Minnesotans For Sustainability©

 

Home ] Up ] Feedback Please ] Table of Contents ] Search MFS ] MFS News ]

Sustainable Society:  A society that balances the environment, other life forms, and human interactions over an indefinite time period.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Population And The American Future

The Report Of The Commission On Population Growth And The American Future

John D. Rockefeller 3rd, Chairman
March 27, 1972

References



Chapter 2.  Population Growth
Chapter 3.  Population Distribution
Chapter 4.  The Economy
Chapter 5. Resources and the Environment
Chapter 6.  Government
Chapter 7.  Social Aspects
Chapter 8.  Population and Public Policy
Chapter 9.  Education
Chapter 10.  The Status of Children and Women
Chapter 11.  Human Reproduction
Chapter 12.  Population Stabilization
Chapter 13.  Immigration
Chapter 14.  National Distribution and Migration Policies
Chapter 15.  Population Statistics and Research
Chapter 16.  Organizational Changes

 
Chapter 2. Population Growth

1.  Ansley J. Coale, “Alternative Paths to a Stationary Population” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
2.  U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, Volume I, Natality, 1968.
3.  U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, Volume II, Section 5, Life Tables, 1968.
4.  James Mooney, “The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico,” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, 1928, Vol. 80, No. 7.
5.  Irene B. Taeuber, “Growth of the Population of the United States in the Twentieth Century” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
6.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 36, “Fertility Indicators: 1970,” 1971.
7.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 232, “Birth Expectations Data: June 1971,” 1972.
8.  See note 1.
9.  National Education Association, NEA Research Bulletin, 1971, Vol. 49, No. 3.
10.       Estimates developed from Census Bureau data on the population by age, 1960 and 1970, and data on the volume of arrests for crime index offenses as reported for 1960 and 1970 in U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports—i 970, by direct standardization methods.
11.  Denis F. Johnston, “Illustrative Projections of the Labor Force of the
United States to 2040” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).

Chapter 3. Population Distribution

1. Philip M. Hauser, in hearings before the Commission, Chicago, Illinois, June 21-22, 1971.
2. Irene B. Taeuber, “The Changing Distribution of the Population of the United States in the Twentieth Century” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
3.  Jerome P. Pickard, “U.S. Metropolitan Growth and Expansion, 1970-2000, With Population Projections” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
4.  See note 2. Also, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1970, General Demographic Trends for Metropolitan Areas, 1960 to 1970, Final Report PHC(2), 1971.
5.  See note 2.
6.  U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Regional Metropolitan Projections” (special tabulations prepared for the Commission).
7.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 210, “Mobility of the Population of the United States: March 1969 to March 1970,” 1971.
8.  See note 4.
9.  See note 2.
10.  See note 4.
11.  William Alonso, “The System of Intermetropolitan Population Flows” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
12.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Number of Inhabitants, Final Report PC(1), 1971.
13.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Economic and Social Condition of Rural
America in the 1970’s (prepared for the Senate Committee on Government Operations, 1971).
14.  Mariah Gilmore, in hearings before the Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas, June 7-8, 1971.
15.  The impact of rural repopulation was determined by subtracting the resident population of the United States in 1970 from a hypothetical population wherein all counties in the country had been repopulated to their historical maximum. This figure was adjusted to remove some of the bias attributable to the exodus from some of our central cities, since our intent was to focus on the effects of rural repopulation only. It was found that rural repopulation under the conditions described above would absorb no more than 11 million people, or about five years worth of national growth as projected under the 2-child family assumption.
16.  Glenn V. Fuguitt, “Population Trends of Nonmetropolitan Cities and Villages in the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
17.  Ira S. Lowry, “Housing Assistance for Low-Income Urban Families: A Fresh Approach” (prepared for the House Committee on Banking and Currency, 1971).
18.  See note 4.
19.  See note 6.
20.  George Romney, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (address to Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1971).
21.  National Public Opinion Survey conducted for the Commission by the Opinion Research Corporation, 1971.
22.  James J. Zuiches and Glen V. Fuguitt, “Residential Preferences: Implications for Population Redistribution in Nonmetropolitan Areas” (prepared for the 138th Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Philadelphia, 1971).
23.  See note 21.
24.  See note 3.
25.  See note 6.
26.  Edward E. Murray and Ned Hege, “Growth Center Population Redistribution 1980-2000” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
27.  See note 3.
28.  See note 21.

