clear that many women are not obtaining abortions in the same
hospitals in which they receive their obstetric care.
The above information also implies that a greater number of women are not
seeking abortions from the physician usually providing them obstetric or
general medical care. It is not known if this situation stems basically
from the patient's desire for anonymity, from a reluctance of many
obstetricians and general practitioners to perform abortions, or whether
it's simply a function of patients going to the place where services are
available. It is clear that therapeutic abortions are frequently obtained
in a manner distinct from all other medical surgical services even
though as pointed out earlier abortions have become the most common
medical procedure in this state.
Assuming that the pregnant woman visits an accredited medical facility
which provides an active therapeutic abortion program and her pregnancy is
in the first trimester (12 weeks), the entire procedure can be completed
in four to five hours including a one-hour counseling session.
Some facilities conduct their preabortion counseling sessions in a group
setting with from three to five abortion patients in attendance. Generally,
the "counselor" is a nonprofessional from the peer group who devotes a
substantial part of the counseling hour to a discussion of the specifics of
the medical procedure and to birth control techniques which the patients
may have used in the past and which they plan to use in the future.
Considering the fact that half of the women attending have had no prior
counseling, such sessions are completely inadequate in comparison to
general psychiatric or medical practice, and, when witnessed, completely
destroy the illusion that the decision to abort is arrived at in a
-91-
considered, confidential, doctor-patient conference. The "counseling"
session becomes an emotionally-charged experience with each of the women
generally offering information about the circumstances which brought her
to this point. This hour-session is virtually the last opportunity the
woman has to change her mind, and it is also the key point at which the
staff has an opportunity to identify the woman who is insecure in her
decision.
If the woman's pregnancy is 12 weeks or less, the abortion is normally
performed by use of a vacuum aspirator. The placenta is drawn out of
the uterus through suction created by an electric pump. Major facilities
performing these services advertise that patients flying into metropolitan
areas can easily be admitted by 11 a.m. and be released from the hospital
in order to make plane connections home that evening.
Women whose pregnancies are more advanced than the first trimester generally
are required to rely on the "amnio" method of abortion. This is a more
extensive procedure than that described above and requires at least an
overnight stay in the hospital. Essentially, a saline solution is injected
through the abdominal wall into the uterus and this process induces labor
in much the same fashion as normal childbirth. The cost of this procedure
is substantially higher than the aspiration method and there is also an
increased risk.
Compared to the extensive prenatal and postnatal laboratory and diagnostic
testing now common in normal childbirth, some facilities seem lax in this
regard. There is generally little, if any, medical follow-up, expecially
since a substantial number of women do not live in close proximity to the
medical facility they use for abortion services. Some facilities advertise
no charge for medical complications, but from the patient's standpoint,
this is normally impractical. These factors combine to cloud the whole
issue of specifically what kinds of medical and psychiatric complications
do, in fact, result from abortions. It also becomes impossible to determine
resultant death rates with any precision.
F. The Consequences
There is the potential for deep individual and social significance
connected with a society's headlong rush into liberalized abortion.
One is forced to wonder how much consideration was given to these
factors in the development of legislation. It would also appear that
lawmakers and the courts have gone beyond what the majority of people
will support with respect to abortion. Davis reports that seven
opinion studies taken since 1962 showed only 33 percent of the public
believes there should be no legal restraints on abortions. The latest
survey taken in late 1972 indicates that ten percent opposed any legal
abortion, 19 percent opposed if an expected child was deformed, 55
opposed for financial reasons, and 67 percent opposed abortions on
women who just didn't want more children.
The specific effect of abortions on individuals is relatively unclear
at this point in time. Most studies involve a relatively small sample
of women and the inability of the medical-psychiatric profession to
accurately measure cause and effect is a very real problem. Another
-92-
compounding element is the fact that a substantial number of women go
elsewhere for abortions and are, therefore, very difficult to follow for
study purposes. Having obtained her abortion in a metropolitan area,
major and minor complications are most likely seen by the family physician
near the patient's home and as a result are not reported to the abortion
facility.
Dr. Robert Pasnaugh reports the viewpoint that most normal women were
found to react to abortions with mild feelings of depression without
serious after-effects. Most women who were psychiatrically ill were
found to respond with improved mental attitudes. Some were found to
respond with increased symptoms. No study has been able to determine
in advance which women will react adversely to pregnancy and which to
abortion. He states that at present, there is no evidence to suggest
that the risk of psychiatric complications in induced abortions constitutes
a contraindication to the procedure in either normal or psychiatrically
ill women. He does, however, propose three specific steps that should
be taken to reduce the risk of psychiatric complications: (1) there
should be routine psychiatric consultation; (2) psychiatric evaluation
should be requested if patient exhibits symptoms of major psychiatric
illness, history of postpartum psychosis, exhibits ambivalence or is
passively compliant; and, (3) all patients should be seen in routine
follow-up visits. Although the evidence is unclear, there are studies
which identify guilt reactions and lowered self-esteem following abortion.
Perhaps the most ambitious study and certainly one which involved a
substantial sample is one conducted by the Joint Program for the Study
of Abortions (JPSA). This study was based on a total of 72,988
abortions performed from July 1, 1970 to June 30, 1971 as reported by
66 institutions participating in the JPSA study sponsored by the
Population Council. The JPSA study also noted that abortions were
performed on 164 women who were not pregnant. It is suggested that
this document should receive careful consideration as it represents
a significant contribution toward assessing postabortion medical
complications. Some of the conclusions reached by JPSA with respect
to medical complications are as follows:
1. The incidence of early medical complications, including minor
complaints, during the first trimester of pregnancy was on the order
of one in twenty abortions; the incidence of major complications as
defined in the report, was one in two hundred abortions.
2. The risk to health associated with abortions was three to four times
as high in the second trimester of pregnancy as in the first trimester.
3. Complication rates were higher for abortions performed at six weeks
gestation or less than at seven to ten weeks gestation, especially for
major complications. However, the major complication rates were far
lower for the earliest abortions than for abortions in the second
trimester.
-93-
The above study should represent a significant contribution to assessing
postabortion medical complications and it is suggested that this document
should receive careful consideration.
It is extremely doubtful that any amount of statistical data received
through studies will ever totally erase the atmosphere of emotion which
surrounds the subject at the present time. It can only be hoped that
through proper counseling and education men, women, boys and girls will
come to realize the burden of responsibility they place upon themselves
and society with the creation of unwanted pregnancies.
-94-
IX. APPENDICES
Appendix 1
State Social Welfare Board
Analysis of Mail
Preliminary Position Statement on Illegitimacy
Published March 1972
A total of 139 letters were received by the State Social Welfare Board following
publication of its preliminary position statement on the subject of illegitimacy.
Every letter received a personal reply and in instances where the writer seemed to
be reacting to a news report only, a copy of the statement accompanied the letter.
Writers were urged to study the problem and then to suggest alternatives. In only
two cases did the Board receive follow-up letters containing alternative suggestions.
Persons requesting a copy of the statement
44
Persons expressing a position on the statement
95
139
Positions Expressed
Of the 95 writers who expressed a position, those who supported the Board's
position were as likely to react emotionally as were those who opposed the
position:
Support of the Board's position
51
53%
Opposed to the Board's position
44
47%
95
100%
Basis for Criticism
A number of writers opposed to the Board's position simply reacted on an emotional
level and did not propose alternative solutions. There were 83 critical responses
contained in the 44 letters of opposition. The breakdown of these responses is as
follows:
Interference with mother's rights
32
39%
Excessive governmental power
25
30%
Illegitimacy not criteria for inadequacy
10
12%
Unconstitutional
9
11%
Motivated by cost savings
5
6%
Insufficient adoptive homes
1
1%
Will not promote greater use of Civil Code Section 232
1
1%
83
100%
Alternative Proposals
Generally, writers making suggestions were inclined to propose more than one. Most
of the following 95 suggestions came from writers who opposed the Board's position.
1.
Increased emphasis on family planning and expand
17
18%
availability of contraceptive devices.
2.
Increased emphasis on education for family life
13
14%
and responsibility.
-95-
3.
Provide for sterilization on males and females
10
10%
and consider bonus for voluntary sterilization.
4.
Liberalize abortion laws and broaden the avail-
7
7%
ability of information on this subject.
5.
Enforce the support obligation of the father.
7
7%
6.
Give recognition to social changes which condone
7
7%
other family life styles.
7.
Find some means of getting at the inadequate or
5
5%
unfit parents who are married.
8.
Provide more social services during and following
4
4%
the pregnancy.
9.
Provide child care so young mothers can complete
4
4%
education and obtain training.
10.
No increase in grant following birth of certain
4
4%
number of illegitimate children (usually two).
11.
Develop program to assist the young mother to
3
3%
complete her education.
12.
Increase the grant level to improve mother's
3
3%
ability to provide good home for child.
13.
Evaluate grandparents' home for suitability to avoid
3
3%
repeating mistakes they may have made before insist-
ing that the young mother remain in their home.
14.
Provide for financial responsibility on the part
3
3%
of the grandparents of one/both unwed parents.
15.
Provide equal job opportunities for women.
2
2%
16.
Use income tax incentives to limit the number
2
2%
of births.
17.
Provide for state-run institutions as alternatives
1
1%
to unfit or inadequate parents.
-
95
97%
-96-
Appendix 2
Survey Opinion Questions
Following is a summary of responses to survey opinion questions reported in
Illegitimacy: Law and Social Policy, by Harry D. Krause, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc.,
App. B, PP 307-322. Refer to the text for a breakdown of responses by character-
istics of the respondents and for information on the conduct of the survey and
drawing of the sample.
1.
Do you agree or disagree that in general, the illegitimate child should have
the same legal relationship (rights and duties) with its mother that a
legitimate child has with its mother?
Don't Know or
Number
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Total
of Cases
95%
3%
2%
100%
2,031
2.
Which one of these statements best reflects your opinion?
a.
The father of an illegitimate child should have no legally
recognized and enforceable responsibilities to his illegitimate child.
b. An illegitimate child should be entitled to the same amount of support
as a legitimate child.
C. An illegitimate child should not be in as good a position as a legitimate
child, but it should be entitled to receive enough support from its father
to take care of its basic needs.
