America and the Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation by Elaine Tyler May Read Free Book Online Page A

our family to ensure health and happiness.” PPFA proclaimed, “A nation’s strength does not depend upon arma- ments and manpower alone; it depends upon the contentment . . . of its people. To the extent that birth control contributes to the health and morale of our people, it makes them less receptive to subversive propaganda, more ready to defend our national sys- tem. . . . Victory cannot be won without planning.” With rational family planning, “more healthy children will be born to maintain the kind of peace for which we fight.” Margaret Sanger herself called for “national security through birth control.” 8
    At the same time, the war gave rise to the first direct con- nections between the American birth control movement and population control abroad. Looking toward the postwar era, the PPFA became more concerned with the international im- plications of contraception, not only for poverty and political unrest, but in relation to healthy markets abroad. After the war, concern shifted to the dangers of overpopulation in developing countries, where the population was growing twice as fast as in the industrialized world.

    Population control seemed a panacea for the world’s ills. The movement included government officials and professionals from around the globe, but most of the leadership and funding came from the United States. Years before the pill became available, population control advocates saw contraception as the key to development, prosperity, and the success of democracy and capitalism in developing countries—and the best means to avoid war, famine, and the spread of communism. To that end, new organizations took shape. Margaret Sanger founded the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in 1952. That same year, John D. Rockefeller III established the Popu- lation Council. He promoted progressive, noncoercive princi- ples geared toward alleviating human suffering rather than reducing the population: “Our concern is for the quality of human life, not the quantity of human life.” 9
    Observers and commentators had a wide range of perspec- tives on the dramatic rise in world population, but all seemed to agree that it was reaching crisis proportions. Humanitarians voiced concerns about increasing poverty and the plight of the poor, who would likely face starvation and disease. Less chari- table were the cold warriors who worried that overpopulated poor countries would be drawn to communism and align with the Soviet Union, or that the large families in the developing world would be unable to afford American-made consumer goods, undermining the potential for vast foreign markets.
    Not everyone shared these concerns. The Catholic Church remained staunchly opposed to population control efforts, and others continued to argue that contraception was not a matter for public policy. Anticommunist crusaders could also be found

    on both sides of the issue. Some argued that contraception and population control were essential to stop the spread of commu- nism, but a smaller group, including Senator Joseph McCarthy, claimed that birth control was a communist plot to weaken the country and spread immorality. 10 Population alarmists, however, seemed to dominate the debate.
    McCarthy’s opposition notwithstanding, anticommunism fueled much of this alarm. The Hugh Moore Fund distributed a pamphlet, The Population Bomb , frequently reprinted through the 1950s and 1960s, claiming that there would be “300 mil- lion more mouths to feed in the world four years from now— most of them hungry. Hunger brings turmoil—and turmoil, as we have learned, creates the atmosphere in which the commu- nists seek to conquer the earth.” 11 Moore and his allies made it clear that they were not particularly concerned about human suffering: “We’re not primarily interested in the sociological or humanitarian aspects of birth control. We are interested in the use . . . which the Communists make of hungry people in their