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
135840634
label
American Life Lobby (1 of 4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135840634
contentType
document
title
American Life Lobby (1 of 4)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
47
collections
Records of the White House Office of Public Liaison (Reagan Administration)
Morton Blackwell's Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135840634
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1984-12-31
year
1984
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d68f0e2fa24dc76a
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Blackwell, Morton: Files
Folder Title: American Life Lobby (1 of 4)
Box: 1
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/
ШИ
Telegram
western union
NO. WDS. - CL. OF SVC.
PD. OR COLL.
CASH NO.
C ARGE TO THE ACCOUNT OF
THIS MESSAGE WILL BE SENT
PRESS
OVER NIGHT
AS A TELEGRAM UNLESS IT IS
DPR
NPR
TELEGRAM
OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Send the following message, subject to the Telegraph Company's conditions, rules and regulations, which are on file with regulatory authorities.
December 7, 1982
TELEGRAM
TO: All House Judiciary Committee Members
We oppose any attempt to pass H.R. 3963 as amended by the Senate
under a privileged motion without conference. The House disagreed to
the Senate amendments on October 1. A formal conference to work out
disagreements should be held unless the text of S2572 as amended by the
Thurmond Amendment #1356 is adopted in toto particularly the makeup
and mandate to the sentencing commission and the limit on the amount of
any lien to assure payment of a fine.
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
American Life Lobby
Mr. Lawrence D. Pratt
Gun Owners of America
WU 1211 (RI-70)
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL FADQUARTERS MAILING ADDRE SS PO BOX 490 STAFFORD VA 22554
OFFICES ROUTE #6 BOX 162 STAFFORD VA 22554
(763) 659-4171
MI TRO DC 2049
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE 6B LIBRARY COURT St (CAPITOL HIL WASHINGTON, DC 20003 (202) 546-5550
ALERT
ALERT
ALERT
ALERT
ALERT
December 7, 1982
IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED TODAY
This week or early next week the Appropriation Committees of both
the U.S. House of Representative and the U.S. Senate will meet to
write the Fiscal Year 1983 Second Continuing Resolution.
The First Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 1983 which was
enacted as public Law 97-276 (and which expires on December 17, 1982)
contains language which by reference made the Ashbrook Amendment
banning taxpayers contribution to federal employees health insurance
premiums for policies that pay for abortion illegal.
During consideration of the Second Continuing Resolution by the
Appropriation Committees, particularly in the Senate Committee
there may be an attempt to change the language in the Second Contin-
uing Resolution so that the Ashbrook Amendment is not carried forward
(beyond December 17, 1982) into law.
It is imperative that you contact the Representative(s) from your
state on the Appropriation Committee (see enclosed list) AND the
Senators from your state, particularly if they are on the Appropriation
Committee (list enclosed) and urge them to "vote for language in
the Second Continuing Resolution that carries forward into law the
Ashbrook Amendment.
You must call or telegram this message today. Congressional Action
on Continuing Resolution is always very fast.
Make these calls and/or send these telegrams NOW!! Tomorrow may be
too late.
Congressman
Senator
House Office Bldg.
Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Washington, DC 20510
or call:
(202) 224-3121 (Capitol Switchboard) and ask for the office
of your choice
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
A.L.L.
for God, for Life, for the Family, for the Nation"
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
MAJORITY MEMBERS
MINORITY MEMBERS
Jamie L. Whitten, Miss.,
Charles Wilson, Tex.
Slivio O. Conte, Mass.
Chairman
Lindy Boggs, La.
Ranking Minority Member
Edward P. Boland, Mass.
Adam Benjamin, Jr., Ind.
Joseph M. McDade, Pa.
William H. Natcher, Ky.
Norman D. Dicks, Wash.
Jack Edwards, Ala.
Neal Smith, lowa
Matthew F. McHugh, N.Y.
John T. Myers, Ind.
Joseph P. Addabbo, N.Y.
Bo Ginn, Ga.
J. Kenneth Robinson, Va.
Clarence D. Long, Md.
William Lehman, Fla.
Clarence E. Miller, Ohio
Sidney R. Yates, III.
Jack Hightower, Tex.
Lawrence Coughlin, Pa.
David R. Obey, Wis.
Martin Olav Sabo, Minn.
C.W. Bill Young, Fla.
Edward R. Roybal, Calif.
Julian C. Dixon, Calif.
Jack F. Kemp, N.Y.
Louis Stokes, Ohio
Vic Fazio, Calif.
Ralph S. Regula, Ohio
Tom Bevill, Ala.
W.G. (Bill) Hefner, N.C.
Clair W. Burgener, Calif.
Bill Chappell, Jr., Fla.
Les AuCoin, Ore.
George M. O'Brien, III.
Bill Alexander, Ark.
Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii
Virginia Smith, Nebr.
John P. Murtha, Pa.
Wes Watkins, Okla.
Eldon Rudd, Ariz.
Bob Traxler, Mich.
William H. Gray III, Pa.
Carl D. Pursell, Mich.
Joseph D. Early, Mass.
Bernard J. Dwyer, N.J.
Mickey Edwards, Okla.
Robert L. (Bob) Livingston, La.
Bill Green, N.Y.
Tom G. Loeffler, Tex.
Jerry Lewis, Callf.
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr., S.C.
John Edward Porter. in
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
MAJORITY MEMBERS
MINORITY MEMBERS
Mark O. Hatfield, Ore.,
William Proxmire, Wis.,
Chairman
Ranking Minority Member
Ted Stevens, Alaska
John C. Stennis, Miss.
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., Conn.
Robert C. Byrd, W. Va.
James A. McClure, Idaho
Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii
Paul Laxalt, Nev.
Ernest F. Hollings, S.C.
Jake Garn, Utah
Thomas F. Eagleton, Mo.
Harrison (Jack) Schmitt, N.M.
Lawton Chiles, Fla.
Thad Cochran, Miss.
J. Bennett Johnston, La.
Mark Andrews, N.D.
Walter D. Huddleston, Ky.
James Abdnor, S.D.
Quentin N. Burdick, N.D.
Robert W. Kasten, Jr., Wis.
Patrick J. Leahy, Vt.
Alfonse M. D'Amato, N.Y.
James R. Sasser, Tenn.
Mack Mattingly, Ga.
Dennis DeConcini, Ariz.
Warren B. Rudman, N.H.
Dale Bumpers, Ark.
Arlen Specter, Pa.
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 490 STAFFORD VA 22554
OFFICES ROUTE #6 BOX 162-F ORD. VA 22554
(763) 659-4171
MI TRO DC 690 2049
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE 6B LIBRARY COURT SE (CAPITOL HILL) WASHINGTON, DC 20003 (202) 546-5550
HIGHLIGHTS OF DRAFT PROPOSED
U.S. DHHS GUIDELINES DESIGNED TO
MEET CRITICISMS OF GAO REPORTS HRD 81-68 AND HRD 81-106
1. A Title X grantee that runs an abortion clinic will have to
seperate it from the family planning clinic. (i.e. seperate
entrances and exits, seperate personnel, seperate medicine
and supplies and must do nothing to give the impression that
the Title X grant is in any way supporting the abortion
clinic.
Response: This perpetuates the improper reading of Section
1008 of the Public Health Service Act which was
explained in Congressional debate by Congressman
Dingell as follows:
"With the 'prohibition of abortion amend-
ment--TITLE X, SECTION 1008--the committee
members clearly intend that abortion is
not encouraged or promoted in any way
through this legislation. Programs
which include abortion as a method
of family planning are not eligible
for funds allocated through this act."
2. Nothing may be done by the Title X grantee that "potentially
may give the impression that Title X funds support the abortion
activities."
Response: Does this cover counselling in favor of abortion?
What about lobbying? Doesn't the fact that the same
entity gets Title X funds and performs or refers for
abortion encompass giving the impression that Title
X funds support the abortion activities?
3. Referral will be limited to giving a list of names, addresses
and phone numbers of "approved", "high quality" abortion
clinic but only to those family planning clinic patients
who request information on abortion clinics.
Response: Referral is inconsistent with other parts of the pro-
posed guidelines. How is such a referral consistent
with "not giving the impression that Title X funds
support abortion activities."
General Response: These guidelines do nothing to address the
GAO Report HRD 81-68 identification of waste
and abuse through:
A.L.L.
fr God, for Life, for the Family, for the Nation"
Page 2
a) too much and wrong kind of education
b) too many patient visits-in excess of
A.C.O.G. standard
c) too much V.D. testing
d) too much anemia screening
e) non-collection of fees
Further these proposed guidelines make no
effort to specifically stop the use of clinics
for lobbying even though every clinic visited
by GAO for Report HRD 82-106 had at least a
technical violation of the lobbying prohibitions.
ACTION ITEM: Write and tell the following officials your views
on the proposed guidelines.
Honorable Richard S. Schweiker
Secretary
Department of Health & Human Services
615F - HHH Building
200 Independence Ave., S.W.
and
Dr. Robert Gramm, Administrator
Health Resources and Services Administration
U.S. DHHS
Room 1405
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 490, STAFFORD, VA 22554
OFFICES: ROUTE #6, BOX 162-F, STAFFORD, VA 22554
(703) 659-4171
METRO DC 690-2049
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE 6B LIBRARY COURT SE (CAPITOL HILL) WASHINGTON, DC 20003 (202) 546-5550
October 15, 1982
Ms. Abigail Cummings
Office of the General Counsel
Inspector-General's Division
5541 DHHS - North
330 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20201
Dear Ms. Cummings:
I was pleased to learn in our telephone conversation last night that
the Inspector- General's Division of U.S. DHHS now realizes that the infor-
mation on approximately 16,240 containers of fetuses and fetal material has
not been transferred to any ledger or in any way preserved and that the
Department is "responding" to this information.
We would appreciate knowing exactly how DHHS intends to respond.
Will you intervene in District Attorney Van De Kamp's court action
to delay or stop his attempt to obtain court permission to bury potential-
ly critical evidence until all relevant data from these 16,240 containers can
be preserved?
I would appreciate a prompt response to this letter and my letter of
October 7 on the same subject.
CC: Juan del Real
Sincerely,
Richard P. Kusserow
Bryan Mitchell
Gary L. Curran
Legisiative Consultant
P.S.
Following up our conversation this morning I cannot understand
how DHHS investigators in approximately 48 hours have independently
determined that all of the data contained on the approximately 16,240
containers proposed for burial is preserved. This is particularly true
when it took the County Health Department and District Attorney's of-
fice weeks to just count and sort the 16,390 containers.
Again we reiterate that DHHS should independently determine
that all data to be buried is preserved seperate from the container to
be buried.
A.L.L.
for God, for Life, for the Family, for the Nation"
ШИ
western union
Telegram
NO. WDS.- CL. OF SVC.
PD OR COLL
CASH NO.
CHARGE TO THE ACCOUNT OF
THIS MESSAGE WILL BE SENT
PRESS
OVER NIGHT
AS A TELEGRAM UNLESS IT IS
DPR
NPR
TELEGRAM
OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Send the following message, subject to the Telegraph Company's conditions, rules and regulations, which are on file with regulatory authorities.
COPY TO:
Richard S. Schweiker
Richard P. Kusserow
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Inspector General
200 Independence Avenue SW
HHS North Room 5250
Washington, DC 20201
33u Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20201
Mr. Secretary:
Our information is that information attached to the 16,390 containers of fetuses
and fetal material referred to in the July 29, 1982 memorandum of Los Angeles
County Director of Health Services has not been transferred to files or otherwise
preserved in any form outside of the large shipping container discovered in
February, 1982. Although some of this information may have been preserved
outside the container, not all the information for all the 16,390 individual
containers has been preserved.
Without all the information form each of the 16,390 individual containers preserved
we feel it will be impossible for HHS to conduct a thorough investigation of possible
Medicaid fraud or other violations of laws, rules and regulations administered
by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
We therefore call on you to intervene to stop District Attorney Van de Kamp's state
court action to obtain permission to bury what could be critical evidence.
We demand you petition to intervene in this court action, a hearing on which is
scheduled for October 18, 1982.
Respectfully,
Dr. Robert L. Sassone
Attorney at Law
and
National Advisory Board Legal Affairs Committee, American Life Lobby
Law Offies: 900 No. Broadway; Suite 725; Santa Ana, CA 92701 PHONE: 714-547-5611
American Life Lobby offices; 6 Library Court SE; Washington, DC 20003
PHONE: 546-5550
Confirmation copies to: Senators Jesse Helms, Jeremiah Denton, Orrin Hatch
and Roger Jepsen
WU 1211 (R1-70)
OF
131
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
blis
CALWOURIA
313 NORTH FIGUERCA STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 974-8101
July 29, 1982
TO:
Michael D. Antonovich, Supervisor
Fifth Supervisorial District
FROM:
Robert Director W. of White
SUBJECT:
CATALOGING AND SORTING OF FETAL MATERIAL
On June 15, on your Motion, this Department was ordered by
the Board to assist the District Attorney in cataloging and
sorting the contents of the shipping container seized by the
County District Attorney and secured at the Mechanical Department
Eastern Avenue headquarters.
We have provided manpower to assist the District Attorney in
this task and have completed the work under his direction as
of this morning.
The bin contained 16,390 individual plastic cartons of fetuses
and fetal material. 150 of these were of a sufficient size
to indicate that they might have been in excess of 20 weeks of
gestational age. These were segregated and transferred to
the office of the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner for such
additional processing as may be determined necessary by the
District Attorney.
These are in addition to the 43 fetuses transferred to the
Coroner and autopsied following the discovery of this shipping
container last February. The individual plastic containers
were repackaged in cardboard boxes and the boxes were placed
back in the shipping container, which has been resecured at
Eastern Avenue and remain in the custody of the District Attorney.
RWW:pv
CC: Each Supervisor
Chief Administrative Officer
County Counsel
District Attorney
AMERIC LIF
LOBBY INC.
NATIONA
MA ING ADDR
III
VA
4
#6 BOX IF.
M
RT SE
October 7, 1982
Ms. Abigail Cummings
9
Office of the General Counsel
Inspector General's Division
5541 DHHS - North
330 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20201
Dear Ms. Cummings:
This will follow up on our telephone conversation of this date and the
telegrams of October 2, 1982 to Secretary Schweiker and Inspector-General
Kusserow from Judie Brown.
The hearing on the Los Angeles County District Attorney's court action
for permission to bury the 17,000 aborted babies found in February is, I
am informed, October 18, 1982.