Number
ail
b.
i
Total
of Cases
4%
78%
18%
100%
2,031
3.
Which one of these statements best reflects your opinion?
a. Unless the father leaves a will in which he specifically gives his
illegitimate child an inheritance, the illegitimate child should
have no right to inherit from its father.
b.
If the father does not leave a will, the illegitimate child should
inherit from its father the same inheritance to which the child would
be entitled if it were of legitimate birth.
C.
If the father does not leave a will, the illegitimate child should
inherit from its father enough to cover support needs until the child
is able to go to work and earn its own living.
Number
of
b.
il
Total
of Cases
5%
64%
31%
100%
2,031
-97-
4.
If the father is fit, willing, and paying adequate support, and if a family
court considers this in the best interests of the child, the father of an
illegitimate child should be allowed to visit his child periodically, even
if the mother objects.
Don't Know or
Number
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Total
of Cases
82%
14%
4%
100%
2,031
5.
The illegitimate child should have the same rights involving the payment of
benefits for the death or disability of the father (for example, workman's
compensation) as a child of legitimate birth.
Don't Know or
Number
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Total
of Cases
87%
9%
4%
100%
2,031
6.
In each case of an illegitimate birth, appropriate legal authorities should
investigate the fitness of the mother to bring up the child and if the mother
is considered unfit, should ask the courts to determine whether the child
should be given into foster care or into adoption.
Don't Know or
Number
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Total
of Cases
86%
10%
4%
100%
2,031
7.
Unless the child is given up for adoption by its mother, appropriate legal
authorities should investigate the identity of the father in each case of an
illegitimate birth and should ask the court to hold the father responsible
for his child.
Don't Know or
Number
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Total
of Cases
86%
10%
4%
100%
2,031
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
8.
If the father cannot be found or cannot contribute to the support of his
illegitimate child, the welfare authorities should give the mother (if she is
a fit person) enough money to make a decent home for her illegitimate child.
9.
The discrimination imposed by our law on the illegitimate child is an
effective way to discourage sexual intercourse between unmarried persons.
-98-
10. Making fathers financially responsible for their illegitimate children
would seem to be a more effective way to discourage promiscuous sexual
intercourse than imposing no obligation or a limited support obligation
on fathers of illegitimate children.
Don't Know or
Agree
Disagree/No Opinion
Question 8
79%
21%
Question 9
20%
80%
Question 10
75%
25%
11. The law should not disadvantage the illegitimate child for the misdeed of
its parents that brought it into the world. Do you agree or disagree?
Don't Know or
Number
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Total
of Cases
96%
3%
1%
100%
2,031
12. Fathers and mothers of illegitimate children should be punished by the
criminal law for bringing them into the world. Do you agree or disagree?
Don't Know or
Number
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Total
of Cases
20%
70%
10%
100%
2,031
-99-
Appendix 3
NUMBER OF LIVE BIRTHS BY LEGITIMACY STATUS
RACE OF MOTHER AND AGE OF MOTHER
CALIFORNIA 1966 - 1972
LEGITIMACY
ALL RACES
WHITE
BLACK-
STATUS AND
YEAR
All
All
All
Ages
15-19
20-24
25-34
35+
Ages
15-19
20-24
25-34
35+
Ages
15-19
20-24
25-34
35+
Illegitimate
1972
40,171
17,499
12,806
7,917
1,277
26,821
11,243
8,620
5,644
950
12,420
5,928
3,865
2,044
297
1971
39,912
16,726
13,222
7,887
1,419
26,522
10,685
8,930
5,514
1,041
12,450
5,738
3,950
2,145
341
1970
45,593
18,888
15,615
8,793
1,676
31,052
12,345
10,996
6,187
1,222
13,602
6,231
4,277
2,396
404
1969a/
42,085
17,348
14,557
8,009
1,600
29,371
11,517
10,742
5,683
1,156
11,924
5,537
3,571
2,120
406
1968a/
38,053
15,587
13,110
7,177
1,614
27,141
10,597
9,963
5,143
1,162
10,393
4,818
2,972
1,905
416
1967
35,215
14,440
11,658
6,841
1,740
24,987
9,636
8,943
4,873
1,262
9,750
4,630
2,590
1,839
429
1966
31,804
12,819
10,303
6,582
1,627
22,204
8,531
7,712
4,582
1,167
9,124
4,138
2,450
1,860
418
Legitimate
1972
266,204
34,830
97,833
118,362
14,991
239,217
32,075
88,890
105,264
12,821
14,450
2,134
5,630
5,785
883
1971
289,914
36,989
111,955
123,422
17,410
260,919
33,954
101,919
109,935
14,987
16,595
2,404
6,569
6,470
1,142
1970
-100-
317,059
42,125
121,668
133,234
19,863
286,116
38,597
111,107
119,122
17,144
18,531
2,842
7,206
7,158
1,311
1969a/
310,822
41,406
118,842
129,442
20,978
280,823
37,498
108,765
116,232
18,228
18,700
3,209
7,104
6,970
1,381
1968a/
301,168
42,135
115,476
121,488
21,923
272,618
38,129
106,248
108,953
19,193
18,113
3,375
6,667
6,680
1,351
1967
301,369
44,168
114,939
117,963
24,165
272,862
40,048
105,784
105,642
21,282
18,746
3,568
6,770
6,862
1,523
1966
305,819
46,698
112,520
119,869
26,610
276,287
42,587
103,274
106,867
23,465
19,723
3,647
6,910
7,458
1,690
All Live
Births
1972
306,375
52,329
110,638
126,279
16,268
266,038
43,318
97,510
110,908
13,771
26,870
8,062
9,495
7,829
1,130
1971
329,826
53,715
125,177
131,309
18,829
287,441
44,639
110,849
115,449
16,028
29,045
8,142
10,519
8,615
1,483
1970
362,652
61,013
137,283
142,027
21,539
317,168
50,942
122,103
125,309
18,366
32,133
9,073
11,483
9,554
1,715
1969
352,907
58,754
133,399
137,451
22,578
310,194
49,015
119,507
121,915
19,384
30,624
8,746
10,675
9,090
1,787
1968
339,221
57,722
128,586
128,665
23,537
299,759
48,726
116,211
114,096
20,355
28,506
8,193
9,639
8,585
1,767
1967
336,584
58,608
126,597
124,804
25,905
297,849
49,684
114,727
110,515
22,544
28,496
8,198
9,360
8,701
1,952
1966
337,623
59,517
122,823
126,451
28,237
298,491
51,118
110,986
111,449
24,632
28,847
7,785
9,360
9,318
2,108
1/ For 1966-1969, births by race of mother were estimated from births by race of child using 1970 ratios. Prior to 1970,
California births were classified by race of child only. Since 1970, they have been classified by race of mother, race
of father and race of child.
a/ Figures for illegitimate and legitimate births adjusted for comparability with coding rules applied for 1966-67 and 1970-71.
Note: Totals Include births to mothers under age 15 and of unknown age.
Source: State of California, Department of Public Health, Birth Records.
Appendix 4
ESTIMATED BIRTH RATES BY LEGITIMACY STATUS, RACE OF MOTHER, AND AGE OF MOTHER: CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS, 1966-1972
Type of
All Races
Whitea
Blacka
Birth Rate
and Year
15-44
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44c/
15-44b/
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44c/
15-44b/
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44c1
Illegitimate
1972
22.0
20.7
31.3
23.5
5.4
17.4
15.3
24.9
20.7
5.0
65.4
85.5
101.6
42.7
8.5
1971
22.6
20.4
32.8
25.4
6.1
17.7
14.9
26.2
21.9
5.5
69.1
87.6
106.3
49.2
10.0
1970
27.0
24.1
41.3
29.9
7.2
21.6
17.9
34.2
26.0
6.4
80.1
102.0
123.5
58.5
12.2
1969
26.0
22.8
41.6
28.9
7.0
21.2
17.1
36.1
25.1
6.1
74.5
95.9
112.2
55.6
12.6
1968
24.6
21.1
41.0
27.8
7.1
20.4
16.2
36.5
24.2
6.2
69.2
88.8
102.6
54.0
13.2
1967
23.8
20.0
40.3
28.2
7.7
19.6
15.0
36.1
24.5
6.7
69.2
90.1
99.4
56.2
14.0
1966
22.5
18.2
40.4
28.8
7.3
18.1
13.5
35.2
24.2
6.3
69.2
84.8
107.5
60.8
14.1
Legitimate
1972
98.4
333.8
194.2
102.8
15.9
99.2
342.2
195.5
102.8
15.3
92.3
286.4
192.3
83.9
17.4
1971
109.5
354.7
220.3
114.1
18.3
110.2
364.2
221.3
114.0
17.7
109.7
330.2
223.2
101.0
22.6
1970
122.1
409.6
247.9
127.6
20.7
122.8
418.1
249.5
127.4
20.0
126.4
405.2
254.4
117.0
26.2
1969
120.1
390.8
248.2
126.6
21.4
120.6
392.7
249.9
127.0
20.7
128.9
449.5
255.8
117.3
27.2
1968
117.7
388.9
249.8
122.6
22.0
118.1
388.9
252.3
122.6
21.3
127.4
473.9
248.4
117.0
26.5
1967
119.1
399.2
259.3
122.5
23.8
119.1
395.6
261.7
122.0
23.1
134.4
495.0
263.0
124.6
29.6
1966
122.4
410.6
272.9
127.0
25.8
121.9
410.6
274.6
125.7
25.1
144.5
504.8
287.8
139.4
32.7
All Live Births
1972
67.6
55.2
121.2
84.9
13.8
67.3
52.2
121.8
85.6
13.4
77.5
105.0
141.1
67.0
13.8
1971
74.7
58.2
137.4
94.3
15.9
74.3
55.1
138.4
94.9
15.4
87.6
111.8
157.9
80.0
17.6
1970
84.6
68.8
158.0
106.1
18.1
84.1
65.1
159.3
106.8
17.5
101.6
133.2
182.4
93.6
20.6
1969
83.9
67.6
161.1
105.8
18.6
83.5
63.7
163.1
106.8
18.1
100.4
134.8
179.1
93.1
21.5
1968
82.7
68.2
164.4
103.0
19.2
82.4
64.6
167.5
103.6
18.7
97.5
133.4
172.7
92.9
21.4
1967
83.9
70.5
172.8
103.6
20.9
83.5
66.7
176.0
103.8
20.4
101.6
139.9
180.7
99.1
23.8
1966
86.3
72.7
184.1
107.9
22.5
85.5
69.5
186.5
107.2
21.9
107.5
139.0
200.0
110.8
26.0
NOTE: Rates are per 1,000 unmarried (illegitimate), married (legitimate), and total women. Unmarried women are those single, widowed,
divorced, or separated.
a/For 1966-1969, births by race of mother (numerators for rates) were estimated from births by race of child using 1970 ratios. Prior to
1970, California births were classified by race of child only. Since 1970, they have been classified by race of mother, race of father,
and race of child.
b/Rates computed by relating total births, regardless of age of mother, to estimated number of women aged 15-44.
c/Rates computed by relating births to mothers aged 35 and over to estimated number of women aged 35-44.