Chapter 4. The Economy

1.  U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Projections of Family Income to the Year 2000” (unpublished tabulations prepared at the request of the Commission). These Census tabulations, which also provide estimates of per capita income, were developed in part from projections of the Gross National Product prepared at the request of the Commission by the Office of Business Economics, Department of Commerce. Both the family income and GNP projections utilized labor force projections from a paper prepared for the Commission by Denis F. Johnston of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2.  These data were derived from projections of the Gross National Product prepared for the Commission by the Office of Business Economics (see note 1).
3.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 81, “Characteristics of the Low-Income Population, 1970,” 1971.
4.  Denis F. Johnston, “Illustrative Projections of the Labor Force of the
United States to 2040” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
5.  John A. Howard and Donald R. Lehman, “The Effect of Different Populations on Selected Industries in the Year 2000” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
6.  Robert 0.
Anderson, “Population, Productivity, and the Environment,” in hearings before the Commission, New York, September 28, 1971.
7.  Irene B. Taeuber, “Growth of the Population of the United States in the Twentieth Century” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
8.  Edgar M. Hoover, “Reduced Population Growth and the Problems of Urban Areas” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).

Chapter 5. Resources and the Environment

Nearly all of the source material for this chapter came from the resource and environmental research done for the Commission by Resources for the Future, Inc. Their work includes a summary chapter on the resource and environmental consequences of population growth in the United States by Ronald G. Ridker, as well as more detailed supporting work which includes an analysis of pollution, recycling, adequacy of nonfuel minerals, energy, outdoor recreation, agriculture, water supplies, and urban scale.

1.  James G. Edinger, in hearings before the Commission, Los Angeles, California, May 4, 1971.
2.  Paul R. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren, “One-Dimensional Ecology,” Science and Public Affairs, Spring 1972, forthcoming.

Chapter 6. Government

1.  Jack Appleman, William P. Butz, David H. Greenberg, Paul L. Jordan, and Anthony H. Pascal, “Population Change and Public Resource Requirements: The Impact of Future United States Demographic Trends on Education, Welfare, and Health Care” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
2.  John G. Grumm, “Population Change and State Government Policy” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
3.  Michael N. Danielson, “Differentiation, Segregation, and Political Fragmentation in the American Metropolis” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
4.  Robert F. Drury, “Local Governments and Population Change” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
5.  National Public Opinion Survey conducted for the Commission by the Opinion Research Corporation, 1971.
6.  Roy W. Bahi, Jr., “Metropolitan Fiscal Structures and the Distribution of Population Within Metropolitan Areas” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
7.  Richard Lehne, “Population Change and Congressional Representation” (prepared for the Commission, 1972). Also, Roger H. Davidson, “Population Change and Representational Government” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
8.  Kenneth N. Vines, “Population Increase and the Administration of Justice” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
9.  The Report of the President’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force, 1970.
10.  A.F.K. Organski, Alan Lamborn, and Bruno Bueno de Mesquita, “The Effective Population in International Politics” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
11.  William Alonso, “Problems, Purposes, and Implicit Policies for a National Strategy of Urbanization” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
12.  Allen D. Manvel, “Metropolitan Growth and Governmental Fragmentation” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
13.  Dorn C. McGrath, Jr., “Population Growth and Change: Implications for Planning” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
14.  Lawrence B. Christmas, in hearings before the Commission, Chicago
, Illinois, June 21-22, 1971.
15.  Tom Bradley, in hearings before the Commission, Los Angeles
, California, May 3, 1971.