Unless the DHHS investigators are absolutely certain that the bodies
proposed for burial will not ever be needed as evidence in any possible
prosecution of violations of laws, rules or regulations administered by DHHS
(such as Medicaid billing for tests or proceedures on these bodies that were
never actually performed) we feel it is incumbent upon DHHS to intervene
in the District Attorney's action to prevent the burial of potential evidence.
We believe that if there is even the slightest question about the need
for this evidence to remain available the Department should intervene to
prevent burial.
D
Sincerely,
Gary Gamy L. Curran Humon
Legislative Consultant
GLC/sm
A.L.L.
fo:
fe fc
he Nation"
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SE RVICES
WASHINGTON DC 20201
Mrs. Judie Brown
President
American Life Lobby, Inc.
P. O. Box 490
Stafford, Virginia 22554
Dear Mrs. Brown:
I deeply share your concern over the recent discovery of
aborted fetuses in a shipping container owned by Medical
Analytical Laboratories, Inc. (MAL). I assure you that the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is conducting a
thorough review of the situation to determine whether there has
been any violation of Department rules or regulations.
This Department will also closely follow the exhaustive
California State investigation and will lend assistance to the
State if Federal programs are implicated. The United States
Department of Justice has already initially reviewed the matter
and concluded that there are no Federal statutes prohibiting the
use or interstate transportation of human fetuses for experi-
mental purposes. However, I have directed various components of
this Department to fully review Department policies to ensure
that no violation has occurred.
I appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Schweiker
Secretary
AMERICAN LIFE OBBY INC.
MAILING ADDRE
#6 BOX 162
4171
ME
LIAISON
Any COURT SE (CAP
November 24, 1982
Office of General Counsel
Legal Services Corporation
733 15th St., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Sir:
These comments are the official comments of the American Life Lobby, Inc.,
the biggest pro-life organization in the United States, representing over
100,000 persons.
Our comments will be limited to the proposed changes concerning class
action litigation by Legal Services Corporation (LSC) grantees Part 1617 as
proposed to be amended at pages 50663 - 50665 of the Federal Register of Mon-
day, November 8, 1982 (Vol. 47 No. 216).
Neither the staff proposal nor the Harvey-Olson alternative go far enough.
All LSC grantees should be barred from engaging in any class action litigation
and all fees for class action litigation now in progress should be remitted
to the U.S. Treasury.
The reasons for this are very simple.
1. With the vast expansion of court awarded fees under the Civil Rights
Attorneys Fee Recovery Act and the Equal Access to Justice Act there is
no need for LSC grantees to take time and resources away from solving
the individual problems of individual poor people so they can engage
in time consuming class action litigation. Please note the enclosed
story from the November 20, 1982 New York Times in which private attor-
neys received $1.71 million in court awarded fees in a class action con-
cerning prison conditions. Further LSC involvement in class action suits
is duplicative and wasteful.
2. Class action suits are a back door method of financing Legal Services
grantees. To our knowledge no one at the Legal Services Corporation
in Washington knows the amount of income to each LSC grantee or in ag-
gregate the amount of fees awarded to all grantees. Please note there
is supposedly a statutory prohibition on LSC grantees taking fee gen-
erating cases. The taxpayer is financing the costs of the LSC grantee
lawyers salary. The taxpayer should not be required to finance a "pro-
fit" to LSC grantees. To the extent that there is a massive profit to
the grantees it provides a major incentive for LSC grantees to neglect
-1-
A.L.L.
for
for Life, for the
for the Nation"
individual problems for the more "ideological" and profitable class
actions which may not relate to the pressing individual needs of poor
people. Please note the enclosed article from the March 15, 1981 Phil-
adelphia Bulletin in which it is reported that the local LSC grantee
filed for $4.5 million in fees for just one case. At $100 per hour that
that is 45,000 hours of legal work or the equivalent of 24 lawyers work-
ing full time for a whole year on this one case. $4.5 million is the
equivalent of the entire work load of the Philadelphia LSC grantee for
almost two years. This of course means many individual cases were not
worked on in order to pursue this one case.
I also call your attention to the enclosed Orlando Sentinel-Star
editorial of January 27, 1981 that states that the local LSC grantee
is pursuing only two class action cases out of 4000 but states that
more time and money is spent on the two class action cases than all
the others combined. Note that one case has to do with whether the
city of Orlando should build a downtown parking garage - a question
that is at best tangential to the legal problems of the poor.
3. On June 17, 1981 the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 241
to 167, a 74 vote margin, added the following language to the LSC Re-
authorization Bill, H.R. 3480:
"Sec. 6. Section 1006(d) (5) of the Legal Services Corp-
oration Act (42 U.S.C 2996e(d) (5)) is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following: 'No class action suit may be brought
against the Federal Government or any State or local govern-
ment.
For the above reasons we urge the Board of Directors of the Legal Ser-
vices Corporation to repeal Part 1617 and replace it with the following:
"No class action suit may be brought against the Federal
Government or any State or local government."
With God For Life,
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
President
cc: All LSC Board Members
Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.
Honorable Charles Wilson
NOV 19 REC'D
MES
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ADDRES
OFFICES ROUTH dell'
(703) 559-41
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE 681188ARY
November 15, 1982
Honorable Ronald Reagan
The President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Reagan:
This is in further regard to my letter of October 4, 1982 in which
I forwarded to you an analysis of the report "Deciding to Forego
Life-Sustaining Therapy" of the June 10-11, 1982, Report of Presi-
dent's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and
Bio-Medical and Behavioral Research. This analysis was done by
Dr. Robert L. Sassone, Esq., at our request.
We were hopeful that you would give this analysis your careful
review before sharing it with those members of your staff who are
directly concerned with this Commission and its output. The report
contains any number of vitally pertinent comments and criticisms
that are important to the continuing work of this Commission.
We stand ready to assist you in any way possible in this matter.
Please do not hesitate to call on me and my staff at any time in
this regard.
Again, on behalf of our board and our thousands of supporters from
all across the country, we thank you and commend you for your continu-
ing courage and outspoken support for the all-important issue of life.
With God for Life,
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
President
enc CC Elizabeth Dole
Richard Schweiker
Morton Blackwell
David B. Swoap
A.L.L.
for God, for ife, for the Family, for the Nation"
REVIEW OF "DECIDING TO FOREGO LIFE-SUSTAINING
THERAPY" JUNE 10-11, 1982 BY THE
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION FOR THE STUDY OF ETHICAL
PROBLEMS IN MEDICINE AND BIOMEDICAL
AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
The format of this review is to first analyze the intro-
duction and the various chapters and conclude with a summary
analysis.
Introduction
The introduction summarizes changes now taking place in
the dying process, including changes in patient attitudes. The
statements made are general enough so that they could be true,
although if interpreted in a certain way, certain of the state-
ments could be considered to be incorrect or unfortunate.
Among the major changes considered are that the time and manner
of death are now more frequently known than previously, many
patients are not averse to the prospect of death, yet these
patients receive care in settings where death is not seen as a
good outcome. Death is frequently seen as a failure of medical
science. Physicians until recently systematically excluded
dying patients from serious involvement in planning their own
care by denying them information. Such practices are changing.
Social attitudes about and interest in death and dying is
changing. The patient wants to be protected against eh course
of death that is too easy and quick as much as from one that is
too agonizing and prolonged. The golden mean is sought.
In summary, the introduction is not offensive to the right
to life, although some of its statements skirt the use of
terminology which is offensive to the right to life.
Chapter 1 - The Dying Patient
A. Characterization
In general, the characterization of the dying patient is
good. It is stated that:
"People are too varied in their responses to
death for arbitrary definitions.
The dying
patient is one with definite signs and symptoms
that imply a prognosis of life sufficiently short
that attention to completing life is a more
realistic response than setting more open-ended
goals.
Dying frequently entails suffering.
Suffering is subjective
....
Dying people are
generally confronted with powerful emotions.
"
The section concludes, "The various reform movements in dying
éducation have recently been addressing these problems and
have demonstrated that much can be done to facilitate the
tasks of dying persons and their survivors."
In general the preceding section is satisfactory.
B. Therapeutic Possibilities
This section is excellent. It indicates that the lot of
the dying patient can be greatly improved by good medical and
nursing care and simple attention to details such as proper
positioning.
"Medical management of symptoms has recently
demonstrated that no patient need be terrified of
pain. ... Other symptoms such as nausea ... usually
respond reasonably well.
The anguish of one who
is grappling with the issue of his, or her own
mortality is less susceptible to a technologic cure.
...
Adequate care requires attention to the spiritual,
emotional, financial, and other needs of the person
who is dying."
C. Components of Quality Care
This section is excellent. It states in part,
"Teachers of the art of managing dying patients
point out the central role of involved and careful
listening
...
Patients who live angry or insecure or
isolated lives are fairly likely to die angry, afraid,
or lonely. Reasonable goals originate in helping the
person to use his strength and to avoid his weaknesses
in confronting the prospects of an impending end to
life
Until the evidence is quite clear that the
patient is making an informed, deliberate, and
autonomous decision to forego one or more specific
life-sustaining interventions, wise health care pro-
viders seek out and enhance those parts of the patient's
person that are not yet ready to acquiesce to death.
The individual provider care can accomplish much by
insuring support for the persons who will be bereaved
by the patient's death.
#
- 2 -
D. "Death with Dignity"
This topic is handled well. The report states in part:
"Much can and should be done to insure that
patients are treated with respect and concern
throughout life. Insofar as 'Death with Dignity'
means that he decisions of dying patients are
solicited and respected, that much is probably
achievable.
However, many proponents seem to
go well beyond that to a vision of guaranteeing
each person a peaceful and aesthetically appealing
death. This is clearly beyond reach.
...
Insuring
comfort at the end of life sometimes requires some
mechanical and artificial assistance. For these
reasons the best care of dying patients is not
always aimed to achieve a 'natural death' or
tranquil an appealing death scene."
Chapter 2 - Possible Constraints
On Acceptable Decisions
A. Ethical Analysis and Public Policy
"All persons have a duty to refrain from taking
the life of another. However, this duty is often
difficult to interpret when seriously ill patients
and their families and health care providers face
decisions that are likely to affect the span of the
patient's life. For some patients, the conditions
of shorter life and the satisfactions that it is
expected to afford outweigh the appeal of a longer
life under more severely constrained conditions.
The commission believes that wise public policy
would aim to allow such a choice but also to limit
the likelihood of untimely death being chosen
because of erroneous information, temporary depres-
sion of the patient, or other flaws in the
functioning of the decision making process."
The application of general rules is discussed. The pro-
blem of the "slippery slope" is defined and discussed.
B. Voluntariness
"An important distinction between voluntary and
involuntary decisions to forego life-sustaining
therapy. Good medical practice requires that a
competent and and informed patient's refusal of a
- 3 -
particular, or even all, medical treatment be respected.
The moral basis of 'Living Wills'
derives from the
importance of honoring a competent patient's advance
decisions.
... Reflecting the importance of self-
determination, the commission endorses a strong pre-
sumption in favor of honoring an informed patient's
competent and voluntary decision concerning life-
sustaining therapy. Voluntary foregoings require: The
patient be competent to make this decision, that he
understand the nature and expected consequences of
available alternative courses of action, and that the
consent be given without coercion or manipulation. In-
voluntary foregoings are made against the expressed and
competent decision of the patient. Non-voluntary
foregoings take place when the patient gives neither
effective consent nor refusal for termination.
Permitting others to make a decision to forego a
therapy that is reasonably likely to extend the life of
competent patient without informing or involving the
patient is wrong, since the patient is being treated
as if you are not capable of self-determination.
Many persons believe there are additional limits
on the ethical acceptability of treatment refusal or
termination, or other actions in the medical context
that bring about death. For example only passive
means, the death may only be indirectly incurred, or
only extraordinary therapy may be foregone. Distinc-
tions such as these impose additional moral limits on
voluntary foregoings of life-sustaining therapy."
The difference between active killing and allowing to die
is discussed philosophilically and morally. The distinction
between stopping and not starting treatment is discussed.
D. Intended Outcomes or
Merely Foreseen Consequences
Pain relievers can sometimes increase a patient's chance
of death from infection or other causes. The doctrine of
double effect is discussed. Lives' by the administration of
a lethal injection.
The difference between acting and refraining when each
results in death are discussed.
The commission concludes after a sophisticated discus-
sion that both the nature and moral importance of the differ-
ence between direct and indirect killing, as marked by the
distinction between what a person intends to do and the foreseen
but unintended consequences of what he does, are sufficiently
problematic to warrant great caution in placing important
- 4 -
weight on this difference in public policy. The preceding
statement if implemented in the wrong way could cause serious
problems. The commission goes on to state, "Considerable
caution is warrantêd about substantially weakening these
safeguards, despite the doubtful moral importance of the
distinctions on which they rely.
The
commission
also
...
finds it possible that the value of respecting a competent
patient's voluntary choice might be sufficiently important in
at least some cases ethically to justify allowing the patient
actively or intentionally to terminate his own life."
(Suicide) Here the commission's analysis is very weak though
subtle. The arguments against the conclusion are not really
analyzed.
E. Ordinary and Extraordinary Treatment
"The commission can find no basis for holding
that whether a treatment is common or unusual, or
simple or complex, is in itself morally important
in deciding whether the treatment is obligatory."
The ordinary-extraordinary distinction of Catholic
theology is discussed. The commission concludes that public
policy should avoid the use of the terms ordinary/extraordinary
because the distinction plays no role in the ethical analysis,
yet invites confusion. Here again the commission could have
done a better job of analyzing the conclusion of the commission
can be supported only if it is interpreted in a particular way
as in the preceding case (D. Intended Outcomes Or Merely
Foreseen Consequences)
F. Summary
The commission concludes that of all the distinctions that
have been opposed to demarcate acceptable from unacceptable
actions, only the voluntary-involuntary one is clearly morally
relevant in itself and usually capable of unambiguous applica-
tion in actual cases. This appears to be a dangerous conclu-
sion in that the distinctions which the commission would avoid
can shed substantial light on what should be the particular
action in a particular case. The commission utilizes the so
called "hard cases" to show that there are problems in the
application of moral guidelines, and reasons from the problems
in particular hard cases that the guidelines themselves are
valueless. It appears to me that this is faulty reasoning ón
the part of the commission which could have severe adverse
effects.