Source: State of California, Department of Public Health, Birth Records; State of California, Department of Finance, population estimates
prepared December 1971 and November 1972; 1970 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, California, Tables 19, 22; 1960
Census of Population, Vol. 1, Part 6, Table 105 and Subject Reports PC(2)-1C, Table 19.
Appendix 5
Illegitimate Birth Rates by Rank Order for 46 Countries
Number of Illegitimate Births per 1000 Unmarried Women 15-44
Latest Year
Rank Order
Country
Date
Rate
1
Guinea
1955
209.9
2
Angola
1960
209.4
3
El Salvador
1961
206.6
4
Venezuela
1961
190.3
5
Jamaica
1960
189.5
6
Honduras
1961
185.1
7
Panama
1960
170.4
8
Ecuador
1962
136.3
9
Peru
1961
125.8
10
Mexico
1960
112.6
11
Puerto Rico
1960
78.4
12
Iceland
1950
76.7
13
Colombia
1951
60.3
14
Congo, D.R.
1957
49.4
15
Chile
1960
48.3
16
Argentina
1947
26.4
17
Yugoslavia
1961
26.0
18
Austria
1951
25.4
19
Bulgaria
1956
24.9
20
New Zealand
1961
24.1
21
United States
1965
23.5
22
Portugal
1960
22.2
23
England and Wales
1964
20.2
24
Sweden
1960
19.7
25
Canada
1961
17.9
26
Australia
1961
17.8
27
China-Taiwan
1956
17.7
28
Denmark
1960
17.1
29
Poland
1960
15.3
30
France
1962
14.5
31
West Germany
1961
13.0
32
Hungary
1960
12.4
33
Norway
1960
9.2
34
Finland
1960
8.5
35
Ryukuy Islands
1960
8.2
36
Switzerland
1950
7.2
37
Belgium
1947
5.4
38
Spain
1960
4.9
39
Italy
1961
4.2
40
Albania
1955
3.6
41
Ireland
1951
3.6
42
Netherlands
1960
3.6
43
Greece
1961
2.2
44
Philippines
1960
1.9
45
Japan
1964
1.6
46
Israel
1961
1.3
Sources: Computations from the number of births by legitimacy and total births,
numbers of unmarried women 15-44, from the United Nations, Demographic
Yearbook, 1959, 1962, 1963 and 1965.
-102-
Appendix 6a
Characteristics of Persons Involved in Welfare Paternity Actions
Based on 259 Interviews in Two Counties, August 1972
Column one describes the characteristics of persons involved in cases in which the district attorney made a decision
to proceed with the action. Column two are those cases in which the district attorney decided not to proceed.
Column three represents a combined total of both types of cases.
1. Of the 259 cases interviewed, a decision was
Prosecutable
Combined
made to proceed with the paternity action in
Yes
No
Total
162 (62%) of the cases. The mother, or
#
%
#
%
#
%
expectant mother, was asked to indicate if
she could identify the putative father.
Yes
162
100
81
84
243
94
No
0
0
16
16
16
6
2. The present residence of the putative father
was indicated by the mother to be:
In county
115
71
22
23
137
52
-103-
In state
28
17
7
7
35
14
Out of state
10
6
42
43
52
20
Unknown
9
6
26
27
35
14
3. The present living arrangement of the mother
in these cases is as follows:
Parents/Relative
76
47
28
29
104
40
Alone
55
34
48
50
103
40
Friends
21
13
15
15
36
14
Husband
3
12
6
6
9
3
Common-law husband
7
4
0
0
7
3
Appendix 6b
4. The education level of the mother and
Prosecutable
Combined
putative father were determined to be:
Yes
No
Total
Mother:
#
%
#
%
#
%
Less than 8 years
1
1
10
10
11
4
8 through 11 years
98
60
37
38
135
52
High school graduate
45
28
37
38
82
32
Some college
15
9
11
12
26
10
College graduate
3
2
2
2
5
2
Father:
Less than 8 years
3
2
6
6
9
3
8 through 11 years
78
48
21
22
99
38
High school graduate
45
28
30
31
75
29
Some college
23
14
10
10
33
13
College graduate
4
2
0
0
4
2
-104-
Unknown
9
6
30
31
39
15
5. The present age of the mother and putative
father is as follows:
Mother:
Under 15
0
0
0
0
0
0
15-17
31
19
5
5
36
14
18-19
45
28
19
20
64
25
20-24
59
37
35
36
94
37
25-29
15
9
17
18
32
12
30-34
9
6
15
15
24
9
35 and over
2
1
6
6
8
3
Appendix 6c
Prosecutable
Combined
Yes
No
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
Father:
Under 15
0
0
0
0
0
0
15-17
18
11
1
1
19
7
18-19
17
10
7
7
24
9
20-24
70
44
28
30
98
37
25-29
29
18
24
25
53
20
30-34
16
10
12
12
28
10
35 and over
12
7
11
11
33
12
-105-
Unknown
0
0
14
14
14
5
6. At the time of conception, the age spread of
the mother and putative father was as follows:
Mother:
Under 15
4
2
1
1
5
2
15-17
58
37
15
16
73
28
18-19
39
24
26
27
65
25
20-24
49
30
39
40
88
34
25-29
10
6
11
11
21
8
30-34
2
1
5
5
7
3
35 and over
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix 6d
Prosecutable
Combined
Yes
No
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
Father:
Under 15
0
0
0
0
0
0
15-17
27
17
6
6
33
13
18-19
25
15
15
16
40
15
20-24
64
39
34
35
98
38
25-29
32
20
21
22
53
20
30-34
13
8
5
5
18
7
35 and over
1
I
3
3
4
2
-106-
Unknown
0
0
13
13
13
5
7. The present marital status of the mother
and putative father is as follows:
Mother:
Never married
101
63
43
44
144
56
Married to another
17
10
21
22
38
15
Divorced from putative father
2
1
0
0
2
1
Divorced from another
20
12
14
14
34
13
Separated from putative father
11
7
2
2
13
5
Separated from another
11
7
16
17
27
10
Widowed
0
0
1
1
1
0
Appendix 6e
Prosecutable
Combined
Yes
No
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
Father:
Never married
86
53
32
34
118
45
Married to another
18
11
11
11
29
11
Divorced from mother
2
1
0
0
2
1
Divorced from another
23
14
7
7
30
12
Separated from mother
11
7
2
2
13
5
Separated from another
9
6
2
2
11
4
Widower
1
1
I
1
2
1
-107- 8.
Unknown
12
7
42
43
54
21
At the time of conception, the marital status
of the mother and putative father was as follows:
Mother:
Never married
123
79
65
67
188
73
Married to another
12
7
10
10
22
8
Divorced from putative father
0
0
0
0
0
0
Divorced from another
15
9
13
14
28
11
Separated from putative father
2
1
0
0
2
1
Separated from another
10
6
8
8
18
7
Widowed
0
0
1
1
1
0
Appendix 6f
Prosecutable
Combined
Yes
No
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
Father:
Never married
100
61
54
56
154
59
Married to another
14
9
7
7
21
8
Divorced from mother
0
0
0
0
0
0
Divorced from another
20
12
8
8
28
11
Separated from mother
2
1
0
0
2
1
Separated from another
14
9
2
2
16
6
Widowed
I
1
1
1
2
1
Unknown
11
7
25
26
36
14
9. Based on the knowledge of the mother, the
putative father's present occupation is:
Professional
7
4
1
1
8
3
-108- #
Proprietor, manager
0
0
0
0
0
0
Clerical
4
2
2
2
6
2
Craftsman
9
6
1
1
10
4
Armed Forces
5
3
7
7
12
5
Operatives
29
18
12
12
41
16
Farm laborer
1
1
0
0
1
0
Service worker
6
4
2
2
8
3
Household worker
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unskilled worker
36
22
18
19
54
22
Retired
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unemployed
25
15
6
6
31
12
Student
19
12
3
3
22
8
Unknown
21
13
45
47
66
25
Appendix 6g
Prosecutable
Combined
10. Also based upon the knowledge of the mother,
Yes
No
Total
the putative father's present monthly income is:
#
old
#
%
#
%
None
43
26
7
7
50
19
Under $200
5
3
1
1
6
2
$200 399
17
11
4
4
21
8
$400 - 599
12
7
5
5
17
7
$600 - 799
17
11
1
1
18
7
$800 - 999
4
2
0
0
4
2
$1000 - 1199
1
I
1
I
2
1
$1200 1399
0
0
0
0
0
0
$1400 1599
0
0
I
1
1
0
$1600 and over
0
0
0
0
0
o
Unknown
63
39
77
80
140
54
11. At the time of the interviews, there were
Combined
169 other children in the custody of the
Prosecutable
Nonprosecutable
Total
-109-
mothers, 65 (38%) of whom were born out of
wedlock. Distribution by family size and
Legitimate:
legitimacy status is as follows:
Families with 1 child
24
25
49
Families with 2 children
9
6
15
Families with 3 children
0
5
5
Families with 4 children
1
0
1
Families with 6+ children
I
0
1
Illegitimate:
Families with 1 child
26
12
38
Families with 2 children
4
5
9
Families with 3 children
1
0
1
Families with 6+ children
1
0
1
Appendix 6h
Combined
12. An effort was made to determine what had been
Prosecutable Nonprosecutable Total
the outcome of any earlier conception, if any,
involving this mother and this, or any other,
putative father, in addition to the 169
legitimate and illegitimate children presently
in the custody of this mother. There had been
at least 39 other conceptions, the outcome of
which was as follows:
This putative father -
3
0
3
placed for adoption
By another father - placed
1
9
10
for adoption
This putative father - aborted
4
1
5
By another father - aborted
11
10
21
13. The putative fathers represented in this
group of 259 cases had 171 children among
them. Distribution by family size and
legitimacy status is as follows:
Legitimate - with this mother:
Cases with 1 child
2
2
4
-110-
Cases with 3 children
0
1
1
Illegitimate - with this mother:
Cases with 1 child
11
4
15
Children by another mother:
Cases with 1 child
23
10
33
Cases with 2 children
19
4
23
Cases with 3 children
6
2
8
Cases with 4 children
2
0
2
Cases with 5 children
2
2
4
Cases with 6+ children
3
0
3
Appendix 6i
Prosecutable
Combined
14. We attempted to determine the living
Yes
No
Total
arrangment of the two parties at the
#
%
#
%
#
%
time of conception:
Lived together during conception
44
27
17
18
61
24
Did not live together during
conception
118
73
80
82
198
76
15. We attempted to learn the level of
knowledge on the part of the mother with
respect to birth control techniques.