Chapter 7. Social Aspects

1.  Ansley J. Coale, “Alternative Paths to a Stationary Population” (prepared for the Commission, 1972); and Lincoln H. Day, “The Social Consequences of a Zero Population Growth Rate in the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
2.  Norman B. Ryder, “The Cohort as a Concept in the Study of Social Change,” American Sociological Review, December 1965.
3.  U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, Volume II, Section 5, Life Tables, 1968. Excludes immigration.
4.  The 1970 data and population projections used throughout this chapter are drawn from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 470, “Projections of the Population of the United States by Age and Sex: 1970 to 2000.”
5.  Lincoln H. Day, see note 1.
6.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Abstract of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957, 1960.
7.  Henry D. Sheldon, The Older Population of the
United States (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958).
8.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 81, “Characteristics of the Low-Income Population, 1970,” 1971.
9.  Ethel Shanas, The Health of Older People (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1962); and Matilda White Riley and Anne Foner, Aging and Society, Volume I, An Inventory of Research Findings (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968).
10.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1970, General Population Characteristics: U.S. Summary, Final Report PC(1)-B1.
11.  William J. Goode, “Family Disorganization,” in Contemporary Social Problems, 3rd. edition, Robert K. Merton and Robert Nisbet, eds. (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1971).
12.  See note 3.
13.  Kingsley Davis, “The American Family in Relation to Demographic Change” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
14.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 223, “Social and Economic Variations in Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: 1967,” 1971.
15.  Luman H. Long, ed., The 1972 World Almanac and Book of Facts (New York: Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc. for The Washington Daily News, 1971).
16.  See notel 4.
17.  See note l3.
18.  Judith Blake, “Coercive Pronatalism and American Population Policy” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
19.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, for 1970 and 1960, Number of Inhabitants: U.S. Summary, Final Report PC(1)-A1.
20.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1970, Number of Inhabitants: New York, Final Report PC(1)-A34.
21.  Amos H. Hawley, Urban Society (Ronald Press Co., 1971).
22.  U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, “Psycho-Ecological Aspects of Population,” by John B. Calhoun, 1966.
23.  Jonathan L. Freedman, “A Positive View of Population Density,” Psychology Today, September 1971.
24.  Jonathan L. Freedman, “Population Density, Juvenile Delinquency, and Mental Illness in New York City” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
25.  These estimates are based on the number of children ever born to 35- to 44-year-old women according to their ethnic origin (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 226, “Fertility Variations by Ethnic Origin: November 1969,” 1971). The number of children theoretically required for replacement was calculated by multiplying the number of women in each ethnic group by 2.07 (the average number of children per woman 35 to 44 consistent with completed fertility at the replacement level). This hypothetical number of children was then subtracted from the actual number of children born to women in each ethnic group, to estimate fertility in excess of replacement needs.
26.  The data for poor and nonpoor women were developed in the same manner (see note 25), utilizing U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 211, “Previous and Prospective Fertility: 1967,” 1971. Partly estimated.
27.  Births throughout the sixties (1960-1968) were obtained from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, Natality, and subtracted from the total January 1, 1969 population to determine their relative impact. Spanish-origin births were estimated.
28.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 36, “Fertility Indicators: 1970.” 1971. On this point and others in this section, see Reynolds Farley; “Fertility and Mortality Trends Among Blacks in the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
29.  Benjamin S. Bradshaw, “Some Aspects of the Fertility of Mexican-Americans” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
30.  Dr. Eugene S. Callender, in hearings before the Commission, New York, September 27-28, 1971.
31.  Naomi Gray, in hearings before the Commission, Washington
, D.C., April 14-15, 1971.
32.  Manuel Aragon, in hearings before the Commission, Los Angeles
, California, May 3-4, 1971.
33.  Rev. Jesse Jackson, in hearings before the Commission, Chicago
, Illinois, June 21-22, 1971.
34.  National Public Opinion Survey conducted for the Commission by the Opinion Research Corporation, 1971.
35.  Calvin L. Beale, “Rural-Urban Migration of Blacks: Past and Future.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May 1971, Vol. 53, No. 2.
36.  U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 80, “Income in 1970 of Families and Persons in the U.S.,,’ 1971; and, Series P-20, No. 224, “Selected Characteristics of Persons and Families of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Other Spanish Origin: March 1971,” 1971.
37.  Irene B. Taeuber, “Growth of the Population of the United States in the Twentieth Century” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
38.  See notes 3 and 6.
39.  Robert E. Roberts and Cornelius Askew, “A Consideration of Mortality in Three Subcultures” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington
, D.C., 1971).
40.  
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, “Natality and Mortality of American Indians Compared with U.S. Whites and Nonwhites,” by Charles Hill and Mozart Spector, in HSMHA Health Reports, March 1971.
41.  Evelyn M. Kitagawa, “Socioeconomic Differences in Mortality in the United States and Some Implications for Population Policy” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
42.  Sonny Walker, in hearings before the Commission, Little Rock
, Arkansas, June 7-8, 1971.
43.  Irene B. Taeuber, “The Changing Distribution of the Population of the U.S. in the Twentieth Century” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).