- 5 -
Chapter 3 - Patients who Make
Their Own Decisions
Most patients in most situations can make their own assess-
ments and health care professionals should enhance the ability
of patients to exercise this self-determination. Considering
the effect of decisions involving life-sustaining therapy, we
must be certain the patient has made a valid consent. The
patient's emotions must also be considered.
A. What the Patient Would Consider
This section indicates what information the patient
should have in reaching decisions relating to care such as life-
sustaining therapy.
B. The Involvement of Others
The involvement of family, health care professionals,
institutions, and society are discussed.
C. Additional considerations by
Agents for the Patient
When a patient makes a decision that involves others, the
agent involved faces decisions as a result. Patients who claim
to want to discontinue a life-sustaining therapy frequently do
not do so when they have the chance. A person acting for the
patient should consider this.
In all this chapter's analysis, as noted previously, is
not really favorable toward right to life, but it is not too bad.
Chapter 4 - Decision Making When
The Patient Cannot Decide
(This chapter is Chapter 4 of "Consent" and "DFT".)
A. Which Patient's Lack
Decision Making Capacity
Patients lacking decision making capacity lack the ability
to communicate with other people or to comprehend their situation
and its potential impact upon their lives or patients who are
coerced or manipulated also lack decision making capacity. It
- 6 -
includes children, those with mental and physical deficits,
those who are incapable of deciding at the time the decision
must be made though competent at other times.
"Health care providers should recognize that
the only necessary implication of a determination of
incapacity to make a decision is that the patient's
decision, if any, may be overruled." (This could
certainly be stated more precisely.) "The patient
may be able to participate in the decision even
though unable to make it." (Good point.)
A check list is given to determine the patient's decision
making capacity. The patient who had some ability to comprehend,
communicate, and form a preference is discussed.
B. Goals of Decision Making For
Incompetent Patients
The two chief goals are (1) promoting patient welfare and
(2) respecting patient self-determination by implementing the
patient's values and preferences expressed when the patient was
competent. When recovery of decision making capacity is a
reasonable prospect, enhancing this prospect is also a goal of
decision making.
C. Substantive Principles for Decision Making
Full respect for the principle of self-determination implies
that the former wishes of an incapacitated patient be followed.
This is called the rule of "substituted judgment". Examples are
"living wills" and durable powers of attorney. The "living will"
was developed in 1938. Beginning in 1976, a number of states
adopted statutes intended to give legal force to "living wills"
under specified conditions. Doubt may remain as to whether the
advanced directive or past preference was based on a sufficient
appreciation of the relevant facts or as to whether some shift
in the individual's preferences or values may have occurred.
Notwithstanding this inherent limitation, the Commission
believes that carefully prepared advance written directives can
provide a useful way of facilitating respect for patient self-
determination and for advancing the patient's welfare on his or
her own terms. (This statement appears to favor the "living will"
concept. None of the disadvantages of living wills are discussed.
It should be noted that the language chosen is more broad and yet
more narrow than a mere expression of approval of the concept of
"living wills. In non-emergency situations the family should be
the principle decision maker for the incompetent patient under
most circumstances. A sound institutional policy should include
a designated staff person or committee to determine when to seek
court appointment of a legal guardian for the incompetent
patient who lacks a suitable surrogate. The staff person or
committee may serve as a temporary surrogate. The committee
believes this approach is better than letting the provider
in charge be the principle decision maker because of his
medical expertise or letting treatment decisions be made by
the courts. The surrogate should be a genuine decision maker,
not a passive witness to decisions made by the medical team.
The surrogate's decision making authority is not as broad as
the competent patient's right of self-determination particularly
in cases of refusal of treatment. A hospital ethics committee
may also shed light on certain types of cases. Policy should
be set up for those cases requiring special scrutiny, especially
cases involving procedures primarily beneficial to others,
not the patient, procedures expected to produce irreversable
changes such as sterilization or psychosurgery, and decisions
to forego life-extending procedures. The Commission advises
a procedure for deciding close cases or cases where there are
disagreement and believes that certain patient groups require
especially rigorous safeguards. Among these are incompetent
long-term inmates of total institutions and patients in newborn
intensive care units. The Commission recommends 10 elements
for a sound institutional policy for decision making for
incompetent patients.
CONCLUSION
This report is generally fairly good. There are some
areas where, as noted previously, it can be criticized, but
overall it appears to be a reasonable effort by conscientious
staff to do a fair exploration of the difficult areas relating
to foregoing life-sustaining therapy. While we could live
with this report, improvements are possible, and if we can
request them at no great cost, we should so request. These
areas of weakness in the report have been noted previously.
Robert Sassone
ROBERT L. SASSONE
- 8 -
10 THE NEW YORK TIMES, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1982
U.S. Judge Awards $1.71 Million
In Legal Fees in Texas Prison Case
By STUART TAYLOR Jr.
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19- A Federal
various kinds of cases are now author-
district judge in Texas ordered the state
ized by the civil rights laws and dozens
today to pay $1.71 million in fees and ex-
of other Federal statutes for the pur-
penses to the attorneys for prisoners
pose of encouraging lawsuits that Con-
who won a lawsuit challenging condi-
gress deemed to serve the public inter-
tions in the state prison system, the na-
est.
tion's largest.
Judge Justice, long a favorite of civil
The fees, awarded by Judge William
rights lawyers and a nemesis of state
Wayne Justice of Tyler, Tex., to Wil-
officials, has presided over the prison
liam Bennett Turner of San Francisco
case since 1972. In 1980, he found that
and other lawyers representing a state-
conditions throughout the system
wide class of prisoners, were the big-
amounted to unconstitutional "cruel
gest ever in any lawsuit brought pri-
and unusual punishment" and Issued a
marily under the civil rights laws, ac-
sweeping prison-reform decree.
cording to legal experts.
His central holding that the condi-
The fees were more than double the
tions were unconstitutional and some of
largest previously awarded in a prison
his remedial orders were upheld, while
conditions case.
other particularly costly remedial or-
The judge's action drew an immedi-
ders were reversed in June by the
ate denunciation from the Texas Attor-
United States Court of Appeals for the
ney General, Mark White, the Gover-
Fifth Circuit.
nor-elect, who has strenuously opposed
Judge Justice specified in his latest
the prison litigation. He said that Judge
opinion, dated Wednesday and filed
Justice "has again fallen into error with
today in Federal District Court in Hous-
an excessive award," which he prom-
ton, that the total of $1,662,683 in attor-
ised to appeal.
neys' fees and $51,844 in expenses were
Case Spanned a Decade
to be divided between Mr. Turner, the
chief counsel, 11 other lawyers, one
The size of the award reflects the
large law firm and assorted paralegals
view that the decade-long lawsuit, in-
and law clerks.
volving more than 30,000 inmates in 22
He said the lawyers had employed un-
institutions, was "unprecedented in its
usual skill and dedication, in a "compli-
scope and complexity," as Judge Jus-
cated and unprecedented" case, to win
tice put it. The judge was also unusually
a "priceless" victory for prisoners that
generous in upholding almost all
"should dramatically alter" the over-
aspects of the fee application.
crowding and brutality he had found to
But he asserted in his 58-page opinion
pervade the prison system.
that the time and expense the state had
The judge praised Mr. Turner, a San
invested in is defense of the lawsuit
Francisco lawyer whom he awarded
"dwarfs the time spent by plaintiffs'
more than $700,000, at $300 an hour, as
counsel," and that much larger fees
"probably the foremost practitioner in
had been awarded in antitrust and other
the field of prisoners' rights in this na-
business lawsuits that were no more
tion."
complex than the prison case.
He computed the fees by multiplying
Large fee awards to lawyers repre-
the number of hours' work each lawyer
senting plaintiffs in civil rights, envi-
had documented, discounted by 5 per-
ronmental and other lawsuits against
cent to allow for possible duplication of
state and Federal Governments have
efforts, by hourly rates ranging from
increasingly become the focus of politi-
$150 for Mr. Turner to $75 for "inexperi-
cal controversy.
enced or subordinate attorneys."
The Reagan Administration is
The judge then doubled the fees, on
preparing legislation to sharply limit
the ground that the attorneys "have pri-
the judicial power to award fees to law-
vately enforced crucial social objec-
yers who prevail in suits against gov-
tives which might otherwise be ig-
ernmental units, according to an article
nored," and had worked for years with-
to be published in the next edition of The
out any assurance of compensation be-
National Law Journal.
cause of the risk that they would lose
Fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs in
the case.
18E
THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1982
ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER, Publisher
A. M. ROSENTHAL, Executive Editor
SEYMOUR TOPPING, Managing Editor
ARTHUR GELB, Deputy Managing Editor
JAMES L GREENFIELD, Assistant Managing Editor
The New York Times
LOUIS VERSTEIN, Assistant Managing Editor
MAX FRANKEL, Editorial Page Editor
JACK ROSENTHAL, Deputy Editorial Page Editor
Founded in 1851
CHARLOTTE CURTIS, Associate Editor
ToM WICKER, Associate Editor
ADOLPH 8. OCHS, Publisher 1896-1935
ARTHUR HAYS SULZBERGER, Publisher 1935-1961
JOHN D. POMFRET, Exec. V.P., General Manager
ORVILE DRYPOOS, Publisher 1961-1963
DONALD A. NIZEN, Sr. V.P., Consumer Marketing
LANCE R. PRIMIS, Sr. V.P., Advertising
J. A. RIGGS JR, Sr. V.P., Operations
JOHN M. O'BRIEN, V.P., Controller
ELISE J. ROSS, V.P., Systems
More Legal Insults for the Poor
What would you think of a law that gave you the
maladministered school lunch program without the
right to sue the Government for depriving you of
advance consent of every affected family. Even the
your rights - provided only that no public funds be
courts have no right to require litigants, rich or poor,
used to redress the grievance if you win? No one
to run that obstacle course.
even dreams of such a law for suits by those who can
A staff lawyer who so misread the commission's
afford a lawyer, but President Reagan's appointed
purpose and the law's intent ought to be sent to re-
guardians of the national poverty law program want
take the bar exam. But these guidelines were writ-
just such a rule for the poor.
ten not by staffers or clerks but by directors named
Their proposal takes the form of draft guide-
by the President: Chairman William Harvey, a law
lines for the Legal Services Corporation, the feder-
professor in Indianapolis, and William Olson, a
ally funded system for helping the poor in civil
Washington attorney. Both share Mr. Reagan's hos-
cases. Congress told the corporation to write rules
tility to legal services.
for class actions, which are lawsuits filed on behalf
of large groups of people who share a legal griev-
ance. But instead of regulating class lawsuits, the
Congress tried mightily in 1974 to nourish legal
new proposal would eliminate them for the poor
services by creating an independent corporation
and only the poor.
that would foster competent, fearless legal repre-
Class actions are useful tools in business litiga-
sentation free from political meddling. The White
tion and other cases involving persons too numerous
House has frustrated this system by nominating di-
to sue individually. A unanimous Supreme Court
rectors, notably Mr. Harvey and Mr. Olson, who are
praised the device in a complicated 1979 Social Se-
unacceptable to Senate friends of the program but
curity case because it "saves the resources of both
serve under recess appointments. Required by the
the courts and the parties by permitting an issue
1974 law to appoint some directors who are eligible
potentially affecting every Social Security benefici-
clients, the Administration picked a 23-year-old son
ary to be litigated in an economical fashion. The
of middle-class parents who is working his way
device gives the plaintiffs the strength of numbers,
through college.
if they can afford to sue.
Such parodies of poverty law are ridiculous but
The idea of banning awards from public funds is
not amusing. They not only cheat but insult the poor.
only the most blatant discrimination against the
Congress has little time to rescue this program from
poor. The other proposed technical hurdles are daz-
the Reagan wrecking crew. The Senate can begin by
zling. For example, a legal services program could
voting promptly to reject the Harvey and Olson
not sue in the name of all injured families over a
nominations.
bits
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL
ITERS MAILING ADDRESS P O
HD 22554
ROUTE #6 BOX 162.F STATE
659-4171
METRO DC
GOVERNMENT LIAISON
BRARY COURT SE (CAPITOL HII
20003
(202) 546-5550
December 7, 1982
Editor
New York Times
229 W. 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
Dear Sir:
I have just read your editorial "More Legal Insults For The Poor"
(December 5, 1982).
I am afraid that the Times has not studied the background for the
proposal to ban Legal Services Corporation (LSC) lawyers from class action
cases because if you had you would find that such a restriction will eliminate
a) duplication and waste, b) will actually increase the amount of Legal Ser-
vices provided to the poor and c) an even stronger ban than that proposed
by LSC Chairman Harvey which was adopted by the U.S. House of Represent-
atives on June 17, 1981 by an overwhelming vote of 241 to 167.
A). With the vast expansion of court awarded fees under the Civil
Rights Attorneys Fee Recovery Act and the Equal Access to Jus-
tice Act there is no need for LSC grantees to take time and re-
sources away from solving the individual problems of individual
poor people so they can engage in time consuming class action
litigation. For example on November 20, 1982 the Times reported
that private attorneys received court awarded fees totaling $1.71
million for a class action relating to conditions of prisoners - pro-
bably the poorest of the poor. Since Legal Services lawyers sal-i
aries are 100% subsidized by the taxpayer there is no need for them
them to engage, in class actions which result in large fees. To
do so makes the taxpayer pay for the litigation twice. This a-
mounts to institutional ideological amulance chasing.
B). Because of the prospect of large fee recoveries class action
cases divert Legal Services lawyers from providing help for in-
dividual poor people. For example in 1981 the LSC organization
in Philadelphia filed in Federal court for $4.5 million in fees for
what is known as the Whitman Park case. Eyen at the rate of
$100 per hour this means that Legal Services lawyers spent 45,000
hours on that one case, or 24 lawyers working full time for a
whole year. $4.5 million is equal to two years worth of grants
to this organization from LSC. In order to spend this much time
on one case many individual poor people must have been denied
legal assistance.
-1-
A.L.L.
for
for Life, for the
for the Nation"
page two
Also in 1981 the LSC grantee Greater Orlando Legal Services
had about 4000 cases only two of which were class actions however
the Orlando Sentinel-Star on January 27, 1981 reported "but the
financial and manpower costs of those two class action suits,
are far greater than those of the individual cases.". In other
words the organization could handle at least 8000 individual
poor people's cases if the LSC lawyers weren't pursuing just
two class actions.