Forty-six percent of the mothers had
received some type of birth control
training, although many more had some
knowledge of the subject:
Formal training
18
11
8
8
26
10
Home training
7
4
3
3
10
4
Informal training
56
35
27
28
83
32
-111-
None
81
50
59
61
140
54
16. Although 46 percent of the mothers had some
type of birth control training, and an
additional percentage had an awareness of the
subject and techniques, 88 percent of the
mothers used no form of contraception during
the period of conception:
Yes
23
14
9
9
32
12
No
139
86
88
91
227
88
Appendix 6j
Prosecutable
Combined
17. Within the 259 cases, expectant mothers most
Yes
No
Total
often (83%) told the putative father of the
#
%
#
%
#
%
pregnancy. This percentage was higher (95%)
among those 162 cases in which the district
attorney decided to proceed with a paternity
action. The question of whether or not the
father was told of the pregnancy was
answered as follows:
Yes
154
95
62
64
216
83
No
8
5
35
36
43
17
18. Putative fathers most often admitted
paternity to the mother or to another person,
or both. Of the 354 responses in the 259
cases, only 11% denied paternity and in 6%
of the cases the mother was not aware of the
admission or denial by the father.
Admitted to mother
143
56
45
42
188
53
Admitted to another
94
37
12
11
106
30
-112-
Denied paternity
7
3
31
28
38
11
Unknown
11
4
21
19
22
6
19. Although the father admitted paternity in an
overwhelming number of cases, this fact did
not appreciably influence the financial
arrangements for the birth of the 259
children. In these cases 82% were delivered,
or to be delivered, under the Medi-Cal
program.
Medi-Cal delivery
138
85
74
76
212
82
Non-Medi-Cal delivery
24
15
23
24
47
18
Appendix 6k
Prosecutable
Combined
20. Some of the fathers did assist the mother in
Yes
No
Total
limited ways. However, again, 75% of the
#
%
#
%
#
%
fathers assumed no part of the financial
burden:
Paid any medical expenses
14
9
3
3
17
7
Made cash contributions
12
7
2
2
14
5
Made in-kind contribution
27
17
7
7
34
13
None
109
67
85
88
194
75
Combined
21. We sought to determine if before or after
Prosecutable Nonprosecutable Total
delivery the mother received any type of
abortion, adoption or birth control
counseling. Of the 259 mothers, 187 had
received none (112 prosecutable cases + 75
nonprosecutable cases). of the 72 mothers
who had received counseling, the following
-113-
agencies were involved:
Welfare
8
9
17
Public Health
19
9
28
Probation
2
0
2
Private social agency
10
2
12
Private family planning
11
2
13
22. Mothers sometimes received counseling on more
than one subject. The 72 mothers had a total
of counseling contacts spread among the three
subjects as follows:
Abortion
21
5
26
Adoption
12
9
21
Birth control
33
15
48
Appendix 61
23. In 97 of the 259 cases, the district attorney
determined that prosecution of the paternity
action was not feasible. This decision was
based on the following primary reasons:
Reason
Number
Percent
Incarceration of father
3
3
Death of father
0
0
Disability of father
I
1
Absence of father from state
37
38
Too many potential fathers
29
30
Incomplete evidence
17
18
Absolute marital presumption (child of
-114-
legal husband)
3
3
Mother refused to cooperate
1
1
Child nearing age of emancipation
2
2
Child has limited life expectancy
1
1
Application for public assistance withdrawn
1
1
Mother is an illegal alien
2
2
TOTAL
97
100%
Appendix 7
TABLE 32. AFDC FAMILIES, BY NUMBER OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, 1971
NUMBER OF ILLEGITIMATE RECIPIENT CHILDREN
CENSUS DIVISION
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
5
6 OR MORE
AND STATE
FAMILIES
NONE
CHILD
CHILDREN
CHILDREN
CHILDREN
CHILDREN
CHILDREN
TOTAL:
NUMBER
2523900
1426000
559600
262400
129600
71700
37300
37300
PERCENT
100.0
56.5
22.2
10.4
5.1
2.8
1.5
1.5
CENSUS DIVISION:
Education, and Welfare Publication No. (SRS) 72-03756.
Source: Findings of the 1971 AFDC Study, Part I, U.S. Department of Health,
NEW ENGLAND
134000
66.7
21.3
7.2
2.4
0.9
0.9
0.6
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
560100
51.8
21.9
12.1
6.7
4.1
1.5
1.9
EAST NORTH CENTRAL
363500
51.9
23.9
12.2
5.6
2.8
1.9
1.7
WEST NORTH CENTRAL
136600
63.1
20.2
8.2
3.4
2.4
1.4
1.2
SOUTH ATLANTIC
321800
48.0
24.1
13.5
7.3
3.7
1.9
1.6
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL
161900
48.7
25.0
12.4
5.9
3.4
2.2
2.5
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL
183000
51.0
21.4
12.5
6.7
3.7
2.2
2.6
MOUNTAIN
87600
66.4
21.0
6.3
3.1
1.5
1.0
0.7
PACIFIC
517000
65.3
21.9
6.9
3.0
1.5
0.8
0.6
-115-
SELECTED STATES:
ALABAMA
42600
43.2
27.2
12.9
6.3
4.2
3.1
3.1
CALIFORNIA
440000
63.3
22.7
7.4
3.2
1.8
0.9
0.7
FLORDIA
70200
47.7
22.6
13.8
8.7
3.7
1.1
2.3
GEORGIA
75100
47.3
27.2
14.0
6.3
2.8
1.5
1.1
ILLINOIS
120300
44.9
22.8
15.4
7.5
4.1
2.7
2.7
KENTUCKY
37600
64.4
20.2
8.8
2.7
1.9
0.5
1.6
LOUISIANA
54100
43.4
19.0
13.7
8.1
6.1
3.7
5.9
MARYLAND
40900
39.4
24.0
18.6
7.6
4.6
3.7
2.2
MASSACHUSETTS
72300
67.9
21.2
7.3
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
MICHIGAN
94700
55.2
25.1
10.2
4.5
2.5
1.1
1.3
MISSISSIPPI
34600
38.7
25.4
15.0
9.0
4.6
3.2
4.0
MISSOURI
48500
53.6
20.0
10.5
6.6
4.1
2.7
2.5
NEW JERSEY
86200
48.7
23.9
12.6
7.0
3.8
1.5
2.4
NEW YORK
332600
49.0
22.6
12.8
7.2
4.7
1.8
1.9
NORTH CAROLINA
39200
50.3
24.0
11.7
6.1
4.1
2.6
1.3
OHIO
91500
55.5
23.3
11.8
4.7
2.0
1.6
1.1
PENNSYLVANIA
141300
60.3
18.9
9.9
5.4
3.0
0.9
1.6
TENNESSEE
47100
48.6
26.5
12.7
5.7
3.0
1.9
1.5
TEXAS
84000
52.7
22.7
12.5
6.9
2.1
1.9
1.1
WASHINGTON
42500
76.9
17.4
3.1
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
PUERTO RICO
57800
84.8
9.0
3.6
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.7
Appendix 8
Questions Planned Parenthood speakers must be able to answer. Also
questions that pregnancy counselors say, "If the girl had known the
answer she probably wouldn't be pregnant."
1.
How soon can a pregnancy be determined by a urine test or pelvic exam?
By urine test, 5-7 days after a missed period. By a pelvic, after
six weeks.
2. Why does a female become pregnant when withdrawal is the method of contra-
ception used?
Often there are sperm down in the penis before the male ejaculates.
3.
Can a female become pregnant if there is no penetration?
Yes - Sperm are mobile and can travel up the entire length of the vagina.
4.
If a female has been raped, had unexpected intercourse or had a condom break
and is fearful of this resulting in pregnancy, what can be done for her?
Take the "morning after pill" which can only be prescribed by a
physician.
5. Is it possible for conception to occur during a menstrual period?
Yes
6.
How soon after delivery, miscarriage or abortion can a new pregnancy occur?
2 - 3 weeks.
7. Why do some young girls who have had sexual relations for 3 or 4 years after
puberty without using any form of birth control find themselves pregnant
when they are in their teens?
They have not ovulated regularly.
8.
How does the pill compare in numbers of fatalities to pregnancy?
Pregnancy is about 15 times more dangerous than the pill.
9. At what age of the mother are birth defects most likely to occur?
Early teens and after 35.
-116-
Page Two
Questions (Continued)
10. Name the symptoms of German measles.
Fine rash, swollen glands behind the ears and symptoms similar to
a cold.
11. When does a girl become old enough to have an abortion without her parents'
consent?
At any age that she becomes pregnant.
12. What, if any, responsibilities are involved when a minor fathers a child?
Legally, the boy's parents are financially responsible until the boy
is 18; after 18 he is responsible.
13. At what age can a girl get contraceptives without parental consent if she
might become a welfare recipient?
Age 15 and above.