Chapter 8. Population and Public Policy

1.  U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 36, “Fertility Indicators: 1970,” 1971.
2.  Estimated from data on population 65 to 74 years old, and survival rates, in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 470, “Projections of the Population of the United States, by Age and Sex: 1970 to 2020,” 1971.
3.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 81, “Characteristics of the Low-Income Population, 1970,” 1971.
4.  Joseph J. Spengler, “Declining Population Growth: Economic Effects” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).

Chapter 9. Education

1.  National Public Opinion Survey conducted for the Commission by the Opinion Research Corporation, 1971.
2.  Stephen Viederman, “Population Education in the Elementary and secondary Schools of the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
3.  Sue T. Reid and Alan P. Bates, “Undergraduate Sociology Programs in Accredited Colleges and Universities,” American Sociologist, May 1971, Vol. 6.
4.  Ritchie H. Reed and Susan McIntosh, “Costs of Children” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
5.  Jane A. Menken, “Teenage Childbearing: Its Medical Aspects and Implications for the United States Population” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
6.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current. Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 223, “Social and Economic Variations in Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage: 1967,” 1971.
7.  White House Conference on Children, Report to the President, 1970.
8.  See note 7.
9.  Barry M. Popkin, “Economic Benefits from the Elimination of Hunger in
America,” Discussion Paper No. 102-7 1 (University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty, 1971).
10.  F. Glen Loyd, “Finally, Facts on Malnutrition in the United States,” Today’s Health, September 1969.
11.  Heinz F. Eichenwald and Peggy Crooke Fry, “Nutrition and Learning,” Science, September 1970, Vol. 163.
12.  Curt Stern, “The Place of Genetics in Medicine,” Annals of Internal Medicine, October 1971, Vol. 75, No. 4.
13.  This information was contained in a background memorandum from Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.
14.  Sol Gordon, “Family Planning Education for Adolescents” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
15.  Elizabeth Hendryson, “The Case for Sex Education,” The PTA Magazine, May 1969.
16.  Interfaith Commission on Marriage and Family Life, Interfaith Statement on Sex Education, 1968.
17.  The Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, September 1970.
18.  See note 17.
19.  Hariette Surovell in hearings before the Commission, New York, September 27-28, 1971.
20.  John F. Kantner and Melvin Zelnik, “Sexuality, Contraception, and Pregnancy Among Pre-Adult Females in the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
21.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 36, “Fertility Indicators: 1970,” 1971.
22.  Joe Blount,
National Communicable Disease Center, Atlanta, Georgia, unpublished data.
23.  See note 17.

