The legacy of NSSM-200 continues to shape global population control efforts today, with ongoing debates about its effectiveness, ethics, and impact on reproductive rights and health.

US Government’s Controversial 1979 Depopulation Policy Under Kissinger and Rockefeller-Helms

Analyzing NSSM 200 and the Global 2000 Report

by David Carlan

Overview

In 1979, the United States government, under the leadership of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, adopted a new policy that advocated for the depopulation of the world.

This policy was developed in partnership with the Rockefeller-Helms commission, a group of scientists and politicians assembled to advise the US government on matters related to population growth.

The policy was based on the belief that population growth threatened US national security and that the world’s resources were limited and would eventually be depleted if population growth continued unchecked.

The policy was therefore designed to reduce population growth in developing countries through a combination of measures, including the promotion of birth control, the use of sterilization and abortion, and the manipulation of food supplies.

The policy was first proposed in 1974 at a United Nations Population Commission meeting.

Kissinger argued that population growth threatened US strategic interests and should be addressed urgently.

The proposal was controversial, and several countries opposed it, but Kissinger continued to advocate for the policy and eventually succeeded in getting it adopted by the US government in 1979.

The report further alleges that the policy was implemented through various means, including using vaccines allegedly contaminated with sterilizing agents and manipulating food supplies by introducing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) designed to reduce fertility.

The implications of this policy are far-reaching and have been the subject of much debate and controversy. Critics argue that the policy infringes on human rights, particularly the right to reproductive autonomy.

It was motivated by a desire to maintain US economic and political dominance over the developing world.

Others have pointed out that the policy was based on flawed assumptions about the relationship between population growth and resource depletion.

It failed to consider the impact of poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation on population growth.

Regardless of these criticisms, the fact remains that in 1979, the US government under Kissinger and Rockefeller-Helms officially adopted a policy that advocated for the world's depopulation.

The full extent of the implementation of this policy remains to be determined.

Still, it is a sobering reminder of the power and influence that governments and political elites can have over the lives and futures of millions of people.

Origins

The Commission’s origins can be traced to the concern of key individuals, such as John D. Rockefeller 3rd and Paul Ehrlich, over the consequences of US population growth.

The Commission was created by Congress and had 24 members, including 4 Congressmen and 20 distinguished citizens representing a range of perspectives.

While the Commission initially focused on evaluating the consequences of growth rather than reducing fertility, there were differences in opinion on the report's scope and the nature of the population problem.

The Commission’s contracted social science work played a significant role in the final report’s substance, particularly in analyzing population projections and evaluating the demographic capability of the national “growth center strategy.” The report emphasized eliminating unwanted fertility as a critical priority and recommended slowing growth to maximize the quality of life.

Source:

National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2002). The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future: a critical appraisal. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12257905/

The Evolution of NSSM 200: Key Players and Milestones in the Development and Implementation of the Policy

The history of NSSM-200 is intertwined with the history of the world, spanning over 250 years.

Due to the vast amount of information on the subject, this article can only provide signposts for further research. It is worth noting that this history reflects the viewpoints of population control advocates themselves.

To construct the timeline, we began by examining the writings of these advocates, identifying the individuals and events they deemed formative, and working backward through time.

The chain of influence can be seen as Darwin referencing Malthus, eugenicists citing Darwin, population control advocates invoking the eugenicists, and so on.

The chain of influence begins with Malthus, who Darwin quoted. Eugenicists, in turn, quoted Darwin, particularly during World War I and II, when a push for eugenics began to wind down, and eugenicists shifted their focus to “population” studies. Margaret Sanger’s book “The Pivot of Civilization” also played a role. Guy Irving Burch, a staunch eugenicist, founded the Population Reference Bureau in 1929 and was widely consulted on population control matters.

His book “Human Breeding and Survival” cited Malthus approvingly and was well-regarded by other founders of the population control movement. Burch believed that birth control, population control, and evolutionary principles were interconnected and could be used as an intelligent and peaceful substitute for the bloody and destructive laws of the jungle.

He cited studies that found responsible and wise parents with contraceptive knowledge had more prominent families, offering a democratic and rational approach to human evolution.

During World War II, the Nazis applied eugenics principles through a nationalistic lens. However, after the war, overt eugenics fell out of favor.

Advocates turned to “crypto-eugenics,” which focused on politically acceptable alternatives consistent with eugenics principles, such as family planning and population control.

Fairfield Osborn was involved in the eugenics movement for decades before pivoting to population control advocacy. He presided over the 1921 International Eugenics Congress and wrote “Our Plundered Planet,” which was frequently mentioned by population control advocates in the following decades. Osborn was Frederick Osborn's uncle and the American Eugenics Society and Population Council president. In “Our Plundered Planet,” Osborn thanks William Vogt for his philosophical approach to the problem, acknowledging the ideological underpinnings of the population control movement, and Guy Irving Burch for providing information on human populations. The convergence of eugenicists, birth control advocates, and population control agitators is evident.

William Vogt served as the National Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1951 to 1962 and was a prominent figure in the population control movement. His book, “Road to Survival,” published in 1948, was highly influential. Given his long tenure at Planned Parenthood and the “population crisis” of the 1960s, it is reasonable to assume that he left his population control mindset on the organization.

Vogt’s book prominently features Guy Irving Burch, co-author of “Human Breeding and Survival,” and expresses gratitude for his help and advice.

Vogt’s book also cites Malthus approvingly, demonstrating continuity within the population control movement’s ideology.

