6. Discussion: distancing from the legacy of eugenics while focusing on other peoples' fertilities

America's religious advocates of birth control changed their focus on whose fertility concerned them between the first and second waves of liberalization on contraception. Initially, concerned about race suicide in the 1920s, the groups examined here promoted the legalization of contraception during the first wave so that poor Italian and Irish immigrants would use them. Thirty years later, the focus of whose fertility was the problem had radically shifted to the Third World and, to a lesser extent, America's "urban poor."

#### 6.1. Other people's fertilities: responsibility, not rights

What remained the same, however, was that these groups promoted contraception out of a concern about other people's fertilities. America religious advocates of birth control did not promote family planning out of a desire to reassure their flock that they were in good standing for using it—or even to reassure their members that they were fighting for their rights to use it. In fact, rights entered the early liberalizers' periodicals and official statements only a few times and always in relation to others. For example, rights are implied in this relatively brief mentioned by the Quakers in a "Letter from Pakistan," in 1965:

6.2. Distancing from eugenics by focusing on voluntary and responsible limitation

Thus, these groups were not generally thinking yet in terms of individuals' rights to contraception. Instead, they were still focused largely on encouraging those whose fertility they deemed irresponsible to use birth control. Although this stance, in and of itself, could still be seen as a legacy of eugenics, most of these religious leaders' statements had been largely purged of blatantly eugenicist language. Even so, however, one can still see evidence of these religious leaders distancing themselves from the legacy of eugenics. Much of this comes through in statements that indirectly reference eugenicists' promotion of involuntary sterilization, such as that above or such as when The Living Church wrote in 1965 that they would promote contraceptives, "respecting at all times [low income persons'] complete freedom of choice" ([55], p. 8).

From Eugenicists to Family Planners: America's Religious Promoters of Contraception

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72378

29

Indeed, one could argue that the term "voluntary parenthood" in and of itself is such a move. However, it is telling that the groups most likely to adopt voluntary parenthood were not the staunch and earliest advocates of contraception examined here. Those most likely to stress voluntary parenthood were those groups who took a critical stance regarding contraception in the first wave but had come around to liberalization by the time the pill was invented. The early liberalizers, however, tended to emphasize, instead, responsible parenthood—the very term implying that some parents, namely, those who were poor or who had more than two children, were irresponsible, as the following example from the Register-Leader made quite clear: In the eyes the eyes of the state, a female has been a brood sow with the ultimate ideal of producing an annual litter…she is never a responsible parent, the mother of two carefully planned children. Most often she is a woman who has been so preoccupied and so successful with begetting that she has not had time to menstruate between pregnancies during her

However, as their focus on responsible parenthood implies, while there might have been some distancing from the language, and even the policies, of eugenics, it is also clear that all of the religious advocates of contraception had identities as leaders in the movement. In 1965, with no sign of concern regarding their early motives, the Christian Advocate proudly declared [58–61]: Ministers are not doing the job they need to do in teaching their people about the disastrous implications of the rising tide of world population…Because Methodists were the first denomination to say family planning was a moral necessity, the church has a particular moral responsibility to take the lead in seeing that their communities have family planning facilities, Winfield Best, executive vice-president of Planned Parenthood World Population, reminded

Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

the nearly 50 church leaders attending the seminar. ([58], p. 23).

twenty years of marriage. ([46], p. 3).

Melissa J. Wilde\* and KaJaiyaiu Hopkins

\*Address all correspondence to: mwilde@upenn.edu

Author details

Of urgently needed changes, the position of women has priority. I must not omit to say that family planning is now getting a lot of support and none too soon! ([57], p. 108).

However, even in this statement, explicit talk of "rights" does not appear. When it does, the rights these religious leaders referred to are not those we have come to accept as part of the conversation today. Even in an article titled "Private Rights and Rising Birth Rates," which appeared in Presbyterian Life in 1965, the rights in focus appear not to have been the right to use contraception (from the individual perspective), but rather the right not to use contraception or to reject sterilization:

In other parts of the world however, even when contraceptives are available, people fail to use them. More than eight thousand birth-control clinics have been operating in India, according to a report by Ford Foundation population-expert Dr. Nicholson J. Eastman. But the attendance at the clinics has been "disappointingly small," and 'only a small fraction of the few women attending these clinics return for new supplies. Several answers to this problem have been proposed, among them the use of intrauterine coil or ring method of contraception, which in new tests has proved satisfactory. This method does not require continuous attention, and seems to be suitable to between 80 and 85 percent of women. Another possibility is the widespread increase of voluntary sterilization, a method useful when couples have had as many children as they wish and 'the only realistic answer,' according to Dr. Buxton. Some see sterilization as too drastic to be widely acceptable, however. ([49], p. 30, emphasis ours).

Only one article, in the Unitarian Universalists' Register-Leader, referenced rights in a way that could apply to both others and their own people, in the following quote that bemoaned the slow state of progress in 1965:

It should be easy to decide who owns the individual's fertility—the individual himself, the church, or the state. Yet such a decision is not simple. For centuries, fertility ownership has been contested by the three parties. However, I believe that the right of the individual to control his own fertility is slowly gaining ascendancy, but progress is slow, sometimes microscopic. Full emancipation is still distant, as the restrictive birth-control laws of Massachusetts and Connecticut (overturned by the United States Supreme Court in June), the punitive abortion statutes of all United States jurisdictions, and the reticence of physicians to perform sterilization operations all attest. ([46], p. 3).