-117-
Appendix 9
AGE AT ONSET OF MENSTRUATION
PAST 100 YEARS
17.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
Y
15.0
E
A
R
14.5
S
14.0
13.5
13.0
USA
12.5
12.5
1850
1870
1890
1910
1930
1950
1960
= Norway
Menstrual Disorders & Sterility - 1959 Mazer & Israel Gynecology Text
it Finland
= Sweden
= USA
-118-
Appendix 10
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
OF WOMEN HAVING ABORTION
California, 1968-1971
YEAR
CHARACTERISTIC
1968
1969
1970
1971
Total: Number
5,018
15,339
665,369a/
116,749a/
Percent
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Ethnic Group
White
89.1
85.8
81.5
80.0
Black
7.2
9.5
11.8
13.7
Other and Not Reported
3.6
4.7
6.7
6.3
Marital Status
Married
30.1
25.2
25.4
26.3
Never Married
53.0
57.5
55.0
51.0
Other and Not Reported
16.9
17.2
19.6
22.7
Pregnancy Number
1
51.4
54.5
49.0
47.8
2-3
23.4
24.2
26.8
30.1
4 or More
23.9
20.6
18.4
19.3
Not Reported
1.4
0.8
5.8
2.8
Age
Under 20 Years
29.1
31.6
31.7
31.4
20-29
44.4
47.3
49.5
50.9
30-39
21.6
17.8
15.5
15.5
40 and Over
4.7
3.1
2.4
2.2
Not Reported
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.1
Source of Payment
Medi-Cal
7.8
19.5
35.8
38.5
Other and Unknown
92.2
80.5
64.2
61.5
Type of Hospital
County
10.5
14.1
9.4
10.0
Private and Other
89.5
84.9
90.6
90.0
a/:
Number of therapeutic abortions adjusted for late reports.
Note:
Percents calculated independently and may not add to 100.
Source: State of California, Department of Public Health, Bureau of Maternal
and Child Health, Therapeutic Abortion Reports.
-119-
Appendix 11
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY COUNTY AND INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
California, 1971, January-March 1972
HOSPITAL
NUMBER REPORTED.
1971
January-March, 1972
Alameda
7,638
2,142
Alameda Hospital
189
50
2070 Clinton Avenue, Alameda
Albany Hospital
1A/
0
1247 Marin Avenue, Albany
Alta Bates Community Hospital
879
160
Webster & Regent, Berkeley
Civic Center Hospital
2,623
911
390 & 420 Fortieth, Oakland
Doctors Hospital of San Leandro
98
14
13855 East 14th Street, San Leandro
Eden Hospital
88
22
20103 Lake Chabot Road, Castro Valley
Herrick Memorial Hospital
422
117
2001 Dwight Way, Berkeley
Highland General Hospital
181
44
1411 East 31st Street, Oakland
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
266
73
27400 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
857
194
280 West MacArthur Boulevard, Oakland
Laurel Grove Hospital
573
69
19933 Lake Chabot Road, Castro Valley
Levine Hospital
163
24
1030 Levine Court, Hayward
Memorial Hospital of San Leandro
627
282
2800 Benedict Drive, San Leandro
Oak Knoll Naval Hospital
0
--
8750 Mountain Boulevard, Oakland
Oakland Hospital
43
31
2648 East 14th Street, Oakland
Peralta Hospital
50
8
450 - 30th Street, Oakland
Providence Hospital
0
0
3012 Summit Street, Oakland
Samuel Merritt Hospital
269
80
Hawthorne & Webster, Oakland
St. Rose Hospital
0
0
27200 Calaroga Avenue, Hayward
Valley Memorial Hospital
111
26
1111 Stanley Boulevard, Livermore
Washington Hospital
198
37
2000 Mowry Avenue, Fremont
I/ Reports received as of September 12, 1972.
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
Source: State of California, Department of Health.
-120-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
Amador
1
--
Amador Hospital
1
0
810 Court Street, Jackson
Butte
98
38
Feather River Hospital
1
1
5974 Pentz Road, Paradise
Medical Center Hospital of Oroville
45
22
2767 Olive Highway, Oroville
N T Enloe Memorial Hospital
52
15
West 5th Esplanade, Chico
Calaveras
2
--
Mark Twain Hospital
2
0
El Dorado and Pope, San Andreas
Colusa
12
5
Colusa Memorial Hospital
12
5
119 East Webster Street, Colusa
Contra Costa
1,845
399
Brookside Hospital
266
38
Vale Road and San Pablo, San Pablo
Concord Community Hospital
133
22
2540 East Street, Concord
Contra Costa County Hospital
799
166
2500 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez
Doctors Hospital of Pinole
40
28
2151 Appian Way, Pinole
John Muir Memorial Hospital
120
24
1601 Ygnacio Valley Road, Walnut Creek
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
388
85
1425 South Main Street, Walnut Creek
Martinez Community Hospital
2
0
20 Allen Street, Martinez
Pittsburg Community Hospital
40
25
550 School Street, Pittsburg
Richmond Hospital
57
11
23rd and Gaynor Avenue, Richmond
El Dorado
63
25
Barton Memorial Hospital
9
3
4th and South Streets, Tahoe Valley
El Dorado Community Hospital
9
2
935 Spring Street, Placerville
Marshall Hospital
45
20
Marshall Way, Placerville
-121-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
Fresno
983
275
Clovis Memorial Hospital
74
14
88 Norte DeWitt, Clovis
Coalinga District Hospital
6
1
Sunset and Washington, Coalinga
Fresno Community Hospital
202
53
Fresno and R Streets, Fresno
Valley Medical Center
701
207
445 South Cedar Avenue, Fresno
Humboldt
265
64
General Hospital
83A/
22
Harris and H Streets, Eureka
Humboldt Medical Center
182A/
37
2200 Harrison Avenue, Eureka
Trinity Hospital
0
5
14th and C Street, Arcata
Imperial
54
22
El Centro Community Hospital
54
22
Ross at Imperial, E1 Centro
Inyo
36
11
Northern Inyo Hospital
25
10
150 Pioneer Lane, Bishop
Southern Inyo Hospital
11
1
501 East Locust, Lone Pine
Kern
622
175
Greater Bakersfield Memorial Hospital
332
84
420 - 34th Street, Bakersfield
Kern County General Hospital
146
39
1830 Flower Street, Bakersfield
North Kern - South Tulare Hospital
0
1
1330 Jefferson, Delano
Physicians Hospital
13
5
901 Olive Drive, Bakersfield
Ridgecrest Community Hospital
45
14
1081 North China Lake, Ridgecrest
San Joaquin Community Hospital
82
31
2628 Eye Street, Bakersfield
USAF Hospital
4
1
Edwards AFB, Edwards
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-122-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
Kings
5
4
Corcoran District Hospital
3
4
1310 Hanna Avenue, Corcoran
Hanford Community Hospital
2A/
0
450 Greenfield Way, Hanford
Lake
3
2
Lakeside Community Hospital
3
2
Lakeshore Drive, Lakeport
Lassen
27
6
Lassen Memorial Hospital
27
6
HSP Lane and West Street, Susanville
C/
Marin
487
109
Marin General Hospital
211
39
250 Bon Air Road, San Rafael
Novato General Hospital
16A/
7
Hill and Canyon Roads, Novato
Ross General Hospital
260
63
1160 Sir Francis Drake, Ross
Mendocino
2
3
Mendocino State Hospital
1
0
Talmadge
Ukiah General Hospital
1
3
564 South Dora Street, Ukiah
Merced
14
3
Merced General Hospital
3
0
290 East 15th Street, Merced
USAF Hospital
11A/
2
Castle Air Force Base, Merced
West Side Community District Hospital
0
1
151 South Highway 33, Newman
Mono
6
3
Mono General Hospital
6
3
Twin Lakes Road, Bridgeport
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
C/ Los Angeles County, see page 133.