C). On June 17, 1981 the U.S. House of Representatives by a 74
vote margin adopted the following amendment to the LSC Re-author-
ization Dill, H.R. 3480:
"No class action suit may be brought against the
Federal Government or any State or local government."
1
The ban on class actions is sound policy that will save taxpayers money
and at the same time increase legal services to the poor.
Sincerely,
Gony berron
Gary LI Curran
Legislative Consultant
GLC/sm
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 490, STAFFORD, VA 22554
OFFICES: ROUTE #6, BOX 162-F, STAFFORD, VA 22554
(703) 659-4171
METRO DC 690-2049
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE: 6B LIBRARY COURT SE (CAPITOL HILL) WASHINGTON, DC 20003 (202) 546-5550
January 21, 1983
PROPOSED ACTION ITEMS FOR PRESIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION
A) Please issue a 1984 Budget Proposal Amendment now to cut $50,000,000 from
Title X - PHS based upon GAO Report HRD 81-68's findings of fund mismanagement.
B) Please veto any relevant appropriations bill that comes to the White House
without specific language prohibiting the use of tax-payer dollars
for abortion and abortion-related services.
C) Please be certain that the public and the Congress understand that the
veto was used specifically because of the absence of restrictive abortion
language. (See B above)
D) Since Mrs. Margaret Heckler, Secretary Designate for the DHHS, is already
on record as an opponent of parental notification and parental consent
when dealing with unemancipated minors, will you instruct her to see that
the new minimal parental notification regulation is enforced?
E) Will you please require that all recipients of Title X (Public Health Service
Act - birth control program) funds be required to abide by the strict
letter of the law and Section 1008 of Title X; and further, that those
agencies who do not comply be immediately defunded?
F) Will you enforce this request (D) with the Department of HHS with adequate
follow-up in place?
G) Will you work with Secretary Designate Heckler to see that she immediately
begins a vigorous implementation policy with regard to the Handicapped
Persons Provisions of the law in such a way that government funded
hospitals can no longer take the lives of newborn infants as was the case
in the Infant Doe matter of April, 1982.
H) Will you work with Secretary Designate Heckler in her efforts to vigorously
review all grant applications for research on human subjects to make certain
that no fetal experimentation is taking place in any project funded in any
way with tax payer monies?
I) ALL proposes that the Reagan Administration establish a Study Committee
for the purpose of investigating the impact which the taking of the lives
of 1.5 million Americans each year by abortion has had on the Social
Security System and what the eventual impact of this tragedy will have
on the elderly of our nation.
American Life Lobby appreciates the opportunity to share these proposals,
requests and comments with the President of the United States, Ronald W. Reagan.
On behalf of our entire constituency, and in complete faith that the Lord
will guide your actions, I am, respectfully,
JodenBrown (Mrs.) Judie Brown, President
JB:pgd
A.L.L.
"
for God, for Life, for the Family, for the Nation"
"Give me a place to
stand and I will move the earth."
OF
-Archimedes
Contraception POWER and Abortion
Does Planned Parenthood
Prevent Abortion?
There are at least four authoritative sources
A well-publicized theme of Planned Parent-
with Planned Parenthood credentials that con-
hood proponents starting with foundress Mar-
tradict the for-public-consumption-claim regard-
garet Sanger in 1916 and continuing to the pres-
ing contraceptives preventing abortion.
ent has been that abortion could be prevented by
A study of this matter was undertaken by
birth control.
Dr. Raymond Pearl, a member of Planned Par-
A July 1951 Readers Digest article portrayed
enthood in the 1930s (i.e., The American Birth
Margaret Sanger as a "little red-headed, dedi-
Control League). The study. "The Natural History
cated nurse and faithful mother of three children
of Population," utilized information collected
from the obstetrical wards of 139 first class hos-
who consecrated her life to alleviating the suffer-
ings of poor tenement women burdened by the
pitals in 14 states and Washington, D.C., involv-
ing cases of 26,316 white and 5,633 black women
tragedy of abortion and unwanted children."
The Planned Parenthood Federation of
who had delivered babies in the participating
hospitals.
America published a brochure in 1943 which
Dr. Pearl concluded, "The number of abor-
stated "Therapeutic abortion or abortion neces-
tions per 100 pregnancies experienced, and the
sary to save the life of the mother is a medical
percentages of total reproductive wastage due to
procedure which can be resorted to by the physi-
induced abortion, are from three to four times
cian with complete legality. All other abortions
greater, generally speaking. among contraceptors
are illegal. Their toll in death, sterility and
than among non-contraceptors
The results
illness is appalling. The public is confused about
are based upon the women's own admission of
the two types of abortion, and about the connec-
the extent to which they have resorted to
tion of either with birth control. Obviously the
induced abortion. They probably understate the
only connection is that proper accessibility of
true
facts
these data came from families liv-
birth control information to married women
ing together in wedlock."
through physicians would reduce the large pro-
Two other supporters and contemporaries of
portion of abortions that occur among married
Margaret Sanger, Regina R. Stix, M.D., and
women."
Frank Notestein, studied women attending Mar-
More recently, in the Sunday, May 17, 1981,
garet Sanger's own Clinical Research Bureau.
Washington Post, a full-page Planned Parent-
Their 1940 book, Controlled Fertility, noted
hood Federation of America (PPFA) ad touted
that of 991 women studied there were 3,255
federal birth control programs in bold letters.
pregnancies. Of the contracepting women, 41
"Our Country Has a Program That Reduces
percent of the pregnancies were ended by illegal
Teenage Pregnancies, Reduces the Need for
abortion, while only 3.5 percent of the non-
Abortion, Saves Taxpayers Money. The 'Moral
contracepting women had illegal abortions.
Majority' Wants It Abolished."
Illegal abortion involved other than a life-
Additionally, a May/June 1981 Planned Par-
threatening circumstance. Contraceptives used in-
enthood Family Planning Perspectives article
cluded condoms, diaphragms and spermicides.
claimed that for the $285 million spent in 1979
During April 1955 PPFA sponsored a confer-
on birth control by the federal and state govern-
ence on abortion in America dealing with the
ments, about 695,000 pregnancies were averted
contraception/abortion relationship.
The famed sex researcher Alfred E. Kinsey
among low and marginal income women of
said, "Al the risk of being repetitious, I would
which 370,000 would have been aborted. These
remind the group that we have found the highest
programs saved 109.5 million tax dollars for
frequency of induced abortion in the group,
abortions at $295 each.
which, in general, most frequently uses
Apprently these claims are believed by many
contraception."
Americans. But are they based on fact? Take a
The concluding statement of the conference,
look.
signed by Planned Parenthood notables Allen F.
R.G.M.
Guttmacher. John Rock, Abraham Stone, Chris-
Levers of Power A
topher Tietze and others, stated, "It was recog-
the Supreme Court's pro-abortion decision.
nized by conference participants that no scien-
Planned Parenthood president Dr. Alan Cutt-
tific evidence has been developed to support the
macher and others had helped devise the hospital
claim that the increased availability of contra-
abortion committee system during the World
ceptive services will clearly result in a decreased
War 11 era, which democratized the abortion
illegal abortion rate."
decision and by the early fifties apparently had
All of the illegal reasons for abortion in 1955
increased somewhat the abortion rates.
were legal indications for abortion after Jan. 22,
Proceeding further, the 1955 Planned Par-
1973.
enthood Abortion Conference recommended that
In 1972, Malcolm Potts, then medical direc-
"A model abortion law should be drawn up and
tor of the International Planned Parenthood Fed-
offered to the states to replace present statutes."
eration, wrote that birth controllers in the 1930s
Note that statutes at that time had either no
denied the relationship between contraception
exception or life of the mother only.
and abortion "possibly because its recognition
By 1959 the American Law Institute (ALI), n
would have discredited their own fragile claims
private organization, did draw up a model sta-
to respectability
Evidence of rising abortion
tute with the help of some Planned Parenthood
rates with the expanding use of contraceptives is
associates. The ALI proposal was substantially
now available from Korea, India, Taiwan, Iran,
adopted by Colorado in 1967, New York, Hawail
Turkey, Egypt and some parts of Latin America."
and Alaska soon followed with similar statutes,
Planned Parenthood and Abortion
A "Right" of Privacy
Writing in 1971, George Langmyhr, M.D., of
During this period Planned Parenthood affil-
Planned Parenthood-World Population observed,
iates cooperated, according to Dr. Langmyhr,
"It goes without saying that Planned Parenthood
with various ad hoc abortion law repeal commit-
Affiliates have long been involved in programs
lees. Planned Parenthood also helped prepare
of abortion information, counselling and referral.
various legal briefs on cases that would lead to
Before the recent change in abortion laws, these
or involved liberalization of abortion laws.
activities were necessarily unpublicized
Two of the more important cases were Gris-
Dr. Langmyhr also indicated that "most pro-
wold V. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479) and Eizenstadt
fessionals and volunteers associated with
V. Baird (405 U.S. 438).
Planned Parenthood have accepted for a long
In the 1965 Griswold case the U.S. Supreme
time the necessity of abortion as an integral part
Court struck down a Connecticut law forbidding
of any complete or total family planning
the use of contraceptive drugs by married cou-
program."
ples because of a constitutionally protected right
This acceptance goes back to Planned Par-
of privacy.
enthood foundress Margaret Sanger who as pub-
In the 1972 Eizenstadt case the Supreme Court
lisher in 1914 of a radical feminist newsletter,
struck down a Massachusetts law forbidding the
Woman Rebel, ran articles in support of free sex
sale of contraceptives for use by the unmarried.
and abortion. According to Sanger biographer
The Planned Parenthood Federation of
Madeline Gray, English sex writer Havelock
America and the American Association of
Ellis convinced Margaret Sanger to de-emphasize
Planned Parenthood Physicians filed a friend of
the abortion side of her crusade and establish
the court brief (Oct. 12, 1971) and supplemental
contraception first, Abortion would then follow,
brief (Sept. 15, 1972) in the Doe V. Bolton Geor-
he assured.
gia abortion case decided on Jan. 22, 1973.
In 1933 Margaret Sanger wrote a somewhat
Planned Parenthood attorneys including
subtle letter to her clinic director, Dr. Hanna
Harriett Pilpel stated, "The right of a woman to
Stone, that she wanted the clinic to develop a
choose whether or not to bear a child is an aspect
regular program whereby "overdues," i.e.,
of her right of privacy and liberty and, we sub-
women, could be directed toward a doctor or
mit, a fundamental right
hospital that would help the woman in question.
"Similarly, the right to marry, the right
James Reed, in From Private Vice to Public
to have possession of pornography in the privacy
Virtue, wrote, "The law did not catch up with
of one's own home, have all been held to be fun-
Margaret Sanger's vision until 1973," i.e., with
damental rights under the Constitution."
"We believe that the right of privacy recog-
By Robert C. Marshall. Mr. Morshall is director
nized by this Court in Griswold V. Connecticut
of public relations for American Life Lobby and
included the right of a woman to decide not
director of education for American Life Educa-
only when, but also whether to bear a child
tion and Research Trust.
"Moreover, the right to abortion must be
B Levers of Power
viewed MS a corollary of the right to control fer-
tility which was recognized in Griswold
"This court has now on several occasions
Action You Can Take:
indicated its view that a woman has a fundamen-
1. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787 that "the
tal constitutional right to decide whether or not
basis of our government being the opinion of the
to have a child. Most recently in Eizenstadt
people, the very first object should be to keep
the Court
said, 'if the right of privacy means
that right
anything, it is the right of the individual, married
Because it is up to you to shape public opin-
or single, to be free from unwarranted govern-
ion, copy this article for your representatives in
mental intrusion into matters so fundamentally
Congress, state legislators and city or county
affecting a person as the decision whether to
councils who underwrite PP tax-supported birth
bear or beget a child.'
control programs.
"The Baird decision followed logically from
2. Obtain copies of the Food and Drug Ad-
the decision of this court in Griswold V.
ministration-required patient package inserts
Connecticut."
(PPI) for the birth control pill and the IUD from
Additionally, Harriett Pilpel testified on
your pharmacist or physician. Read the sections
March 10, 1975, before a U.S. Senate subcommit-
designated "Mode of Action." Note that while the
tee in opposition to a human life amendment to
Pill and IUD PPI's indicate that implantation is
the U.S. Constitution. She said, "However,
affected, this is not called an abortion. Because
nowhere in our constitution, or in any amend-
the Pill and IUD inserts are required by the fed-
ment adopted to date, is there any reference to,
eral Food and Drug Administration, which is
or indeed any guarantee of, a right to life for any
controlled by the Congress, ask your U.S. con-
one
gressman and senators why the FDA does not
Ms. Pilpel would write in the May 1975
require Pill and IUD manufacturers to explicitly
Journal of Sex Research that the abortion deci-
identify the abortion-inducing properties of the
sions of 1973 were correctly derived from the
Pill and IUD in the PPI.
right of privacy established by the 1965 Supreme
3. Obtain Pill and IUD manufacturers' pro-
Court Griswold birth control decision which cli-
motional literature from your pharmacist and
maxed "over a quarter of a century of efforts to
physician.
achieve a decision of the Court that reproductive
Write to IUD and Pill manufacturers and ask
freedom was indeed a guaranteed basic
them their polícy on your rights as a consumer to
freedom."
be well informed. After they answer you, write
How the same Constitution which Ms. Pilpel
to them again and ask them if they apply their
indicated did not guarantee anyone's right to life
own policy to their Pill or IUD promotional liter-
could at the same time guarantee everyone's-
ature. Follow a similiar procedure with your
but mainly a woman's-right to privacy is not ex-
local pharmacist and physician.
plained in the rest of Ms. Pilpel's article.
4. Share the results of your letter-writing
Ms. Pilpel's elaboration of the true nature of
with your neighbors, friends at church and
birth control or reproductive freedom is at var-
American Life Education and Research Trust
iance with an earlier public position she took in a
(see address at bottom of next page).
1939 co-authored article where she referred to a
legal case that provided an opening for contra-
ception in the Comstock anti-birth control era of
tional right of privacy for pornography also
American History, 1873-1936.
included the right of privacy for abortion.