#### 6.2. Distancing from eugenics by focusing on voluntary and responsible limitation

Thus, these groups were not generally thinking yet in terms of individuals' rights to contraception. Instead, they were still focused largely on encouraging those whose fertility they deemed irresponsible to use birth control. Although this stance, in and of itself, could still be seen as a legacy of eugenics, most of these religious leaders' statements had been largely purged of blatantly eugenicist language. Even so, however, one can still see evidence of these religious leaders distancing themselves from the legacy of eugenics. Much of this comes through in statements that indirectly reference eugenicists' promotion of involuntary sterilization, such as that above or such as when The Living Church wrote in 1965 that they would promote contraceptives, "respecting at all times [low income persons'] complete freedom of choice" ([55], p. 8).

Indeed, one could argue that the term "voluntary parenthood" in and of itself is such a move. However, it is telling that the groups most likely to adopt voluntary parenthood were not the staunch and earliest advocates of contraception examined here. Those most likely to stress voluntary parenthood were those groups who took a critical stance regarding contraception in the first wave but had come around to liberalization by the time the pill was invented. The early liberalizers, however, tended to emphasize, instead, responsible parenthood—the very term implying that some parents, namely, those who were poor or who had more than two children, were irresponsible, as the following example from the Register-Leader made quite clear:

In the eyes the eyes of the state, a female has been a brood sow with the ultimate ideal of producing an annual litter…she is never a responsible parent, the mother of two carefully planned children. Most often she is a woman who has been so preoccupied and so successful with begetting that she has not had time to menstruate between pregnancies during her twenty years of marriage. ([46], p. 3).

However, as their focus on responsible parenthood implies, while there might have been some distancing from the language, and even the policies, of eugenics, it is also clear that all of the religious advocates of contraception had identities as leaders in the movement. In 1965, with no sign of concern regarding their early motives, the Christian Advocate proudly declared [58–61]:

Ministers are not doing the job they need to do in teaching their people about the disastrous implications of the rising tide of world population…Because Methodists were the first denomination to say family planning was a moral necessity, the church has a particular moral responsibility to take the lead in seeing that their communities have family planning facilities, Winfield Best, executive vice-president of Planned Parenthood World Population, reminded the nearly 50 church leaders attending the seminar. ([58], p. 23).

### Author details

6.1. Other people's fertilities: responsibility, not rights

to reject sterilization:

28 Family Planning

ours).

slow state of progress in 1965:

tion operations all attest. ([46], p. 3).

What remained the same, however, was that these groups promoted contraception out of a concern about other people's fertilities. America religious advocates of birth control did not promote family planning out of a desire to reassure their flock that they were in good standing for using it—or even to reassure their members that they were fighting for their rights to use it. In fact, rights entered the early liberalizers' periodicals and official statements only a few times and always in relation to others. For example, rights are implied in this

Of urgently needed changes, the position of women has priority. I must not omit to say that

However, even in this statement, explicit talk of "rights" does not appear. When it does, the rights these religious leaders referred to are not those we have come to accept as part of the conversation today. Even in an article titled "Private Rights and Rising Birth Rates," which appeared in Presbyterian Life in 1965, the rights in focus appear not to have been the right to use contraception (from the individual perspective), but rather the right not to use contraception or

In other parts of the world however, even when contraceptives are available, people fail to use them. More than eight thousand birth-control clinics have been operating in India, according to a report by Ford Foundation population-expert Dr. Nicholson J. Eastman. But the attendance at the clinics has been "disappointingly small," and 'only a small fraction of the few women attending these clinics return for new supplies. Several answers to this problem have been proposed, among them the use of intrauterine coil or ring method of contraception, which in new tests has proved satisfactory. This method does not require continuous attention, and seems to be suitable to between 80 and 85 percent of women. Another possibility is the widespread increase of voluntary sterilization, a method useful when couples have had as many children as they wish and 'the only realistic answer,' according to Dr. Buxton. Some see sterilization as too drastic to be widely acceptable, however. ([49], p. 30, emphasis

Only one article, in the Unitarian Universalists' Register-Leader, referenced rights in a way that could apply to both others and their own people, in the following quote that bemoaned the

It should be easy to decide who owns the individual's fertility—the individual himself, the church, or the state. Yet such a decision is not simple. For centuries, fertility ownership has been contested by the three parties. However, I believe that the right of the individual to control his own fertility is slowly gaining ascendancy, but progress is slow, sometimes microscopic. Full emancipation is still distant, as the restrictive birth-control laws of Massachusetts and Connecticut (overturned by the United States Supreme Court in June), the punitive abortion statutes of all United States jurisdictions, and the reticence of physicians to perform steriliza-

relatively brief mentioned by the Quakers in a "Letter from Pakistan," in 1965:

family planning is now getting a lot of support and none too soon! ([57], p. 108).

Melissa J. Wilde\* and KaJaiyaiu Hopkins

\*Address all correspondence to: mwilde@upenn.edu

Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