-123-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
Monterey
970
227
Alisal Community Hospital
17A/
4
333 North Sanborn Road, Salinas
Community Hospital Monterey Pennisula
146
89
Pacific Grove Carmel Highway, Carmel
General Hospital of Monterey County
39A/
7
Natividad Road, Salinas
George L. Mee Memorial Hospital
15
7
300 Canal Street, King City
Monterey Hospital Limited
477
58
576 Hartnell Street, Monterey
Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital
132
51
450 East Romie Lane, Salinas
US Army Registrar's Division
144A/
11
Medical Records, Fort Ord
Napa
:
1
St. Helena Sanitarium and Hospital
0
1
Sanitarium Road, Sanitarium
Nevada
32
19
Tahoe Forest Hospital
32
19
Tahoe Drive and Pine Street, Truckee
Orange
3,015
862
Anaheim General Hospital
54
77
3350 West Ball Road, Anaheim
Anaheim Memorial Hospital
4
0
1111 West La Palma, Anaheim
Beach Community Hospital
5
2
5742 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park
Chapman General Hospital
48A/
36
2601 East Chapman Avenue, Orange
Costa Mesa Memorial Hospital
1
:
301 Victoria Street, Costa Mesa
Doctors Hospital of Santa Ana
15
20
1901 College Avenue, Santa Ana
Fullerton Community Hospital
125
35
100 East Valley View, Fullerton
Garden Park General Hospital
307
30
9922 Gilbert Street, Anaheim
Hoag Memorial Hospital
321
76
301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Huntington Intercommunity Hospital
6A/
5
17772 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-124-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
Orange (Continued)
Lincoln Community Hospital
381
226
6850 Lincoln Avenue, Buena Park
Los Alamitos General Hospital
19
38
3751 Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos
Martin Luther Hospital
28
10
1825 West Romneya Drive, Anaheim
Orange County Medical Center
890
151
101 Manchester, Orange
Palm Harbor General Hospital
113A
45
12860 Palm Street, Garden Grove
Riverview Hospital
52
37
1901 North Fairview Street, Santa Ana
Santa Ana Community Hospital
365
8
600 East Washington, Santa Ana
South Coast Community Hospital
132
28
31872 Coast Highway, South Laguna
Stanton Community Hospital
23
7
7770 Katella Avenue, Stanton
West Anaheim Community Hospital
118
29
3033 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim
Westminster Community Hospital
8
2
200 Hospital Circle, Westminster
Placer
46
15
Auburn Faith Hospital
3A/
2
Highway 49 & Education, Auburn
Roseville Community Hospital
43
13
333 Sunrise Avenue, Roseville
Plumas
90
16
Plumas District Hospital
90
16
Meadow Valley Road, Quincy
Riverside
1,456
390
Circle City Hospital
31
11
730 Old Magnolia, Corona
Corona Community Hospital
2
0
812 South Washburn Street, Corona
Desert Hospital
186
49
1151 North V Miraleste, Palm Springs
Hemet Valley Hospital
19
5
1116 East Latham Street, Hemet
Indio Community Hospital
59
13
47-111 Monroe Street, Indo
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-125-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
Riverside (Continued)
Knollwood Hospital
14
9
5900 Brockton Avenue, Riverside
Palo Verde Hospital
30
B/
250 North First Street, Blythe
Parkview Community Hospital
346
99
3865 Jackson Street, Riverside
Riverside Community Hospital
183
45
4445 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside
Riverside GH University Medical Center
496
127
9851 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside
San Gorgonio Pass Memorial Hospital
10
2
600 North Highland Spr, Banning
US Air Force Hospital
78
30
March AF Base, Riverside
Valley Memorial Hospital
2
0
82 - 485 Miles Avenue, Indio
Sacramento
4,202
1,153
American River Hospital
1,079
271
4747 Engle Road, Carmichael
Community Memorial Hospital
117
233
2251 Hawthorne Street, Sacramento
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
371
146
2025 Morse Avenue, Sacramento
Sacramento Medical Center
865
172
2315 Stockton Boulevard, Sacramento
Sutter Memorial Hospital
1,724
323
52nd and F Streets, Sacramento
Twin Lakes Community Hospital
21
2
223 Fargo Way, Folsom
US Air Force Hospital
9
5
Mather AF Base, Sacramento
Woodside Community Hospital
16
1
3201 Del Paso Boulevard, North Sacramento
San Bernardino
4,232
4,089
Hi Desert Memorial Hospital
2
3
8515 Cholla Avenue, Yucca Valley
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
258
89
9961 Sierra Avenue, Fontana
Loma Linda University Hospital
24
3
11234 Anderson, Loma Linda
Montclair Memorial Hospital
3,103
3,620
5050 San Bernardino, Montclair
Ontario Community Hospital
16
4
550 North Monterey, Ontario
B/ No report received
-126-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
San Bernardino (Continued)
Redlands Community Hospital
58
19
350 Terracina Boulevard, Redlands
San Antonio Community Hospital
447
179
999 San Bernardino, Upland
San Bernardino County General Hospital
160
131
780 East Gilbert Street, San Bernardino
San Bernardino Community Hospital
163
41
1500 West 17th Street, San Bernardino
US Air Force Hospital
0
George AF Base, Victorville
San Diego
5,829
1,290
Bay General Hospital
98
61
435 H Street, Chula Vista
Childrens Hospital
14
0
8001 Frost Street, San Diego
Clairemont General Hospital
923
250
5255 Mount Etna Drive, San Diego
Community Hospital of Chula Vista
2
0
553 F Street, Chula Vista
Donald N. Sharp Memorial Community Hospital
2,589
577
7901 Frost Street, San Diego
Fallbrook Hospital
16
1
624 East Elder Street, Fallbrook
Grossmont Hospital
195
37
5555 Grossmont, La Mesa
Kaiser Foundation Hospital - La Mesa
256
91
8010 Parkway Drive, La Mesa
Oceanside Community Hospital
184
51
1100 Fifth Street, Oceanside
Palomar Memorial Hospital
71
20
550 East Grand Avenue, Escondido
Paradise Valley Hospital
362
29
2400 East 4th Street, National City
Scripps Memorial Hospital
152
21
9888 Genesee Avenue, La Jolla
Tri City Hospital
14
5
4002 Vista Way, Oceanside
University Hospital of San Diego Center
838
120
225 West Dickinson, San Diego
US Naval Hospital
47
9
Camp Pendleton, Oceanside
US Naval Hospital
68
18
Park Boulevard, Balboa Park
1/ Reports received as of September 12, 1972.
-127-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
San Francisco
11,052
3,335
Childrens Hospital of San Francisco
1,081
245
3700 California Street, San Francisco
Chinese Hospital
49
10
835 Jackson Street, San Francisco
French Hospital
828
172
4131 Geary Boulevard, San Francisco
Golden Gate Community Hospital
648
745
1065 Sutter Street, San Francisco
Hahnemann Hospital
62
17
3773 Sacramento, San Francisco
Harkness Community Hospital & Medical Center
4A/
8
1400 Fell Street, San Francisco
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
1,032
257
2425 Geary Boulevard, San Francisco
Letterman General Hospital
135
16
Presidio of San Francisco, San Francisco
Mount Zion Hospital
632A/
116
1600 Divisadero Street, San Francisco
Presbyterian Hospital Pacific Medical Center
477A/
B/
Clay & Webster, San Francisco
San Francisco Eye & Ear
2,689A/
1,096
1801 Bush Street, San Francisco
San Francisco General Hospital
456
125
1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco
St. Francis Memorial Hospital
815
159
900 Hyde Street, San Francisco
St. Lukes Hospital
499
170
1580 Valencia, San Francisco
UC San Francisco Medical Center
1,377
139
3rd and Parnassus, San Francisco
Unity Hospital
268A!
60
2356 Sutter Street, San Francisco
San Joaquin
767
226
Dameron Hospital
411
147
525 West Acacia, Stockton
Lodi Community Hospital
43
5
800 South Lower Sacramento, Lodi
Lodi Memorial Hospital
32
16
975 South Fairmont Avenue, Lodi
Manteca Hospital
7
2
300 Cottage Avenue, Manteca
Oak Park Community Hospital of North Ca
7
I
2510 North California, Stockton
San Joaquin General Hospital
265
54
Hospital Lane Highway 50, French Camp
Stockton State Hospital
2
1
510 East Magnolia, Stockton
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
B/ No report received.
-128-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
San Luis Obispo
411
116
San Luis Obispo General Hospital
314
90
2180 Johnson Street, San Luis Obispo
Sierra Vista Hospital
97
26
1010 Murray Street, San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
1,633
403
Church of St. Matthew Mills Memorial Hospital
202
48
100 South San Mateo Drive, San Mateo
H. D. Chope Community Hospital
895
246
222 West 39th Avenue, San Mateo
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
65
34
1150 Veterans Boulevard, Redwood City
Peninsula Hospital & Medical Center
320
52
1783 E1 Camino RL, Burlingame
Sequoia Hospital
151
23
Whipple & Alameda, Redwood City
Santa Barbara
604
93
Goleta Valley Community Hospital
20
9
351 South Patterson, Santa Barbara
Lompoc District Hospital
16
3
508 East Hickory, Lompoc
Register Office (MSR)
54A/
16
USAF Hospital, Vandenberg AFB
Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
328
25
320 West Pueblo, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara County General Hospital
117
16
P.O. Box 3650, Santa Barbara
Santa Ynez Valley Hospital
57
13
700 Alamo Pintado, Solvang
Valley Community Hospital
12
11
505 East Plaza Drive, Santa Maria
Santa Clara
5,047
1,270
Campbell Community Hospital
8
10
1650 Winchester, Campbell
Community Hospital Los Gatos Sar
482
156
815 Pollard, Los Gatos
El Camino Hospital
892
224
2500 Grant Road, Mountain View
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
639
170
900 Kiely Drive, Santa Clara
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-129-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
Santa Clara (Continued)
San Jose Hospital & Health Center
B/
227
-
675 East Santa Clara, San Jose
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center
300A/
43
751 South Bascom Avenue, San Jose
Stanford University Hospital
1,307
192
300 Pasteur Drive, Palo Alto
The Good Samaritan Hospital
1,023
182
15825 Samaritan Drive, San Jose
The Park Alameda Hospital
354
49
976 Lenzen Avenue, San Jose
Wheeler Hospital
42
17
651 - 6th Street, Gilroy
Santa Cruz
2
3
Watsonville Community Hospital
2
3
Green Valley Holohan, Watsonville
Shasta
11
--
Memorial Hospital of Redding
11
0
East & Butte Streets, Redding
Siskiyou
50
6
Mount Shasta Community Hospital
22
6
203 Eugene Street, Mount Shasta
Siskiyou General Hospital
28A/
818 South Main Street, Yreka
Solano
767
234
Broadway Hospital
428
123
525 Oregon Street, Vallejo
David Grant USAF Hospital
204A/
54
Travis AF Base, Fairfield
Intercommunity Memorial Hospital
40
29
1800 Pennsylvania, Fairfield
Kaiser Foundation Health & Rehabilitation Center
93
28
2600 Alameda Street, Vallejo
Vallejo General Hospital
2
0
510 Los Cerritos, Vallejo
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
B/ No report received.
-130-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
Sonoma
857
246
Community Hospital of Sonoma County
439
90
3325 Chanate Road, Santa Rosa
Hillcrest Hospital
115
34
Hayes Street & El Rose, Petaluma
Palm Drive Hospital
15
2
501 Petaluma Avenue, Sebastopol
Santa Rosa General Hospital
138
97
465 A Street, Santa Rosa
Sonoma Valley District Hospital
146
23
347 Andrieux Street, Sonoma
Warrack Medical Center Hospital
4
0
2457 Summerfield Road, Santa Rosa
Stanislaus
602
105
Doctors Hospital of Modesto
34
22
333 West Orangeburg A, Modesto
Emanuel Hospital
18
7
825 Delbon Avenue, Turlock
Memorial Hospital Stanislaus County
12
3
P.O. Box 942, Modesto
Modesto City Hospital
16
28
730 - 17th Street, Modesto
Scenic General Hospital
520
43
830 Scenic Drive, Modesto
Turlock Community Hospital
2
2
222 South Thor Street, Turlock
Sutter
121
28
Fremont Hospital
70
28
970 Plumas Street, Yuba City
Sutter County General Hospital
51
B /
1965 Live Oak Boulevard, Yuba City
Tulare
133
38
Alta Local Hospital
2
0
500 Adelaide Way, Dinuba
Kaweah Delta District Hospital
56
17
400 West Mineral King, Visalia
Lindsay District Hospital
2
0
City Park, Lindsay
Tulare County General Hospital
1
0
1062 South K Street, Tulare
Tulare District Hospital
72
21
869 Cherry Avenue, Tulare
B/ No report received.