Chapter 10. The Status of Children and Women

1.  U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Maternal and Child Health Service, Promoting the Health of Mothers and Children, FY 1971.
2.  Charlotte F. Muller and Frederick S. Jaffe, “Financing Fertility-Related Health Services in the United States, 1972-1978, A Preliminary Projection,” Family Planning Perspectives, January 1972.
3.  
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Children of Women in the Labor Force, March 1970, Special Labor Force Report 134, 1971.
4.  White House Conference on Children, Report to the President, 1970.
5.  Based on per child estimates contained in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971, S. Rept. 92-331, to accompany S. 2007, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 1971.
6.  Revenue Act of 1971, P.L. 92-178.
7.  Jane Menken, “Teenage Childbearing: Its Medical Aspects and Implications for the U.S. Population” (prepared for the Commission, 1972). Also, U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, Volume I, Natality, 1968.
8.  Philip J. Keeve, M.D., “Fertility Experience of Juvenile Girls: A Community-Wide 10 Year Study” (paper presented to the American Public Health Association, Detroit, Michigan, November 12, 1968).
9.  Commissioner Sidney P. Marland, Office of Education, speaking before Conference on Improving Services to School-Age Parents,
Florida, Dec. 1971.
10.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 36, “Fertility Indicators: 1970,” 1971.
11.  “Bastards,” American Jurisprudence 2nd, Volume 10, Sec. 62.
12.  United Nations, Study of Discrimination Against Persons Born Out-of-Wedlock, by V. Saario, 1967.
13.  Social Security Act, 64 Stat. 492. 42 U.S.C. sec. 416(H)(3) (1965).
14.  The analysis of adoption is developed from information available from the U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare,
National Center for Social Statistics and National Center for Health Statistics.
15.  See note 10.
16.  National Public Opinion Survey conducted for the Commission by the Opinion Research Corporation, 1971.
17.  Judith Blake, “Coercive Pronatalism and American Population Policy” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
18.  See note 17 and Suzanne Keller, “The Future Status of Women in America” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
19.  U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Marital and Family Characteristics of Workers, March 1970, Special Labor Force Report 130, 1971.
20.  
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1960, Women by Number of Children Ever Born, Final Report PC(2)-3A.
21.  Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer, “Rising Educational Attainment, Declining Fertility and the Inadequacies of the Female Labor Market” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
22.  U.S. Department of Labor, 1969 Handbook of Women Workers, Women’s Bureau Bulletin No. 294; Negro Women in the Population and in the Labor Force, December 1967.
23.  
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Marital and Family Characteristics of Workers, March 1971, Special Labor Force Report, September 1971.
24.  
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Why Women Start and Stop Working, A Study in Mobility, Special Labor Force Report 59, September 1965.
25.  See note 23.
26.  Jeanne Clare Ridley, “Family Planning and the Status of Women in the
United States” (unpublished) and U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Earned Degrees Conferred: 1969-1970, Summary Data, by Mary Evans Hooper.
27.  U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Report of the Women’s Action Program, January 1972.
28.  The President’s Task Force on Women’s Rights and Responsibilities, A Matter of Simple Justice, April 1970.
29.  Elliott Morss, “The Influence of Federal Government Activities on the Family Decision to Have a Child” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
30.  John T. Noonan, Jr. and Mary Cynthia Dunlap, “Unintended Consequences: Laws Indirectly Affecting Population Growth in the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 197 2).
31.  
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Social Statistics, Findings of the 1969 AFDC Study: Data by Census Division and Selected States, Part I: Demographic Program Characteristics, NCSS Report AFDC-3(67) July 1970 and NCSS Report AFDC-3(69) December 1970.
32.  Telephone conversation with the office of Jule M. Sugarman, Human Resources Administrator and Commissioner of Social Services, New York.
33.  These proposals are discussed in Daniel Callahan, “Ethics, Population, and the American Tradition” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).