She wrote, "Oddly enough, the first ray of
light filtered through in a case involving abor-
Does Contraceptive Abortion
tion, which is of course the antithesis of contra-
Prevent Abortion?
ception, but which was lumped together with it
In 1963 a U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
in the Comstock laws."
tion and Welfare public health service publica-
Yet recall that it is Planned Parenthood
tion, number 1066, page 27, stated that abortion
which admits the linkage of contraception with
comprised
all the measures which impair
abortion. It was Planned Parenthood's friend of
the viability of the zygote (individual formed at
the court brief which relied upon Stanley V.
fertilization-ed.) at any time between the instant
Georgia (394 U.S. 557, 1969)-a Supreme Court
of fertilization [union of male and female seed-
pornography case establishing the constitutional
ed.) and the completion of labor constitute, in the
right "to have possession of pornography in the
strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion."
privacy of one's home." The brief used Stanley to
That stage of development after fertilization
support their thesis that the so-called constitu-
most susceptible to interference is implantation
Levers of Power c
of the individual into the uterine wall of the
possible side-effect of preventing implantation in
mother's womb. Since women do not normally
some cases
notice this event when it occurs, a birth control
"Although life begins at conception, the
drug or device which prevents implantation can
application of a criminal penalty in any case
be pushed on the public as a contraceptive and
before the law requires proof that an individual
not an abortion-inducing item.
has suffered as a result of another's actions.
At a 1964 Population Council International
Such proof is impossible in the case of pre-
Conference, a physician participant pointed out
implantation drugs or devices, because preg-
the following: "In a Moslem country such as Paki-
nancy is not detectable until after implantation."
stan, if it's considered that the intrauterine
There are four points to note:
device is an abortifacient, this obviously would
First: Recently America saw the withdrawal
have a bearing on national acceptance or
from drugstore shelves across the nation millions
rejection."
of Tylenol bottles because of seven deaths that
Dr. Tietze, associated with both the Popula-
resulted from criminal tampering in one part of
tion Council and Planned Parenthood, suggested
the country.
as an answer to this so-called dilemma not to
Because of the deaths all three major TV
"disturb those people for whom this is a question
news networks devote major coverage, a nation-
of major importance."
wide manhunt ensues, detectives are working
Tietze also stated, "If a medical consensus
overtime and the FBI is thrown into action.
develops and is maintained that pregnancy, and
But contrast that proper concern with the
therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually
societal tolerance for a vastly greater number of
our brethren from the other faculties will listen"
deaths among pill- and IUD-using women and
(i.e., theology and law-ed.).
their unborn offspring at the implantation stage
Almost as proof of Tietze's claim, Dr. Gutt-
of development.
macher pointed out to conference participants
Second: Calling the contraceptive effect of an
that a 1962 British Council of Churches pamphlet
anti-implantation drug or device "valid or help-
concluded that biological life began at conception
ful" is either to accept the erroneous
while human life began at implantation.
contraception-prevents-abortion argument or In
The pamphlet stated, "We see no objections
identify artificial contraception as good in
to the use of a technique which could prevent
itself-a very curious position for Catholic
implantation. Such a method could also quite
bishops.
properly be called contraception."
Third: There are some sensitive medical
More recently, a publication copyrighted in
tests which are capable of detecting pregnancy
1981 by the National Conference of Catholic
prior to implantation. And if they become suffi-
Bishops, entitled "The Human Life Amendment:
ciently available to the public, what becomes of
Realities and Myths," if not materially accepting
the bishops conference argument-Irom-ignorance
the beginning-of-life-finesse proposed by Dr.
doctrine? And in any case, with the current con-
Tietze, has provided one of its own in an inept
cern about drugs and alcohol affecting the course
attempt to deal with the circumstances of
of a pregnancy, isn't there some duty incumbent
Planned Parenthood's somewhat confused and
upon a doctor to see whether he has one or two
belated admission that the Pill and IUD can and
patients?
do cause abortion early in pregnancy because
Fourth: Abortionists, under the Catholic
they can and do prevent implantation.
bishops conference ignorance-position, would
The publication states, "If abortion became
simply return to their pre-1973 mode of opera-
illegal, then drugs marketed for their abortifa-
tion by performing abortion within four to ten
cient effect as well as surgical abortions would
weeks of the last menses without performing a
be illegal. But this does not apply to drugs or
pregnancy test. Such techniques were called
devices that have a valid or helpful effect as well
menstrual regulation and endometrial operation.
as a potentially dangerous side-effect. The latter
A rose by any other name remains the same,
situation would apply to chemicals or devices
no matter who claims otherwise.
which have a contraceptive effect as well as a
This series, Levers of Power, is provided by American Life Education and Research Trust, Route 6 Box 162F, Stafford, VA
22554. It is to be freely copied and used. This publication will enable all pro-life and pro-family people to better exert the
influence they have over those who would force our nation to continue destroying human life.
1982 American Life Education and Research Trust. Reprint permission for Levers of Power granted: Please send our
flice copies of items used from this publication. Levers of Power is provided to American Life Lobby for use in A.L.L. About
Issues as a service to the pro-family movement.
D Levers of Power
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 490, STAFFORD, VA 22554
OFFICES: ROUTE #6, BOX 162-F, STAFFORD, VA 22554
(703) 659-4171
METRO DC 690-2049
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE: 6B LIBRARY COURT SE (CAPITOL HILL) WASHINGTON, DC 20003 (202) 546-5550
October 19, 1982
Mr. Morton Blackwell
Ms call. ask worts until
Special Assistant to the President
191 Old Executive Office Building
if
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Morton:
to Judie + STATE tal
This will follow up our meeting this morning.
1 would greatly appreciate it if you could arrange a meeting with
DHHS Deputy Secretary David Swoap and DHHS Assistant Secretary Dale
Sopper to discuss initiatives for incremental gains for the pro-life move-
ment.
I would suggest the following items be discussed:
1. Title X - FY1984 funding cut.
2. Planned Parenthood referral statistics.
3. Title X appropriation language to prevent referral
or counselling for abortion with Title X funds.
4. Fetal research information at N.I.H. as requested by
Congressman Dannemeyer.
5. Support the text of the Dannemeyer amendment as an
amendment to S2311.
6. Medicare abortion statistics (3 states way out of line).
Thank you in advance for your assistance in this request.
GuiBe With For Life,
(Mrs. Brown
President
JB/sm
A.L.L.
"
for God, for Life, for the Family, for the Nation"
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 490, STAFFORD, VA 22554
OFFICES: ROUTE #6, BOX 162-F, STAFFORD, VA 22554
(703) 659-4171
METRO DC 690-2049
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE: 68 LIBRARY COURT SE (CAPITOL HILL) WASHINGTON, DC 20003 (202) 546-5550
November 15, 1982
Mr. Morton Blackwell
Special Assistant to the President
191 Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Morton:
This will follow up my letter of October 19, 1982 requesting that you
try to put together a meeting with DHHS Deputy Secretary David Swoap
and DHHS Assistant Secretary for Management Dale Sopper to discuss the
Title X Public Health Service Act Program in light of critical GAO Reports
HRD 81-68 and HRD 82-106 about this program.
Any luck in setting up such a meeting time is of the essence be-
cause the department and OMB will be putting the final touches on the
FY84 Budget for this program within a week or so if it has not already
been "put to bed" so to speak.
With kind regards.
Sincerely,
12/1 back -245-7431 Carl
Gary Curran
Legislative Consultant
will an set derson up 12/6
meeting
with Dr. Brandt
GLC/sm
Edwin
Dr Brandt anst See for Health
A.L.L.
for God, for Life, for the Family, for the Nation"
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 490, STAFFORD, VA 22554
OFFICES: ROUTE #6, BOX 162-F, STAFFORD, VA 22554
(703) 659-4171
METRO DC 690-2049
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE: 6B LIBRARY COURT SE (CAPITOL HILL) WASHINGTON, DC 20003 (202) 546-5550
June 2, 1982
Morton Blackwell
Special Assistant to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Mr. Blackwell:
Last year nearly 300 leaders of the pro-life, pro-family movement gathered
in Washington, D.C. for the historic "UNITY '81", the First Annual Grass-
roots Pro-Life Education Conference. The 23 workshops and general sessions
included presentations by such notables as yourself, Congressman Henry Hyde
and Senator Jeremiah Denton, and selected from topics ranging from "How to
Fight Secular Humanism" to "How to Promote Chastity Among Adolescents."
Plans are already well underway to make "UNITY '82" even bigger and better.
It will be held at the Marriott Gateway Hotel in Crystal City, Va., November
11 - 14, 1982. The program will again include a wide variety of "How-To"
sessions on topics of concern to the pro-life movement and will feature a
diverse array of notable speakers including Evangelist James Robison and
Bishop Welsch of the Diocese of Arlington.
The American Life Lobby and the American Life Education and Research
Foundation, primary sponsors of the 1982 conference, would be delighted and
honored to have you attend. We have invited the President, and should he
not be able to come we want to make sure the White House is represented.
Could we count on you to be a "guaranteed back-up person?"
Needless to say we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible
so that we can make arrangements for publicizing your appearance. Please
call me, or Mr. Jim Kappus of my staff, if you have any further questions
or need additional details.
With God for Life.
Julier (Mrs.) Judie Brown
President
JB/cbm
Jime
6/11 Coppus call
Juliet with + time e
A.L.L.
for God, for Life, for the Family, for the Nation"
Legal
Lobbyrig
Education
Unity '82
Grassroots Pro-Life
Education Conference
Politics
Service
November 11-14, 1982
Marriott Gateway Hotel, Crystal City, Virginia
PO Box 190, Garrisonville, VA
(703) 659-4171 or Metro DC 690-2049
October 29, 1982
Co-Sponsored by:
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
American Life Lobby
Howard Phillips
MEMO TO: ALL SPEAKERS AND PRESENTORS FOR UNITY '82
The Conservative Caucus
FROM: JUDIE BROWN
(Mrs.) Karen Davis
Christian Women's National Concerns
RE: CANCELLATION OF UNITY '82
Elasah Drogan
Catholics United for Life
Liz Sadowski
First Women's Conference
Edward E. McAteer
Religious Roundtable
Dear Friend:
Joe Scheidler
Pro-Life Action League
Due to circumstances totally beyond our control, we have
Paul A. Brown
been forced to cancel the Unity '82 Grassroots Pro-Life
Life Amendment Political Action Committee
Education Conference which had been scheduled for November
11-14, 1982.
You are herewith asked to clear your calendar to avoid any
additional confusion. We apologize for any difficulties
or distress this decision may cause you.
We simply feel that we can more effectively get the same
message to the grassroots by redirecting our resources.
Each speaker will be individually contacted in the near
future with respect to the reshaping of their presentation
into another format for distribution.
I thank you for your understanding and your patience under
these difficult circumstances. Please do not hesitate to
call or write if you have any further questions.
With God for Life,
(Mrs.) Judian Judie Brown
P.S. NOTE that this does not affect the Symposium sponsored
by Human Life International, which will proceed as scheduled.
Primary sponsor
American Life Education and Research Trust (ALERT)
Legal
Lobbying
Education
Unity '82
Grassroots Pro-Life
Education Conference
Politics
Service
November 11-14, 1982
Marriott Gateway Hotel, Crystal City, Virginia
PO Box 190, Garrisonville, VA
(703) 659-4171 or Metro DC 690-2049
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: OCTOBER 29, 1982
Co-Sponsored by:
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
American Life Lobby
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY CANCELS UNITY '82
Howard Phillips
The Conservative Caucus
(Mrs.) Karen Davis
Christian Women's National Concerns
(Mrs.) Judie A. Brown, President of both the American Life
Elasah Drogan
Catholics United for Life
Lobby and the American Life Education and Research Trust, today
Liz Sadowski
First Women's Conference
announced that the UNITY '82 Grassroots Pro-Life Education
Edward E. McAteer
Religious Roundtable
Conference had been cancelled II due to circumstances totally
Joe Scheidler
beyond our control."
Pro-Life Action League
Paul A. Brown
Mrs. Brown noted that registrations were lower this year
Life Amendment Political Action Committee
than last, probably due to the upcoming elections. "We simply
had to make a judgement call," she added. "We feel that we can
more effectively get our message out to more people by
redirecting our limited resources."
All speakers and registrants will be contacted directly
with further details. Speakers will be asked to refashion their
presentations into articles for future publication.
#
#
#
P.S. NOTE THIS DOES NOT AFFECT THE SYMPOSIUM SPONSORED BY
HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL WHICH WILL PROCEED AS SCHEDULED.
Primary sponsor
American Life Education and Research Trust (ALERT)
noull
/:30
Legal
Education
Unity '82
Lobbying
Grassroots Pro-Life
Education Conference
Politics
Service
November 11-14, 1982
Marriott Gateway Hotel, Crystal City, Virginia
PO Box 190, Garrisonville, VA
(703) 659-4171 or Metro DC 690-2049
October 15, 1982
Co-Sponsored by:
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
American Life Lobby
Howard Phillips
The Conservative Caucus
(Mrs.) Karen Davis
Mr. Morton Blackwell
Christian Women's National Concerns
Special Assistant to the President
Elasah Drogan
The White House
Catholics United for Life
Washington, DC. 20500
Liz Sadowski
First Women's Conference
Dear Morton:
Edward E. McAteer
Religious Roundtable
Per your request, we have moved back your scheduled
appearance atUNITY '82 until 1:30 p.m. on Thursday,
Joe Scheidler
November 11th.
Pro-Life Action League
Paul A. Brown
I hopethis works into your schedule better.
Life Amendment Political Action Committee
With God for Life,
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
President
Primary sponsor
American Life Education and Research Trust (ALERT)
Legal
Lobbying
Education
Unity '82
Grassroots Pro-Life
Politics
Service
Education Conference
November 11-14, 1982
Marriott Gateway Hotel, Crystal City, Virginia
PO Box 190, Garrisonville, VA
(703) 659-4171 or Metro DC 690-2049
Co-Sponsored by:
August 19, 1982
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
American Life Lobby
Howard Phillips
The Conservative Caucus
(Mrs.) Karen Davis
Christian Women's National Concerns
Morton Blackwell
Special Assistant to the President
Elasah Drogan
Catholics United for Life
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20501
Liz Sadowski
First Women's Conference
Dear Mr. Blackwell:
Edward E. McAteer
Religious Roundtable
This is to confirm your appearance at "UNITY '82."