-131-
NUMBER REPORTED
HOSPITAL
1971
January-March, 1972
Tuolumne
4
1
Sierra Hospital
3
I
179 South Fairview Lane, Sonora
Tuolumne General Hospital
I
0
101 East Hospital Road, Sonora
Ventura
787
168
Community Memorial Hospital S Buenaventura
155
35
2800 Loma Vista Road, Ventura
General Hospital Ventura County
513
93
3291 Loma Vista Road, Ventura
Los Robles Hospital
61
17
215 West Janss Road, Thousand Oaks
Ojai Valley Community Hospital
25
4
1306 Maricopa Highway, Ojai
Oxnard Community Hospital
32
19
540 South H Street, Oxnard
Simi Valley Adventist Hospital
I
0
2975 Sycamore Drive, Simi
Yolo
253
46
Davis Community Hospital
119
30
Road 31 & Road 99, Davis
Woodland Memorial Hospital
93
16
1325 Cottonwood Street, Woodland
Yuba
69
26
Rideout Memorial Hospital
69
26
726 Fourth Street, Marysville
-132-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
Alhambra Community Hospital
5
206 South Garfield Ave.
Alahambra
Antelope Valley District Hospital
90
1600 West Avenue J
Lancaster
Avalon Memorial Hospital
10,021
5862 South Avalon Boulevard
Los Angeles
Bay Harbor Hospital
11
1437 West Lomita Boulevard
Harbor City
Behrens Memorial Hospital
89
446 Piedmont Avenue
Glendale
Bel Air Memorial Hospital
2,515
2311 Roseomare Road
Bel Air
Bella Vista Community Hospital
3,640
5425 East Pomona
Los Angeles
Bellflower Community Hospital
46
9542 East Artesia
Bellflower
Belvedere Hospital
4A/
127 South Utah Street
Los Angeles
Beverly Glen Hospital
162A/
10361 West Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles
Beverly Hills Doctors Hospital
770
10390 Santa Monica
Los Angeles
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-133-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
Beverly Hospital
61
309 West Beverly Boulevard
Montebello
Bon Air Hospital
86
250 West 120th Street
Los Angeles
Broadway Community Hospital
577
9500 South Broadway
Los Angeles
Burbank Community Hospital
173
466 East Olive Avenue
Burbank
Canoga Park Hospital
934
20800 Sherman Way
Canoga Park
Carson Intercommunity Hospital
324
23621 South Main
Carson
Cedars Lebanon Hospital
1,251
4833 Fountain Avenue
Los Angeles
Centinela Valley Community Hospital
531
555 East Hardy Street
Inglewood
City of Hope
2
1500 East Duarte
Duarte
City View Hospital
24
3711 Baldwin Street
Los Angeles
Community Hospital North Hollywood
1,541
6421 Coldwater Canyon
North Hollywood
Community Hospital of San Gabriel
7
218 South Santa Anita
San Gabriel
-134-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
Community Hospital of Gardena
51
1246 West 155th Street
Gardena
Community Hospital of Huntington Park
148
2623 East Slausen
Huntington Park
Community Hospital of Los Angeles
4
4081 East Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles
Compton Phys. & Surg. Hospital
16A/
4200 East Compton
Compton
Doctors Hospital
1,755
325 West Jefferson
Los Angeles
Dominguez Valley Hospital
50
3100 South Susana Road
Compton
Downey Community Hospital
2
11500 Brookshire
Downey
Encino Hospital
15A/
16237 Ventura Boulevard
Encino
Fox Hills Community
151A/
5525 West Slausen Avenue
Los Angeles
Gardena Medical Center Hospital
117
2315 West Compton Boulevard
Gardena
Garfield Hospital
139
123 Hilliard
Monterey Park
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-135-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
Glendale Adventist Hospital
47
1509 Wilson Terrace
Glendale
Glendale Community Hospital
25
800 South Adams Street
Glendale
Granada Hills Community Hospital
232
10445 Balboa
Granada Hills
Hartland Hospital
157
14148 East Francisqto
Baldwin Park
Hawthorne Community Hospital
111
11711 Grevillea Avenue
Hawthorne
Hollywood Pres. HP 01msted
12
1322 North Vermont
Los Angeles
Holly Park Hospital
90A/
2501 West El Segundo
Hawthorne
Hollywood Community Hospital
142
6245 De Longpre
Hollywood
Hospital of Good Samaritan
49A/
1212 Shatto Street
Los Angeles
Huntington Memorial Hospital
217
100 Congress Street
Pasadena
Imperial Hospital
9
11222 Inglewood
Inglewood
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-136-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
Inter Community Hospital
62
275 West College Street
Covina
Inter-Valley Community Hospital
10
21704 West Soledad Court
Saugus
John Wesley Co. Hospital
946
2826 South Hope Street
Los Angeles
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
489
9400 East Rosecrans
Bellflower
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
1,316
4867 Sunset Boulevard
Los Angeles
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
369
13652 Cantara Street
Panarama City
Kaiser Foundation Hospital
407
1100 West Pacific Coast Highway
Harbor City
Los Angeles County - Harbor
278
1000 West Carson Street
Torrance
Los Angeles County - Olive View
2
14445 Olive View Drive
Sylmar
Los Angeles County - U.S.C. Medical Center
6,184
1200 West State Street
Los Angeles
La Mirada Community Hospital
73
14900 East Imperial Highway
La Mirada
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-137-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
Lincoln Hospital
2
443 South Soto Street
Los Angeles
Long Beach Community Hospital
739
1720 Termino Avenue
Long Beach
Los Altos Hospital
369
3340 Los Coyotes
Long Beach
Memorial Hospital of Glendale
91
1420 South Central
Glendale
Memorial Hospital of Hawthorne
140
13300 South Hawthorne
Hawthorne
Memorial Hospital of Long Beach
842
2801 Atlantic Avenue
Long Beach
Memorial Hospital of Panorama City
260A!
14850 Roscoe Boulevard
Panorama City
Memorial Hospital of Southern California
103
13828 Hughes Avenue
Culver City
Memorial Hospital of Gardena
186
1145 Redondo Beach
Gardena
Methodist Hospital of Southern California
206
300 West Huntington
Arcadia
Midvalley Community
109
7533 Van Nuys Boulevard
Van Nuys
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-138-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
Midway Hospital
12
5925 San Vicente
Los Angeles
Mission Hospital
2
3111 East Florence
Huntington Park
Monte Sano Hospital
14
2834 Glendale Boulevard
Los Angeles
Morningside Hospital
727
8711 South Harvard Boulevard
Los Angeles
Mt. Sinai Hospital and Clinic
71A/
8720 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles
North Glendale Hospital
12
1401 West Glenoaks
Glendale
Northridge Hospital Foundation
149A/
183 Roscoe Boulevard
Northridge
Norwalk Community Hospital
19
13222 Bloomfield
Norwalk
Pacific Glen Hospital
816
712 South Pacific Avenue
Glendale
Pacific Hospital of Long Beach
158
2776 Pacific Avenue
Long Beach
Pacoima Memorial Lutheran Hospital
372
11600 Eldridge Avenue
Pacoima
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-139-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
Palmdale General
6
1212 East Avenue
South Palmdale
Park View Hospital
34A/
1021 North Hoover Street
Los Angeles
Parkwood Community Hospital
6,906
7011 Shoup Avenue
Canoga Park
Pasadena Community Hospital
3
1845 North Fair Oaks
Pasadena
Pico Rivera Community Hospital
45
5216 South Rosemead
Pico Rivera
Pioneer Hospital
64
17831 South Pioneer
Artesia
Pomona Valley Community Hospital
263
1798 North Garey Avenue
Pomona
Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital
116A/
12401 East Washington
Whittier
Rancho Los Amigos
2
7601 Imperial Highway
Downey
Rio Hondo Memorial Hospital
289
8300 Telegraph Road
Downey
San Fernando Hospital
1
732 Mott Street
San Fernando
A/ Incomplete reporting. Estimates made from reports received.
-140-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
San Gabriel Valley Hospital
28
115 East Broadway
San Gabriel
San Pedro and Peninsula Hospital
61
1305 West 6th Street
San Pedro
San Vicente Hospital
6,524
6000 San Vicente
Los Angeles
Santa Monica Hospital Medical Center
104
1225 - 15th Street
Santa Monica
Sherman Oaks Community Hospital
13
4929 Van Nuys Boulevard
Sherman Oaks
South Bay Hospital
211
514 North Prospect Avenue
Redondo Beach
Southeast Doctors Hospital
432
5900 Pine Avenue
Maywood
St. Michaels
120
1845 Pacific Coast Highway
Hermosa Beach
Studebaker Community Hospital
1
13100 South Studebaker
Norwalk
Suburban Hospital, Inc.
2
3164 Southern Avenue
South Gate
Temple Hospital
191
235 North Hoover
Los Angeles
-141-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
The California Hospital
201
1414 South Hope Street
Los Angeles
Torrance Memorial
345
1425 Engracia
Torrance
U.C.L.A. Medical Center
144
10833 Le Conte
Los Angeles
University Hospital
28
3787 South Vermont
Los Angeles
Valley Hospital
15
14500 Sherman Circle
Van Nuys
Valley Doctors
1,897
12629 Riverside Drive
North Hollywood
Valley Presbyterian
405
15107 Van Owen Street
Van Nuys
Viewpark Community Hospital
9
5035 Coliseum Street
Los Angeles
Washington Hospital
119
12101 West Washington
Los Angeles
West Hills Hospital
19
23023 Sherman Way
Canoga Park
West Park Hospital
78
22141 Roscoe Boulevard
Canoga Park
-142-
THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1971
Number
Hospital
Performed
West Valley Community Hospital Fd.