Chapter 11. Human Reproduction

1.  1970 National Fertility Study conducted by Office of Population Research, Princeton University. See Norman B. Ryder and Charles F. Westoff, Reproduction in the United States: 1965 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971).
2.  Hans Forssman and Inga Thuwe, “One hundred and twenty children born after application for therapeutic abortion refused,” Acta Psychiat. Scand., 1966.
3.  President’s Message on Population, July 18, 1969.
4.  
U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics Rates in the United States, 1940-1960, 1968. Current figures were obtained from the Statistical Research Section, Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics.
5.  Jane A. Menken, “Teenage Childbearing: Its Medical Aspects and Implications for the U.S. Population” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
6.  Harriet Pilpel and Peter Ames, “Legal Obstacles to Freedom of Choice in the Areas of Contraception, Abortion, and Voluntary Sterilization in the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
7.  Harriet Pilpel and N.F. Wechsler, “Birth Control, Teen-Agers and the Law: A New Look, 1971,” Family Planning Perspectives, 1971, Vol. 3, No. 3.
8.  See note 1. Also Harriet Presser and Larry Bumpass, “Demographic and Social Aspects of Contraceptive Sterilization in the United States: 1965-1970” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
9.  See note 6, and Cyril C. Means, Jr., “The Law of New York Concerning Abortion and the Status of the Foetus, 1664-1968: A Case of Cessation of Constitutionality,” 14
New York Law Forum 411 (1968). As a New York Court has recently observed: “It is generally believed that abortion of a quick child was a high crime at Common Law.. . although one commentator has argued persuasively that, in fact, it was not, that abortion was a purely ecclesiastical offence punishable only by spiritual penalties and that the secular crime of abortion was created by the imagination of Sir Edward Coke who felt strongly that abortion after quickening should be punished and that the purely spiritual penalties of the ecclesiastical courts would not deter the people from it. (See, generally, Means, ‘The Phoenix of Abortional Freedom: Is a Penumbral or Ninth-Amendment Right About to Arise from the Nineteenth-Century Legislative Ashes of a Fourteenth-Century Common-Law Liberty?’ [17 New York Law Forum 335 (1971)]).” Byrn v. N.Y. City Health and Hosp. Corp. 167 New York Law Journal No. 39, p. 5, col. 1 N.Y. App. Div., 2d Dep’t, Feb. 24, 1972).
10.  J. Daniel Callahan, “Abortion: A Summary of the Arguments” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
11.  City of New York Health Services Administration, Bulletin 07 Abortion Program, December 1971.
12.  Gordon Chase, in hearings before the Commission, New York, September 27-28, 1971.
13.  Personal communication from Karl Tyler, National Communicable Disease Center,
Atlanta, Georgia.
14.  James W. Brackett, “The Demographic Consequences of Legal Abortion,” in Abortion, Obtained and Denied Research Approaches, Sidney H. Newman, Mildred B. Beck, and Sarah Lewit, eds. (New York: The Population Council, 1971).
15.  Christopher Tietze, “The Potential Impact of Legal Abortion on Population Growth in the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
16.  Elise F. Jones and Charles F. Westoff, “Attitudes Toward Abortion in the
United States in 1970 and the Trend Since 1965” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
17.  National Public Opinion Survey conducted for the Commission by the Opinion Research Corporation, 1971.
18.  Some of the material in this section is based on Sheldon Segal, “Possible Means of Fertility Control: Distant or Near” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
19.  U.S. Congress, Senate, “Report of the Secretary of HEW, Submitting Five-Year Plan for Family Planning Services and Population Research Programs,” prepared for the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, October 1971.
20.  Carl Djerassi, “Birth Control After 1984,” Science, September 4, 1970.
21.  Estimated from “Population Research: A Prospectus,” Committee Report to the Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Reprinted in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Family Planning Services, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., August 3, 4 and 7, 1970, p. 162. Also from Oscar Harkavy and John Maier, “Research Conducted in Contraception and Reproduction,” Family Planning Perspectives, July 1971.
22.  Title IV and X, Public Health Service Act as amended, 242 U.S.C. 281-289C and 42 U.S.C. 201.
23.  U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Population and Family Planning, Report of the President’s Committee on Population and Family Planning, November 1968. And also, “Population Research: A Prospectus” (note 21).
24.  See note 19.
25.  See note 21.
26. Estimate as of January 1, 1972, based on projections in Five-Year Plan (see note 19). Much of the material in this section is based on Frederick S. Jaffe, “Family Planning Services in the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
27. See note 19.
28. Sec. 59.5, Fed. Reg. Doc. 71-1 3560, filed 9-14-71.
29. Material in this section is taken from Charlotte F. Muller and Frederick S. Jaffe, “Financing Fertility-Related Services in the United States, 1972-1978: A Preliminary Projection,” Family Planning Perspectives, January 1972.
30. See note 19.
31. John F. Kantner and Melvin Zelnik, “Sexuality, Contraception, and Pregnancy Among Pre-Adult Females in the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
32. See note 11.
33. Sol Gordon, “Family Planning Education for Adolescents” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
34. See note l7.