Joe Scheidler
Pro-Life Action League
Your appearance as a speaker at our conference is
scheduled for Thursday, November 11th from Noon -
Calindared
Paul A. Brown
Life Amendment Political Action Committee
1:15 p.m., on the topic "Administration Progress
8/22 Carely
On Pro-Life Issues."
we can change to
If you would send to us your biographical sketch and
appreciated. photo some time next week it would be greatly
sent 8/23
from stating :2 nook time
carolyn
I am enclosing some of our first promotional flyers on
1.15
the conference for your use. Please pass the word and
let me know if you need more flyers; ad slicks and
press releases will be provided as theyare available.
Thank you for your help in making UNITY '82 an unequal-
ified success!
With June God for Life.
(Mrs Brown
President, A.L.E.R.T.
JB/cbm
Primary sponsor
American Life Education and Research Trust (ALERT)
Legal
Lobbysis
Education
Unity '82
Grassroots Pro-Life
Education Conference
Politics
Service
November 11-14, 1982
Marriott Gateway Hotel, Crystal City, Virginia
PO Box 190, Garrisonville, VA
(703) 659-4171 or Metro DC 690-2049
Co-Sponsored by:
INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
American Life Lobby
In order to avoid confusion or misunderstandings, we want to
: ward Phillips
The
ative Caucus
set forth the procedures and related information for speakers
at our upcoming "UNITY '82" Conference.
(Mrs.) Karen Davis
Christian Women's National Comerns
WASHINGTON, D.C., BASED SPEAKERS: TRAVEL
Elasah Drogan
Catholics United for Life
Speakers will be reimbursed for carfare and/or cabfare
Liz Sadowski
from their home or office to and from the Conference site.
First Wr.men's Conference
Edward E. McAteer
Religious Roundtable
OUT-OF-TOWN BASED SPEAKERS: TRAVEL
Joe Scheidler
Pro-Life Action League
Speakers will be reimbursed for round-trip airfare, coach
class, from the city of residence to Washington, D.C.; ground
Paul A. Brown
transportation, if necessary, to and from the airport will be
Life Amendment Political Action Committee
reimbursed. [The Marriott Shuttle Bus will provide ground trans-
portation between Washington National to the hotel.]
We ask that you provide us with your schedule as soon as
possible so that we can take advantage of any "special fares"
or advance reservation discounts that may be available. When
you know your schedule, please call Mr. Jim Kappus; we will have
your ticket prepared and mailed to you.
Speakers will be provided with one night's stay at the
Conference hotel at the "double occupancy" rate. Speakers will
be "doubled up" where possible, unless the speaker wishes to pay
the difference in rate for single occupancy. Any "incidental"
room charges are the responsibility of the speaker.
ALL SPEAKERS; CONFERENCE REGISTRATION
All speakers will be provided with a name badge allowing
them to attend all of the Conference meetings and entitling them
to refreshments during the coffee breaks.
Primary sponsor
American Life Education and Research Trust (ALERT)
american
Life
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Labby
September 30, 1981
The Speaker of the
House of Representatives
Sir:
I ask the Congress to consider amendments reducing requests for
appropriations for fiscal year 1982 by $18,070,934,000 and an off-budget
request in the amount of $3,217,991,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
These requests would implement the fall budget program proposals that I
announced to the Nation on September 24.
The details of these proposals are set forth in the enclosed letter from
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I concur with his
comments and observations.
Respectfully,
Ronald Bagan
Enclosures
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH
1982
1982
Budget
1982
March
September
1982
Appendix
Heading
January
Amendment
Amendment
Revised
Page
Request
Pending
Request
Request
I-K39
Health block grants
--
--
$1,216,072,000
$1,216,072,000
(Insert the above
heading and the
appropriation language
that follows immediately
after the material under
the heading "Health
Services Management":)
For monthly payments to
States as authorized bv
Title XIX of the Public
Health Service Act and
Title 7 OT the Social
Security Act $83,600,000
for Preventive Health
and Health Services
Block Grant,
$432,080,000 for Alconol
and Drug Abuse and
Mental Health Services
Block Grant, $2,200,000
for Primary Care Block
Grant, and $291,280,000
for Maternal and Child
Health Services Block
Grant: Provided, That up
to ten percent of the
amount provided for
nealth block grants for
any State or territory
may be used for Federal
administration until
that State or territory
has assumed administra-
tion of the health block
drants.
1982
1982
Budget
1982
March
September
1982
Appendix
Heading
January
Amendment
Amendment
Revised
Page
Request
Request
Request
Request
-
For expenses necessary
to carry out Sections
318, 329, 330, 340, and
Title X of tne Public
Health Service ACT,
Section 427(a) or the
Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act OT 1977,
Section 311 of the
Comprenensive Alconol
Abuse and Alcoholism
Prevention, Treatment,
and Rehabilitation Act
of 1970, and Section 410
of the Drug Abuse
Prevention, Treatment,
and Renabilitation
Act $406, 912, 000:
Provided, That not to
exceed $98, 000, 000 shall
be available for Title X
of the Public Health
Service Act.
This amendment establishes the account for health block grants. The
reduction for health block grants is part of the Administration's proposed
pro-rata 12% reduction and would reduce 1982 outlays by $59.1 million.
OCT 7 RECD MB
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 490, STAFFORD, VA 22554
OFFICES: ROUTE #6, BOX 162-F, STAFFORD. VA 22554
(703) 659-4171
METRO DC 690-2049
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE 6B LIBRARY COURT SE (CAPITOL HILL) WASHINGTON, DC 20003 (202) 546-5550
October 4, 1982
A
Honorable Ronald Reagan
The President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Reagan:
Enclosed for your perusal and implementation is an analysis of the
report "Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Therapy" of the June 10-
11, 1982, Report of President's Commission for the Study of Ethical
Problems in Medicine and Bio-Medical and Behavioral Research. The
analysis was done by Dr. Robert L. Sassone, Esq., at our request.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would give this analysis your
careful review before sharing it with those members of your staff
who are directly concerned with this Commission and its output. The
report contains any number of vitally pertinent comments and criti-
cisms that are important to the continuing work of this Commission.
It is our continuing hope that you will make every effort to insure
that Presidential Commissions of this type are made up of individuals
representing many aspects of the issue so that their reports, which
carry your name and the prestige of your high office, are balanced.
My office will be more than able to provide you with the names of
a host of qualified experts in the fields of brain death, suicide,
euthanasia, fetology, etc. Please do not hesitate to call on us
for any assistance we might render.
On behalf of our board and our thousands of supporters from all
across the country, we thank you and commend you for your continuing
courage and outspoken support for the all-important issue of life.
With God for Life,
President (Mrs.) Judie Sen Brown
Enclosure
A.L.L.
for God, for Life, for the Family, for the Nation"
REVIEW OF "DECIDING TO FOREGO LIFE-SUSTAINING
THERAPY" JUNE 10-11, 1982 BY THE
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION FOR THE STUDY OF ETHICAL
PROBLEMS IN MEDICINE AND BIOMEDICAL
AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
The format of this review is to first analyze the intro-
duction and the various chapters and conclude with a summary
analysis.
Introduction
The introduction summarizes changes now taking place in
the dying process, including changes in patient attitudes. The
statements made are general enough so that they could be true,
although if interpreted in a certain way, certain of the state-
ments could be considered to be incorrect or unfortunate.
Among the major changes considered are that the time and manner
of death are now more frequently known than previously, many
patients are not averse to the prospect of death, yet these
patients receive care in settings where death is not seen as a
good outcome. Death is frequently seen as a failure of medical
science. Physicians until recently systematically excluded
dying patients from serious involvement in planning their own
care by denying them information. Such practices are changing.
Social attitudes about and interest in death and dying is
changing. The patient wants to be protected against eh course
of death that is too easy and quick as much as from one that is
too agonizing and prolonged. The golden mean is sought.
In summary, the introduction is not offensive to the right
to life, although some of its statements skirt the use of
terminology which is offensive to the right to life.
Chapter 1 - The Dying Patient
A. Characterization
In general, the characterization of the dying patient is
good. It is stated that:
"People are too varied in their responses to
death for arbitrary definitions.
The dying
patient is one with definite signs and symptoms
that imply a prognosis of life sufficiently short
that attention to completing life is a more
realistic response than setting more open-ended
goals.
Dying frequently entails suffering.
Suffering is subjective
....
Dying people are
generally confronted with powerful emotions.
"
The section concludes, "The various reform movements in dying
éducation have recently been addressing these problems and
have demonstrated that much can be done to facilitate the
tasks of dying persons and their survivors."
In general the preceding section is satisfactory.
B. Therapeutic Possibilities
This section is excellent. It indicates that the lot of
the dying patient can be greatly improved by good medical and
nursing care and simple attention to details such as proper
positioning.
"Medical management of symptoms has recently
demonstrated that no patient need be terrified of
pain. Other symptoms such as nausea ... usually
respond reasonably well.
...
The anguish of one who
is grappling with the issue of his or her own
mortality is less susceptible to a technologic cure.
...
Adequate care requires attention to the spiritual,
emotional, financial, and other needs of the person
who is dying."
C. Components of Quality Care
This section is excellent. It states in part,
"Teachers of the art of managing dying patients
point out the central role of involved and careful
listening
... Patients who live angry or insecure or
isolated lives are fairly likely to die angry, afraid,
or lonely. Reasonable goals originate in helping the
person to use his strength and to avoid his weaknesses
in confronting the prospects of an impending end to
life Until the evidence is quite clear that the
patient is making an informed, deliberate, and
autonomous decision to forego one or more specific
life-sustaining interventions, wise health care pro-
viders seek out and enhance those parts of the patient's
person that are not yet ready to acquiesce to death.
...
The individual provider care can accomplish much by
insuring support for the persons who will be bereaved
by the patient's death.
- 2 -
D. "Death with Dignity"
This topic is handled well. The report states in part:
"Much can and should be done to insure that
patients are treated with respect and concern
throughout life. Insofar as 'Death with Dignity'
means that he decisions of dying patients are
solicited and respected, that much is probably
achievable. However, many proponents seem to
go well beyond that to a vision of guaranteeing
each person a peaceful and aesthetically appealing
death. This is clearly beyond reach. ... Insuring
comfort at the end of life sometimes requires some
mechanical and artificial assistance. For these
reasons the best care of dying patients is not
always aimed to achieve a 'natural death' or
tranquil an appealing death scene."
Chapter 2 - Possible Constraints
On Acceptable Decisions
A. Ethical Analysis and Public Policy
"All persons have a duty to refrain from taking
the life of another. However, this. duty is often
difficult to interpret when seriously ill patients
and their families and health care providers face
decisions that are likely to affect the span of the
patient's life. For some patients, the conditions
of shorter life and the satisfactions that it is
expected to afford outweigh the appeal of a longer
life under more severely constrained conditions.
The commission believes that wise public policy
would aim to allow such a choice but also to limit
the likelihood of untimely death being chosen
because of erroneous information, temporary depres-
sion of the patient, or other flaws in the
functioning of the decision making process."
The application of general rules is discussed. The pro-
blem of the "slippery slope" is defined and discussed.
B. Voluntariness
"An important distinction between voluntary and
involuntary decisions to forego life-sustaining
therapy. Good medical prac ice requires that a
competent and and informed tient's refusal of a
- 3
particular, or even all, medical treatment be respected.
The moral basis of 'Living Wills'
derives from the
importance of honoring a competent patient's advance
decisions.
Reflecting the importance of self-
determination, the commission endorses a strong pre-
sumption in favor of honoring an informed patient's
competent and voluntary decision concerning life-
sustaining therapy. Voluntary foregoings require: The
patient be competent to make this decision, that he
understand the nature and expected consequences of
available alternative courses of action, and that the
consent be given without coercion or manipulation. In-
voluntary foregoings are made against the expressed and
competent decision of the patient. Non-voluntary
foregoings take place when the patient gives neither
effective consent nor refusal for termination.
Permitting others to make a decision to forego a
therapy that is reasonably likely to extend the life of
competent patient without informing or involving the
patient is wrong, since the patient is being treated
as if you are not capable of self-determination.
Many persons believe there are additional limits
on the ethical acceptability of treatment refusal or
termination, or other actions in the medical context
that bring about death. For example only passive
means, the death may only be indirectly incurred, or
only extraordinary therapy may be foregone. Distinc-
tions such as these impose additional moral limits on
voluntary foregoings of life-sustaining therapy."
The difference between active killing and allowing to die
is discussed philosophilically and morally. The distinction
between stopping and not starting treatment is discussed.
D. Intended Outcomes or
Merely Foreseen Consequences
Pain relievers can sometimes increase a patient's chance
of death from infection or other causes. The doctrine of
double effect is discussed. Lives' by the administration of
a lethal injection.
The difference between acting and refraining when each
results in death are discussed.
The commission concludes after a sophisticated discus-
sion that both the nature and moral importance of the differ-
ence between direct and indirect killing, as marked by the
distinction between what a person intends to do and the foreseen
but
unintended consequences of what he does, are sufficiently
problematic to warrant great caution in placing important
- 4 -
weight on this difference in public policy. The preceding
statement if implemented in the wrong way could cause serious
problems. The commission goes on to state, "Considerable
caution is warrantêd about substantially weakening these
safeguards, despite the doubtful moral importance of the
distinctions on which they rely. ... The commission also
finds it possible that the value of respecting a competent
patient's voluntary choice might be sufficiently important in
at least some cases ethically to justify allowing the patient
actively or intentionally to terminate his own life."
(Suicide) Here the commission's analysis is very weak though
subtle. The arguments against the conclusion are not really
analyzed.
E. Ordinary and Extraordinary Treatment
"The commission can find no basis for holding
that whether a treatment is common or unusual, or
simple or complex, is in itself morally important
in deciding whether the treatment is obligatory."
The ordinary-extraordinary distinction of Catholic
theology is discussed. The commission concludes that public
policy should avoid the use of the terms ordinary/extraordinary
because the distinction plays no role in the ethical analysis,
yet invites confusion. Here again the commission could have
done a better job of analyzing the conclusion of the commission
can be supported only if it is interpreted in a particular way
as in the preceding case (D. Intended Outcomes Or Merely
Foreseen Consequences)
F. Summary
The commission concludes that of all the distinctions that
have been opposed to demarcate acceptable from unacceptable
actions, only the voluntary-involuntary one is clearly morally
relevant in itself and usually capable of unambiguous applica-
tion in actual cases. This appears to be a dangerous conclu-
sion in that the distinctions which the commission would avoid
can shed substantial light on what should be the particular
action in a particular case. The commission utilizes the so
called "hard cases" to show that there are problems in the
application of moral guidelines, and reasons from the problems
in particular hard cases that the guidelines themselves are
valueless. It appears to me that this is faulty reasoning on
the part of the commission which could have severe adverse
effects.