827
5333 Balboa Boulevard
Encino
Westside Hospital
6
910 South Fairfax Avenue
Los Angeles
White Memorial Medical Center
73
1720 Brooklyn Avenue
Los Angeles
Whittier Hospital
4
15151 Janine Drive
Whittier
Woodruff Community Hospital
90
3800 Woodruff Avenue
Long Beach
-143-
Appendix 12
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATEWIDE ADOPTIONS
Fiscal 55-56 through Fiscal 70-71
Total Public and
Total Relinquish-
Relinquishment Adoptions
Private Relinquish-
Independent
ment and Indepen-
Stepparent
Fiscal Year
Public
Private
ment Adoptions
Adoptions
dent Adoptions
Adoptions
1955-56
1243
914
2157
4101
6258
3276
1956-57
1271
1147
2418
4214
6632
3644
1957-58
1326
1144
2470
4265
6735
3524
1958-59
1436
1216
2652
4552
7204
3870
1959-60
1758
1508
3266
4994
8260
3862
1960-61
2135
1506
3641
4872
8513
3911
1961-62
2669
1659
4328
4827
9155
4362
1962-63
3207
1531
4738
4890
9628
4605
-144-
1963-64
3832
1739
5571
4912*
10483
5019
1964-65
4611
1729
6340
4772
11112
5002
1965-66
5059
1951
7010
4683
11693
5639
1966-67
5410
2200
7610
4370
11980
6453
1967-68
6055
2337
8392
3995
12387*
6369
1968-69
6301
2366
8667*
3390
12057
6433
1969-70
5718
2037
7755
3115
10870
5951
1970-71
4121
1438
5559
2603
8162
7088
* Peak year followed by decrease.
Source: State of California, Department of Benefit Payments.
PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
DOH
LEGITIMATE
COUNTY WELFARE
ADOPTION
VITAL
BIRTH
DEPARTMENT,
STATISTICS
ILLEGITIMATE
PROTECTIVE SERVICES
PATERNITY
ENDANGERED OR
CHILD NOT
ADEQUATE HOME
POTENTIALLY
ENDANGERED
ENDANGERED
CHILD
FOSTER CARE
PROTECTIVE SERVICES
WORKER INTERVIEW
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-145-
PROTECTIVE
SERVICES BOARD
HEARING
FAMILY
LAW
COURT
Appendix 13
ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY AND NOTIFICATION OF INTERESTED FATHER
FATHER
SIGNS
ADOPTION
COUNTY
NOTICE
BIRTH
VITAL
WELFARE
TO FATHER
CERTIFICATE
STATISTICS
DEPARTMENT
IF REQUIRED
FOSTER CARE
FATHER FAILS
TO SIGN
GUARDIANSHIP
MONITOR FOR 1
YEAR AFTER BIRTH
REQUEST
FATHER
FOR
UNLOCATED
NOTICE
AFFIDAVIT
PATERNITY
OF
DISPUTED
PATERNITY
-146-
SIGNATURE
BY AFFIDAVIT
REFER TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR PATERNITY ACTION
Appendix 14
NONPATERNITY
PATERNITY
LEGITIMATION
X. REFERENCES
AFDC Characteristics January 1973; Frank Din, Unpublished State Department of
Social Welfare Report
Associated Press Report; Sacramento Bee, January 30, 1973
Birth Records; State of California; Department of Health
Boys in Fatherless Homes; Herzog and Sudia, U.S. DHEW, Office of Child Development,
Publication 72-33 (reprinted 1971)
California Department of Finance; Financial and Economic Research Bureau,
Population Studies Unit
Elizabeth K. Canfield, Consultant, Student Health Center, San Fernando Valley
State College, Moderating Panel on "A Critique on Sex and Health Education
in the Public Schools", Meeting of the California Interagency Council on
Family Planning, Los Angeles, June 9, 1972
Children; September-October 1968; Children's Bureau, Office of Child Development,
U.S. DHEW; Fatherless Homes; Herzog and Sudia; Vol. 15, No. 5
Judith Blake Davis, Professor of Demography, University of California,
Berkeley, U.P.I., dispatch, Sacramento Bee, February 6, 1973
Kingsley Davis, Ford Professor of Sociology and Comparative Studies; Chairman,
International Population and Urban Research; University of California,
Berkeley; testimony before the State Social Welfare Board, July 28, 1972
Early Medical Complications of Legal Abortions; Studies in Family Planning;
Publication of the Population Council; Vol. 3, No. 6, June 1972
The Effects of Legal Abortion on Legitimate and Illegitimate Birth Rates: The
California Experience; June Sklar and Beth Berkov, University of California
Reprint No. 436, November 1973
80 Unmarried Mothers Who Kept Their Babies; Helen R. Wright, Ph. D., State of
California, Department of Social Welfare, May 1965
Estimate of Induced Abortions in Urban North Carolina; J. R. Abernathy,
B. G. Greenberg, and D. G. Harvitz; Demography, 7 (1970)
Facts of Life in California - 1972-1973; Public Education and Research Committee
of California, Berkeley, California
Facts of Life in California - 1973; Public Education Research Committee of
California, May 10, 1973
Frances Feldman, Professor of Social Work, University of Southern California;
Chairman, Advisory Committee on Family and Children's Services, Los Angeles
County in testimony before State Social Welfare Board, November 16, 1972
-147-
Fifth Annual Report on the Implementation of the California Therapeutic
Abortion Act; California Department of Public Health, Bureau of Maternal
and Child Health
Fifth Annual Report on the Implementation of the California Therapeutic
Abortion Act; State of California, Department of Public Health, Report to
the 1972 Legislature
Final Report of the Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support; State Social
Welfare Board; January 1971
Findings of the 1971 AFDC Study; Part I, U.S. DHEW, Publication
No. (SRS) 72-03756
Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D., President, Planned Parenthood-World Population,
Newsletter No. 61, June 15, 1972
Shirley Hartley, Ph. D., Department of Sociology, California State University,
Hayward; testimony before the State Social Welfare Board, July 28, 1972
How They Fared in Adoption; Benson Jaffee and David Fanshel; from Foreward
by Joseph H. Reid, Executive Director, Child Welfare League of America,
Columbia University Press, New York and London, 1970
Nancy Humpreys, President, National Association of Social Workers, Los Angeles
Chapter; testimony before the State Social Welfare Board, Long Beach,
June 23, 1972
Illegitimacy: Law and Social Policy; Harry D. Krause; Bobbs-Merrill
Illegitimacy Recidivism Among AFDC Clients; Barbara B. Griswald, Kermit Wiltse,
Robert Roberts; In Unmarried Parenthood, Clues to Agency and Community Action;
National Council on Illegitimacy, New York, 1967
Illegitimate Births in California 1966-67; State of California, Department of
Public Health; March 1971
Infant and Perinatal Mortality in Scotland; National Center for Health
Statistics, Series 3 No. 5; Vital and Health Statistics: Analytic Series;
November 1966
An Interim Report on Fertility and Abortion in California; Beth Berkov and
June Sklar; International Population and Urban Research; University of
California, Berkeley; June 1972
International Comparison of Perinatal and Infant Mortality; National Center
for Health Statistics, Series 3 No. 6; Vital and Health Statistics:
Analytical Series, March 1967
The Juvenile Unwed Father; Robert E. Perkins and Ellis S. Grayson
Stuart W. Knight, Attorney at Law; testimony before the State Social Welfare
Board, November 16, 1972
-148-
Legal Aspects of Access to Family Planning Services; Ruth Roemer, J.D.,
Associate Researcher in Health Law, Institute of Government and Public Affairs
University of California, Los Angeles; Presented in "Sex and the Law",
Western Regional Conference, Planned Parenthood - World Population, Pasadena,
April 7, 1972
Memorandum; Public Education Research Committee of California, No. 1,
Febraury 26, 1973
Memorandum; Public Education Research Committee of California, No. 2, April 3,
1973
Warren B. Miller, M.D., Department of Psychiatry, Stanford Unviersity,
Psychologically Vulnerable Stages in Women Leading to Unwanted Pregnancies;
California Interagency Council on Family Planning Meeting
The Morality of Abortion; John T. Noonan, Jr., Harvard Press, 1970
National Natality and Infant Mortality Surveys: 1964-66; National Center
for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics Report; Vol. 20, No. 5, August 2, 1971
Mrs. Doanld A. Nielsen, Executive Director, Florence Crittenton Services in
Key Notes from the Florence Crittenton Service, December 1972
1970 Census Data for Health Planning; State of California, Department of
Public Health, Vol. 2, Table 9, Birth Records and Therapeutic Abortion Reports
Robert 0. Pasnau, M.D., Reviews, Obstetrics and Gynecology; Vol. 40, No. 2,
August 1972
Position Statement Issue: Illegitimacy; State Social Welfare Board; March 1972
Report on Child Welfare Services in California; State Social Welfare Board;
July 1969
Report on Foster Care: Children Waiting; State Social Welfare Board;
September 1972
Report to the California Assembly Pursuant to House Resolution No. 44; 1971
State of California, Department of Public Health
Report to the 1972 California Assembly Pursuant to House Resolution No. 44;
State of California Human Relations Agency, Department of Public Health
Right to Life; Greater Cincinnati, pamphlet
Senate Documents; Vol. 13, 60th Congress, ED.S.
Sex Code of California; Public Education and Research Committee of California,
1973
-149-
A Statistical Analysis of Teen-age and Young Adult Patients Receiving Family
Planning Services from OEO and U.S. DHEW Funded Grantees in Region IX
During Calendar Year 1971; by Neil Bodine, presented to OEO Workshop,
California Interagency Council on Family Planning, Asilomar, July 5, 1972
Gary G. Stewart, M.D., Cathedral Hill Medical Center, San Francisco, in
testimony before the State Social Welfare Board, November 16, 1972
Student-Parent Reaction Panel; Proceedings of the Council Meeting, California
Interagency Council on Family Planning; June 9, 1972
The Unmarried Father; Reuben Pannor, Fred Massarik, Byron Evans, Springer
Publishing Company, Inc., 1971
Unmarried Mothers; Clark E. Vincent, The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc. 1961
Vital Statistics; Marriages and Divorces; California Department of Public
Health, August 1972, No. 10, Table vs 72-024
Vital Statistics of the United States; 1967, VII, Mortality, Part A, U.S. DHEW
Welfare Myths vs. Facts; U.S. DHEW; November 15, 1971; Congressional Record -
Senate
What Do you Want Your Children to Learn About Sex; Eric W. Johnson; California
Interagency Council on Family Planning Newsletter; Vol. 4, No. 1; Reprinted
from Parents Magazine
Who Insures the Child's Right to Health?; Helen E. Boardman, ACSW, RSW; Child
Welfare League of America, Inc.; July 1963
-150-