Chapter 12. Population Stabilization

1. Norman B. Ryder, “A Demographic Optimum Projection foi the United States” (prepared for the Commission, 1972). Also Ansley J. Coale, “Alternative Paths to a Stationary Population” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
2. Tomas Frejka, “Demographic Paths to a Stationary Population: The U.S. in International Comparison” (prepared for the Commission, 1972); and, “Reflections on the Demographic Conditions Needed to Establish a U.S. Stationary Population Growth,” Population Studies, November 1968.
3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 36, “Fertility Indicators: 1970,” 1971.
4. See Ryder, note 1.
5. Jane A. Menken, “Teenage Childbearing: Its Medical Aspects and Implications for the United States Population” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
6. National Public Opinion Survey conducted for the Commission by the Opinion Research Corporation, 1971.
7. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 212, “Marital Status and Family Status: March 1970,” 1971.
8. Christopher Tietze, “The Potential Impact of Legal Abortion on Population Growth in the
United States” (prepared for the Commission, 197 2).
9. Michael Teitelbaum, “International Experience with Fertility at or Near Replacement Level” (prepared for the Commission, 197 2).
10. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 470, “Projections of the Population of the United States, by Age and Sex: 1970 to 2020,” 1971.
11. Judith Blake, “Coercive Pronatalism and Population Policy” (prepared for the Commission, 1972), and other papers cited above in discussion of institutional pressures.
12. Ellen Peck, in hearings before the Commission, Chicago
, Illinois, June 21-22, 1971.
13. The Population Council, “Japan: Interim Report of the Population Problems Inquiry Council,” Studies in Family Planning, No. 56, August 1970. See also note 9.
14. Report of the Committee on Population Problems to the National Resources Committee, The Problems of a Changing Population, May 1938.

Chapter 13. Immigration

1. Irene B. Taeuber, “Growth of the Population of the United States in the Twentieth Century” (prepared for the Commission, 1972). For this chapter, see also Charles B. Keely, “Immigration: Considerations on Trends, Prospects, and Policy” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
2. See note 1.
3. Richard Irwin and Robert Warren, “Demographic Aspects of American Immigration” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
4. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1971 Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
5. See note 3.
6. U.S. Bureau of the Censts, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 470, “Projections of the Population of the United States, by Age and Sex 1970 to 2020,” 1971.
7. Ansley J. Coale, “Alternative Paths to a Stationary Population” (paper prepared for the Commission, 1972).
8. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Metropolitan Projections” (special tabulations prepared for the Commission).
9. See note 4.
10. See note 4.
11. J.N. Haug and B.C. Martin, Foreign Medical Graduates, American Medical Association, 1971. On professional immigration, see also Judith Fortney, “Immigration Into the United States With Special Reference to Professional and Technical Workers” (prepared for the Commission, 1972).
12. Estimate based on figures appearing in: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 1970.

Chapter 14. National Distribution and Migration Policies

1. This chapter draws primarily on the following papers prepared for the Commission: William Alonso, “Problems, Purposes, and Implicit Policies for a National Strategy of Urbanization.” Gordon Cameron, “The Relevance to the United States of British and French Regional Population Strategies.” Michael Danielson, “Differentiation, Segregation, and Political Fragmentation in the American Metropolis.” Niles M. Hansen, “The Case for Government-Assisted Migration.” Edgar M. Hoover, “Policy Objectives for Population Distribution.” Allen Manvel, “Metropolitan Growth and Governmental Fragmentation.” Dorn C. McGrath, Jr., “Population Growth and Change: Implications for Planning.” Peter A. Morrison, “Dimensions of the Population Problem in the United States”; “Population Movements: Where the Public and Private Interests Conflict”; and “Population Movements and the Shape of Urban Growth: Implications for Public Policy.”

Chapter 15. Population Statistics and Research

1. “Population Research: A Prospectus,” Committee Report to the Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Reprinted in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Family Planning Services, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., August 3, 4, and 7, 1970, p. 162.
2. See note 1.

Chapter 16. Organizational Changes

1. This chapter draws primarily on the following:

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Expanding, Improving, and Better Coordinating the Family Planning Services and Population Research Activities of the Federal Government, S. Rept. 91-1004, To Accompany 5. 2108, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., 1970.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Full Opportunity Act, Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Evaluation and Planning of Social Problems, on S. 5, 91st Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., July 7, 8, 10, 18; December 18, 1969; and March 13, 1970.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Full Opportunity and National Goals and Priorities Act, Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Evaluation and Planning of Social Programs, on 5. 5, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., July 13, 1971.

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Papers Relating to the President’s Departmental Reorganization Program, A Reference Compilation, March 1971.

U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Toward a Social Report, January 1969.

[Return to Rockefeller Table of Contents. Go to Glossary.]

Home ] Up ]

Please send mail to webmaster@mnforsustain.org with questions or comments about this web site. Minnesotans For Sustainability (MFS) is not affiliated with any government body, private, or corporate entity. Copyright © 2002, 2003 Minnesotans For Sustainability