- 5
Chapter 3 - Patients who Make
Their Own Decisions
Most patients in most situations can make their own assess-
ments and health care professionals should enhance the ability
of patients to exercise this self-determination. Considering
the effect of decisions involving life-sustaining therapy, we
must be certain the patient has made a valid consent. The
patient's emotions must also be considered.
A. What the Patient Would Consider
This section indicates what information the patient
should have in reaching decisions relating to care such as life-
sustaining therapy.
B. The Involvement of Others
The involvement of family, health care professionals,
institutions, and society are discussed.
C. Additional considerations by
Agents for the Patient
When a patient makes a decision that involves others, the
agent involved faces decisions as a result. Patients who claim
to want to discontinue a life-sustaining therapy frequently do
not do so when they have the chance. A person acting for the
patient should consider this.
In all this chapter's analysis, as noted previously, is
not really favorable toward right to life, but it is not too bad.
Chapter 4 - Decision Making When
The Patient Cannot Decide
(This chapter is Chapter 4 of "Consent" and "DFT".)
A. Which Patient's Lack
Decision Making Capacity
Patients lacking decision making capacity lack the ability
to communicate with other people or to comprehend their situation
and its potential impact upon their lives or patients who are
coerced or manipulated also lack decision making capacity. It
- 6 -
includes children, those with mental and physical deficits,
those who are incapable of deciding at the time the decision
must be made though competent at other times.
"Health care providers should recognize that
the only necessary implication of a determination of
incapacity to make a decision is that the patient's
decision, if any, may be overruled." (This could
certainly be stated more precisely.) "The patient
may be able to participate in the decision even
though unable to make it." (Good point.)
A check list is given to determine the patient's decision
making capacity. The patient who had some ability to comprehend,
communicate, and form a preference is discussed.
B. Goals of Decision Making For
Incompetent Patients
The two chief goals are (1) promoting patient welfare and
(2) respecting patient self-determination by implementing the
patient's values and preferences expressed when the patient was
competent. When recovery of decision making capacity is a
reasonable prospect, enhancing this prospect is also a goal of
decision making.
C. Substantive Principles for Decision Making
Full respect for the principle of self-determination implies
that the former wishes of an incapacitated patient be followed.
This is called the rule of "substituted judgment". Examples are
"living wills" and durable powers of attorney. The "living will"
was developed in 1938. Beginning in 1976, a number of states
adopted statutes intended to give legal force to "living wills"
under specified conditions. Doubt may remain as to whether the
advanced directive or past preference was based on a sufficient
appreciation of the relevant facts or as to whether some shift
in the individual's preferences or values may have occurred.
Notwithstanding this inherent limitation, the Commission
believes that carefully prepared advance written directives can
provide a useful way of facilitating respect for patient self-
determination and for advancing the patient's welfare on his or
her own terms. (This statement appears to favor the "living will"
concept. None of the disadvantages of living wills are discussed.
It should be noted that the language chosen is more broad and yet
more narrow than a mere expression of approval of the concept of
"living wills.") In non-emergency situations the family should be
the principle decision maker for the incompetent patient under
most circumstances. A sound institutional policy should include
a designated staff person or com
determine when to seek
court appointment of a legal guardian for the incompetent
patient who lacks a suitable surrogate. The staff person or
committee may serve as a temporary surrogate. The committee
believes this approach is better than letting the provider
in charge be the principle decision maker because of his
medical expertise or letting treatment decisions be made by
the courts. The surrogate should be a genuine decision maker,
not a passive witness to decisions made by the medical team.
The surrogate's decision making authority is not as broad as
the competent patient's right of self-determination particularly
in cases of refusal of treatment. A hospital ethics committee
may also shed light on certain types of cases. Policy should
be set up for those cases requiring special scrutiny, especially
cases involving procedures primarily beneficial to others,
not the patient, procedures expected to produce irreversable
changes such as sterilization or psychosurgery, and decisions
to forego life-extending procedures. The Commission advises
a procedure for deciding close cases or cases where there are
disagreement and believes that certain patient groups require
especially rigorous safeguards. Among these are incompetent
long-term inmates of total institutions and patients in newborn
intensive care units. The Commission recommends 10 elements
for a sound institutional policy for decision making for
incompetent patients.
CONCLUSION
This report is generally fairly good. There are some
areas where, as noted previously, it can be criticized, but
overall it appears to be a reasonable effort by conscientious
staff to do a fair exploration of the difficult areas relating
to foregoing life-sustaining therapy. While we could live
with this report, improvements are possible, and if we can
request them at no great cost, we should so request. These
areas of weakness in the report have been noted previously.
Robert I lassone
ROBERT L. SASSONE
- 8 -
ШО
Telegram
western union
NO. WDS. - CL. OF SVC.
PD. OR COLL
CASH NO.
CHARGE TO THE ACCOUNT OF
THIS MESSAGE WILL BE SENT
PRESS
OVER NIGHT
AS A TELEGRAM UNLESS IT IS
DPR
NPR
TELEGRAM
OTHERWISE INDICATED.
Send the following message, subject to the Telegraph Company's conditions, rules and regulations, which are on file with regulatory authorities.
Mr. James A. Baker III
Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Mr. Edwin Meese III
Counsellor to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Mr. Kenneth M. Duberstein
Assistant to the President
For Legislative Affairs
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
On behalf of the pro-life movement that is united in support of
the Helms pro-life amendment to H.J. Res. 520, the Debt Limit Increase
Bill, I respectfully request an appointment on September 7 or 8 to re-
quest the active support and lobbying efforts of the Reagan Administra-
tion to obtain the necessary votes in the U.S. Senate to impose cloture
on the pro-abortion filibuster against the Helms amendment.
The first vote on cloture will occur at 2:00 p.m., Thursday,
September 9, 1982, I look forward to an expeditious reply to this re-
quest.
With God for Life,
(Mrs.) Judie Brown
President
American Life Lobby Inc.
6 Library Court S.E.
Washington, D. C. 20002
WU 1211 (RI-70)
UP080
R
BRORTION
BY WESLEY G. PIPPERT
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- NEW RIGHT GROUPS ARE PUTTING PRESSURE ON
PRESIDENT REAGAN AND SENATORS TO SUPPORT ANTI-ABORTION LEGISLATION ON
WHICH THE SENATE MAY VOTE IN EARLY SEPTEMBER.
"IT I5 HARDLY R STATE SECRET THAT MANY OF YOUR MOST ARDENT
SUPPORTERS GROW INCREASINGLY RESTLESS, H NATIONAL RIGHT TD LIFE NEWS
SAID THIS WEEK IN RN EDITORIAL "OPEN LETTER" ADDRESSED TO REAGAN.
"THE FACT OF LIFE I5, NITHOUT YOUR ALL-OUT, UP-FRONT,
FULL-THROTTLED LEADERSHIP MR. PRESIDENT, OUR PROGRESS WILL BE EITHER
AGONIZINGLY SLOW DR STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS,' THE EDITORIAL SAID
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY, IN AN "URGENT" MASS MAILING, TOLD SUPPORTERS
TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEIR SENATORS DURING THE LABOR DAY
CONGRESSIONAL RECESS AND, TO GIVE THEM MORE LEVERAGE, IT INDICATED
WHICH SENATORS ARE UP FOR RE-ELECTION THIS FALL.
"YOU MUST CONTACT YOUR SENATOR DURING RECESS, WHICH WILL LAST
UNTIL SEPT. 7," THE LETTER SAID. YOUR SENATOR MUST UNDERSTAND HIS
SUPPORT FOR (SEN. JESSE) HELM'S SUPERBILL IS VITAL. WE NEED TO OBTAIN
FROM 60 SENATORS R COMMITMENT TO DO FIVE THINGS.."
IT LISTED VDTING FOR CLOTURE SEPT. TO STOP THE FILIBUSTER
AGRINST HELMS' AMENDMENT TO BAN FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTIONS) VOTING
FOR THE ANTI-ABORTION AMENDMENT; VOTING FOR CLOTURE, IF NECESSARY,
AGRINST ANY FILIBUSTER ON HELMS! VOLUNTARY SCHOOL PRAYER AMENDMENT;
VOTING FOR THE PRAYER AMENDMENT, AND VOTING FOR THE DEBT CEILING BILL
WITH THE AMENDMENTS ATTACHED.
"CONTRARY TO PRESS REPORTS EMANATING FROM PRO-ABORTION --
ANTI-PRAYER SENATORS, THE SOCIAL ISSUES OF SCHOOL PRAYER AND
ANTI-ABORTION LEGISLATION ARE VERY MUCH ALIVE AND SEN. HELM'S
STRATEGY FOR THEIR ENACTMENT INTO LAW IS EXACTLY ON SCHEDULE," THE
LETTER SAID.
SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER HOWARD BAKER OF TENNESSEE INTRODUCED R
CLOTURE PETITION LAST FRIDAY. HE ALSO GOT PERMISSION FOR THE SENATE
TO DEBATE SEPT. B A FEDERALISM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY
SEN. ORRIN HATCH, R-UTAH, TO GIVE CONGRESS AND THE STATES AUTHORITY
TO RESTRICT OR BAN ABDRTION.
THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY HELMS, R-N.C., WOULD BAN FEDERAL FUNDING
AND FEDERAL INSURANCE COVERAGE OF ABORTIONS AND ABORTION RESEARCH AND
GIVE STATES DIRECT ACCESS TO THE SUPREME COURT ON ABORTION SUITS -- R
MOVE INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK REVIEW OF THE 1973 DECISION
LEGALIZING ABORTION.
UPI 08-27-82 02:51 PED
american
Life
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Labley
PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIVISION
P. O. BOX 599 CINCINNATI. OHIO 45201
July 23, 1982
Mr. Edwin J. Feulner, Jr.
President
The Heritage Foundation
513 C Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Dear Ed:
In our telephone conversation last week about the American Life Lobby, I
told you that we were writing Judie Brown about the statements being made
by her organization in calling for a boycott of Procter & Gamble
products. We also discussed an exchange of correspondence which I had
with Judie Brown at the end of last year.
You asked that I send you copies of this correspondence, and they are
attached. We did not answer Judie Brown's December 4, 1981 reply to my
letter of November 30 for reasons I think you will understand when you
read her letter. The most recent letter to Judie Brown, dated July 16,
from our Associate General Counsel is, I believe, self-explanatory.
If there is any further information you would like on this situation,
please give me a call. My phone number is (513) 562-6182.
Your help on this is really appreciated, and we thank you for it.
Sincerely,
T. C. Collins
Director, Corporate Relations
and Contributions
Attachments
TCC:1sl
cc: Mr. G. S. Gendell
2756E
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
LEGAL DIVISION
P.O. BOX 599 CINCINNATI, OHIO 45201
July 16, 1982
Mrs. Judie Brown, President
American Life Lobby
P. O. Box 490
Stafford, Va. 22554
Dear Mrs. Brown:
We have been advised from several sources that the American Life Lobby is
distributing, throughout the country, a leaflet calling for the boycott of
Procter & Gamble products (sample attached).
We would like to comment on the four reasons which the American Life Lobby
provides in calling for this boycott:
1. "Between 1972-79, the P&G Fund gave $70,000 to Planned Parenthood, the
nation's top promoter of abortion."
What is not said is that the contributions over this period to Planned
Parenthood were restricted to a health education program. When Planned
Parenthood took a leading position on the abortion rights issue, we
withdrew our support -- and have not supported Planned Parenthood since
1979. Frankly, we are perplexed why the American Life Lobby would
condemn this rather than applaud the action taken in 1979.
2. "The P&G Fund is a major contributor to the Rockefeller Trilateral
Commission - a promoter of world wide population control."
Procter & Gamble supported the Trilateral Commission with a
contribution of $10,000 per year for a three-year period which ended
over a year ago. The contribution which we made was directed towards
international economic and trade studies, since we have substantial
business in Japan and Western Europe. We discontinued financial
support of the Trilateral Commission when it became apparent that the
economic and trade studies produced were not beneficial to us. We are
not aware that the Trilateral Commission has been involved in any
issues relating to abortion or population control -- but this is an
academic matter since the Company is not involved with the Trilateral
Commission in any manner.
3. "The P&G Corporation sponsors six major t.v. soaps which act as a
transmission belt for anti-family and anti-life values."
This assertion is as surprising as it is untrue. The issues depicted
in our programs are treated with a clear moral perspective. Good is
admired and rewarded; evil is disliked and punished. With respect to
television programming, it is also appropriate to say that Procter &
Gamble has brought the American public some of the most uplifting and
worthwhile TV programs in recent years. We were the sole sponsor of
such outstanding programs as "Jesus of Nazareth", "Peter and Paul",
"Marco Polo", "The Corn is Green", "The Patricia Neal Story", and "Son
just few
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
-2-
4. "The Gamble Family of Boston, heirs to a fraction of P&G's billion
dollar corporation sales, are key abortion promoters and funders of
pro-abortion candidates."
We believe this must refer to your 1981 publication dealing with the
Pathfinder Fund and the involvement of people named Gamble in that
organization. We wrote you on this subject in November 1981 and would
remind you again of the following facts:
-
The people named Gamble involved with the Pathfinder Fund played
no active role in the affairs of The Procter & Gamble Company,
and they do not today.
-
The Procter & Gamble Company has never supported the Pathfinder
Fund.
-
The Company has about 100,000 shareholders and, according to our
records, shares held by people with the name of Gamble represent
less than 1.5% of the shares outstanding. Further, our records
indicate that no individual holds more than 0.2% of our stock.
-
The views and actions of the Company's shareholders are beyond
the control of the Company and can in no way be interpreted as
reflecting the position of the Company
In short, the reasons given for a boycott of Procter & Gamble products are
either half-truths or untruths. We must assume that this action was
undertaken without full knowledge of the facts -- and that is why we want you
to have the facts in this letter.
This is to notify you that we would view as a matter of great seriousness the
continued knowing spreading of half-truths or untruths designed to do damage
to our Company. Such action would be malicious and could give rise to vicious
rumors which unfairly disparage the Company and its employees. We trust this
is something you will not want to do.
Sincerely,
R. J. Watkins
Associate General Counse].
RJW:bkm
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL MEADORARTERS MAILING ADDRESS "O HAV 430 STAFF M.D 22554
OFFICES Route of BOX 1621 STAFFORD VA 2354
MI PHODE 2049
6 WERNMENT TAISON OFFICE GULLINARY COURT St (CAPITOL 11111 WASHINGTO 00:20003 (202) 546 SSSU
RE: FOREIGN AID UPDATE
May 28, 1982
In our recent mailing on Foreign Aid, we inadvertantly failed to include
the "Four Good Reasons to Boycott P&G." We apologize for this oversight.
and enclosed is thematerial.
1879 - Ivory Soap
1959 - Duz detergent (orginally
1911 - Crisco shortening
introduced as a
1919 - Ivory Flakes
granulated soap/1929)
1926 - Camay
1959 - Thrill liquid detergent
1928 - Lava Soap
1960 - Puffs facial tissue*
1930 - Ivory Snow
1960 - Salvo detergent
1933 - Dreft detergent
1960 - Downy fabric softener
1945 - Spic and Span household cleaner
1960 - Crisco Oil
1946 - Prell shampoo
1961 - Pampers disposable diapers
1946 - Tide detergent
1961 - Head & Shoulders shampoo
1949 - Joy liquid detergent
1963 - Folger's vacuum packed coffee
1950 - Cheer detergent
1963 - Instant Folger's coffee
1952 - Gleem toothpaste
1963 - Safeguard deodorant soap
1952 - Oxydol detergent (originally introduced as
1963 - Top Job liquid cleaner
a granulated soap/1928)
1965 - Bounty paper towels*
1953 - Fluffo shortening*
1965 - Bold detergent
1954 - Dash detergent
1965 - Scope mouthwash
1955 - Crest toothpaste
1965 - Bonus detergent
1955 - Cascade automatic dishwasher detergent
1966 - Gain detergent
1955 - Zest deodorant beauty bar
1967 - Biz enzyme laundry pre-soak
1956 - Duncan Hines mixes
1968 - Pringle's Newfangles potato
1956 - Jif peanut butter
chips
1956 - Secret deodorant
1972 - Sure anti-perspirant
1957 - Charmin bathroom tissue
1972 - Era liquid laundry detergent
1957 - Ivory Liquid detergent
1972 - Bounce fabric softner
1958 - White Cloud bathroom tissue
*Not distributed throughout U.S.
1958 - Mr. Clean liquid cleaner
FOUR GOOD REASONS TO BOYCOTT P&G
1. Between 1972-79, the P&G Fund gave $70,000
4.
The Gamble Family of Boston,
to Planned Parenthood, the nation's top
heirs to a fraction of P&G's
promoter of abortion.
billion dollar corporation
sales, are key abortion pro-
2. The P&G Fund is a major contributor to the
moters and funders of pro-
Rockefeller Trilateral Commission - a
abortion candidates. ++
promoter of world wide population control.
*
Your Pro-Life Shopper's Guide
3. The P&G Corporation sponsors six major t.v.
is published by the U.S.
soaps which act as a transmission belt for
Coalition For Life, Export, Pa.
anti-family and anti-life values.
15632.
++ i.e. Pathfinder Fund, among others
"
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GENERAL OFFICES
P.O. BOX 599 CINCINNATI, OHIO 45201
November 30, 1981
Mrs. Judie Brown, President
American Life Lobby
P.O. Box 490
Stafford, VA 22554
Dear Mrs. Brown:
We have just become aware of an article written by Joe Garvey on page 7 of the
September, 1981 issue of A.L.L. About Issues. This article states that Clarence Gamble
founded the Procter & Gamble Company. It then states that Clarence Gamble founded the
Pathfinder Fund, an organization alledgedly involved in pro-abortion activities around
the world. It then insinuates that there is a connection between The Procter & Gamble
Company and the Pathfinder Fund. Further, it creates the impression that use of Procter
& Gamble products is the equivalent of supporting pro-abortion activities.
We would appreciate your help concerning this article. First, some background for your
information:
1. The Procter & Gamble Company has never contributed to the Pathfinder Fund.
2. The Procter & Gamble Company supports no organization engaged in pro-abortion
activities.
3. Clarence Gamble was not the founder of the Procter & Gamble Company. The business
was established in 1837 -- almost 60 years before Clarence Gamble was born. The
last member of the Gamble family to serve as an officer of the company died in
1932 at the age of 96. Dr. Clarence Gamble was never an employee of the company,
and he played no role in the direction of the business.
4. While some people named Gamble do own shares of Procter & Gamble stock, that
ownership is minimal. The company has about 100,000 shareholders and, according
to our records, shares held in the name of people named Gamble represent less than
1.5% of the shares outstanding. Further, our records indicate that no individual
holds more than 0.2% of our stock. Further, the Pathfinder Fund itself owns no
shares of Procter & Gamble stock.
5. The views and actions of the company's shareholders, whether share ownership is a
result of purchase or inheritance, are beyond the control of the company and can
in no way be interpreted as reflecting the position of the company.
With the above facts in mind, I am sure you can appreciate why we are concerned about
the inferences which the average reader would draw from Mr. Garvey's article. We have
to believe that, had the facts been known, Mr. Garvey's article would never have been
written -- let alone printed.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
-2-
Your help on this matter would be much appreciated. First, would you please bring the
facts in this letter to the attention of the individual (or individuals) directly
responsible for editorial decisions for publications of the American Life Lobby.
Second, would you please let us know what Mr. Garvey's address is so that we can
communicate directly with him (we have written him in care of the U.S. Coalition For
Life, but would like to be certain that he has the benefit of the facts in this letter).
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
T. C. Collins
Director
Corporate Relations & Contributions
TCC/mra
0578D/2
September 1981 ALL About Issues Page 7
Bringing It All Back Home
By Joe Garvey
Hey there, all you pro-lifers plus" children, by any and all had come before "birth control",
Clarence died in 1966.
out there! I'll bet there is NO means.
and the government initiated the
Between 1967 and 1976, USAID
WAY that you could ever be
According to Randy Engel,
latter to 'substitute contraception
(U.S. Agency for International
caught contributing to the inter-
Director of the U.S. Coalition for
for abortion", Mrs. Engel relates.
Development) paid $2.6 million of
national population control
Life, in a USCL White Paper
"Instead, the massive birth limita-
our tax dollars to the
machine, that peddler of death the
prepared for the Conference on
tion drive set off even MORE
PATHFINDER FUND in direct
world over, right? Never con-
Alternatives to Planned
abortions. By 1969, Japan's birth
grants. Last year alone, 1980, $7
sciously would you give a penny to
Parenthood last October, the
rate dropped so low that Prime
million went for salaries, rent,
any organization which fosters
PATHFINDER FUND is now a
Minister Eisaker Sato warned of
utilities, supplies, Travel, plus
abortion, correct?
major recipient of Title x (Foreign
the dire consequences of a rapidly
costs for spreading the new anti-
Check this daily routine.
Assistance Act) funds. It attained
aging population and the need to
life philosophy.
Did you, after rising this
this status by adroit political
bring the medium and large size
We're still buying soap, etc.,
morning, brush your teeth with
manipulation of Congress, and
family back into vogue in Japan."
and PAMPERing the babies we're
CREST or GLEAM? Follow that
the exploitation of the myth of
The pattern of contraception and
lucky to have, while working to
with a shower using IVORY,
population "explosions".
Sangerian "family planning" is-
stop the killing of those we don't.
CAMAY,
ZEST,
or
How insidious this manipula-
niting abortion explosions is now
Lest anyone be naive and
SAFEGUARD, and for sham-
tion, and how successful, by
world-wide.
think that I'm saying there's a
pooing, PRELL or HEAD AND
Sangerites realizing Margaret's
After helping to set into
direct and casual connection
SHOULDERS? Finish
your
racist and culturally imperialistic
motion the Japanese anti-life
between PROCTOR AND GAM-
ablutions by applying anti-
goal of "more children from the
policies, Gamble in the fifties
BLE and the PATHFINDER
perspirants SECRET or SURE?
fit, less from the unfit", is careful-
decided he needed his own
FUND, let me hasten to say in
Possibly you then donned
ly documented by Mrs. Engel in
operational framework, and the
hese most nit-picking of times
garments dutifully laundered in
her brilliant paper, The Inter-
PATHFINDER was established
that I am NOT. I know full well
BLZ, BOLD, CHEER, DASH,
national Population Control
(1957) as a non-private tax-
that there's absolutely no proof;
DREFT, DUZ, ERA. SALVO,
Machine and the Pathfinder
exempt family foundation,
and there will be instant denials,
DOWNY, or that single product
Fund"
chartered in the District of
of such a connection. I also know
dominating the detergent market
In her words, "The social
Columbia.
that there's no absolute proof that
(54%), TIDE the intensified, from
justification for population
The Gamble Family, eager to
cigarettes cause cancer of the
which dirt cannot hide?
control domestic and foreign
keep America clean by its soap
ungs, and that there's no scien-
Chances may be that you
had been discovered (at the
products, decided to help the rest
tific proof sedentary habits and
then prepared the kids' lunches
advent of the 70's) in the so-called
of the world cleanse itself of the
poor diet lead to heart diseases,
with BIG TOP or JIF PEANUT
'population explosion' and in the
"unfit". By 1961, PATHFINDER
and that there's no scientific way
BUTTER sandwiches, and added
desire to reduce welfare rolls by
had spread into Central and South
to determine when human life
some PRINGLE'S POTATO
reducing the number of children
America, Spain, Italy, Malta,
begins.
CHIPS or a slice of the DUNCAN
born into recipient families."
Jordan, Israel, Oceania, Malaya,
And I know that there's a
HINE'S cake you had for
Financed increasingly by tax
Indonesia, West Africa, and other
stork flying around somewhere
somebody's birthday party
dollars, which are "laundered"
parts of Western Europe and Asia,
with every one of my kids's names
recently? Put a fresh PAMPERS
through various dummy
spreading the eugenic gospel of
on it, and I know that the tooth
diaper on the baby?
organizations, such as the IPAS,
Malthus and Sanger.
fairy will never let anybody die-
Not yet ready to take on the
the International Pregnancy Ad-
And all of LES were buying
cover where the stork got the
world, battling to save unborn
visory Services, and using new
soap, brushing after meals, and
diapers the babies were delivered
babies, did you then settle down
mass media propaganda techni-
wiping up spills.
in.
for a cup of FOLGERS COFFEE,
ques, the anti-natalist movement
in Its own words, a descrip-
By the way, there are two
wiping the saucer with BOUNTY
has mushroomed into the multi-
Son of the PATHFINDER FUND:
products I missed naming. TOP
PAPER TOWELS, checking that
million dollar conglomerate tt is
"Many of the PATHFINDER
JOB and its "rival" MR. CLEAN.
razor cut doctored with
today, standing ready to control
programs are ploneering and at
They, like the others, are no
aqueezable CHARMIN TISSUE,
the populations of the world, with
times controversial
on the
longer in my home. I have found
loading CASCADE into the dis-
or without consent, using the
fringe of what is currently social-
other products, and there are
hwasher?
coercive presence of the U.S.
ty acceptable or even legally
quite a few, but I have a special
If any or all of this is familiar
Government and its foreign and
permissable, (emphasis mine) be
penchant for home delivered,
to you, as it is to many of us, pro-
domestic policies.
It family planning as was often
personally guaranteed AMWAY
life people are feeding the hand
Promoting Death
the case in the past, or today's
products. They are superior, and
that bites them everyday.
Prior to founding the
efforts on behalf of abortion,
they don't have any fatal connec-
These are all products of
PATHFINDER FUND, Clarence
women's rights, explicit popule-
tions at home or abroad.
PROCTOR AND GAMBLE,
Gamble used his fortunes ex-
tion control and even steriliza-
1.8.
whose founder, Clarence Gamble,
perimenting on North Carolinian,
tion."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Joe
created the PATHFINDER
and Japanese, as well as Puerto
And we bought more soap,
Garvey is a writer and teacher,
FUND, a million-dollar U.S. AID-
Rican women, funneling money
brushed harder after meals, and
currently serves as an Alternate
funded complex dedicated to the
through deceptively named
wiped up more spills with the
Representative to the United
elimination of the world's "sur-
organizations. In Japan, abortion
quickerpickerupper.
Nations for U.S. Coalition for Life
well
TCC 10/81
ALL
AMERICAN LIFE LOBBY INC.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 490. STAFFORD. VA 22554
OFFICES ROUTE #6. BOX 162-F. STAFFORD. VA 22554
(703) 659-4171
METRO DC 690-2049
GOVERNMENT LIAISON OFFICE: 6B LIBRARY COURT SE (CAPITOL HILL) WASHINGTON. DC 20003 (202) 546-5551
December 4, 1981
T. C. Collins
Director
Corporate Relations and Contributions
The Procter & Gamble Company
PO Box 599
Cincinnati, OH 45201
Dear Director Collins:
Thank you for your letter regarding the relationship between the
Procter and Gamble Company and the Pathfinder Fund.
Regarding your points of information numbered one and two: you
provide no means of verifying your statements. In order for us
to accept these points we would require a complete list of your
corporate donations as well as a itemized list of receipts from
the Pathfinder Fund.
On behalf of the author and our editor, we stand corrected with
regard to your point three. The original source document quoted
by Mr. Garvey does not cite Clarence Gamble as the "founder" of
Procter and Gamble; this reference inadvertantly slipped into a
draft of the article and was not subsequently corrected. Since
this is a legitimate error, it will be noted in a future issue
of our newsletter.
Points four and five are moot.
In closing, I would like to quote from Mr. Garvey's article:
"Lestanyone be naive and think that I'm saying there's
a direct and casual connection between PROCTOR AND GAMBLE
and the PATHFINDER FUND, let me hasten to say in these most
nit-picking of times that I am NOT."
A.L.L.
for God, for Life, for the Family, for the Nation"
T. C. Collins
Page #2
If you have any information or materials regarding the corporate
giving policies, internal or public policies which you feel should
be shared with our readers as being more representative of your
company or which demonstrate your company's "good corporate citi-
zenship," we will review them for publication.
With God for Life,
(Mrs.) June Judie Brown
President
Enclosure: "The International Population Control Machine
and The Pathfinder Fund" by Randy Engel
cc: Mr. Joe Garvey
1779 Second Ave.
# 5 F
New York, NY 10028