The book was introduced by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy and influential progressive who created the Federal Reserve and supported the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

In the 1950s, eugenicists-turned-population-control-advocates shifted their focus away from eugenics and toward genetic counseling and overpopulation. Charles Francis Darwin is another influential figure in the chain of influence leading to NSSM-200.

Harrison Brown recommends “Our Plundered Planet” by Fairfield Osborn and “The Road to Survival” by William Vogt as essential books for the general public. He grounds his arguments on evolution and is explicitly eugenicist, citing Charles Galton Darwin and Malthus approvingly.

Frederick Osborn was President of the American Eugenics Society after World War II. Still, he shifted to advocating for “crypto-eugenics,” calling for the establishment of heredity clinics and the genetic counseling profession to persuade people to make eugenic decisions without realizing it. He continued to think in eugenic terms but was flexible and adaptable to circumstances. Guy Irving Burch cited Osborn approvingly in his book “Population Roads to Peace or War,” linking birth control to population control. Osborn recognized the eugenic effects of birth control and abortion but believed that attaching a eugenic label to them would hinder their acceptance.

H.J. Muller and Julian Huxley are also influential figures in the chain of influence leading to NSSM-200.

During the 1960s, population control advocates held various public positions but needed more political support to implement their proposals. Wealthy supporters launched multiple advertising campaigns to persuade the public.

Hugh Moore, Lawrence Lader, Lincoln and Alice Day, Paul Ehrlich, Bernard Berelson, Frank Jaffe, and Richard Nixon were all influential figures.

Nixon, in particular, called for a national population policy in 1969 and directed funds to be allocated for that purpose, including Title X in 1970.

In the 1970s, Nixon established the Rockefeller Commission on Population in 1972 but still needs to act on its findings. He instructed Kissinger to investigate how overpopulation in developing countries threatened the U.S., and the highly classified report was completed in December 1974. Nixon was subsequently impeached.

Gerald Ford signed an executive order implementing NSSM-200, while the Global 2000 Report, under Jimmy Carter, endorsed the premises of population control advocates, with notable participants such as John Holdren.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan implemented the “Mexico City” policy, which prohibited using taxpayer dollars to fund international programs that support or finance abortions. This decision drew criticism from population control advocates.

In the 1990s, George H. Bush reinstated the Mexico City policy, but Bill Clinton reversed it. NSSM-200 was declassified following a Freedom of Information request, which arose from suspicions that specific programs were population control measures.

During the 2000s, George W. Bush reinstated the Mexico City policy. However, when Barack Obama became President, he revoked the policy.

The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future: Addressing Population and the Future of America

“March 27, 1972

To the President and Congress of the United States:

I am honored to submit the Final Report, containing the findings and recommendations of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, under Sec. 8, PL 91–213.

After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population; instead that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems.

We have looked for and have not found any convincing economic argument for continued population growth.

The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.

The recommendations offered by this Commission are directed towards increasing public knowledge of the causes and consequences of population change, facilitating and guiding the processes of population movement, maximizing information about human reproduction and its products for the family, and enabling individuals to avoid unwanted fertility.

To this end, we offer this report in to hope that our findings and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration of an issue of great consequence to present and future generations.

Respectfully submitted to the Commission,

John D. Rockefeller 3rd

Chairman

The President

The President of the Senate

The Speaker of the House of Representatives”

Commission

This is a list of the members of “The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future,” which was established to address the issue of population growth in the United States:

Chairman:

• John D. Rockefeller 3rd

Vice Chairman:

• Grace Olivarez

Executive Director:

• Food for All, Inc.

Vice Chairman:

• Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., M.D.
• President, The Institute for the Study of Health and Society

Members:

• Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.
• The Edward Wisner Professor of Public Health, Tulane University Medical Center
• David E. Bell
• Executive Vice President, The Ford Foundation
• Bernard Berelson
• President, The Population Council
• Arnita Young Boswell
• Associate Field Work Professor, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago
• Margaret Bright
• Professor, Dept. of Behavioral Sciences and Dept. of Epidemiology, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University
• Marilyn Brant Chandler
• Housewife, Volunteer, Student
• Paul B. Cornely, M.D.
• Professor, Dept. of Community Health Practice, College of Medicine, Howard University
• Assistant to the Executive Medical Officer, Welfare and Retirement Fund United Mine Workers of America
• Alan Cranston
• United States Senator, California
• Lawrence A. Davis
• President, Arkansas Agricultural, Mechanical & Normal College
• Otis Dudley Duncan
• Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan
• John N. Erlenbom
• United States Representative, 14th C. District of Illinois
• Joan F. Flint
• Housewife, Volunteer
• R. V. Hansberger
• Chairman and President, Boise Cascade Corporation
• D. Gale Johnson
• Chairman, Department of Economics, University of Chicago
• John R. Meyer
• President, National Bureau of Economic Research
• Professor of Economics, Yale University
• Bob Packwood
• United States Senator, Oregon
• James S. Rummonds
• Student, Stanford School of Law
• Stephen L. Salyer
• Student, Davidson College
• Howard D. Samuel
• Vice President, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
• James H. Scheuer
• United States Representative, 22nd C. District of New York
• George D. Woods
• Director and Consultant, The First Boston Corporation

The report represents the official views of the Commission, particularly about the listed recommendations.

However, due to the diverse membership of the Commission, only some members subscribed to every suggestion or policy statement.

Finally, the Commission and staff dedicate this report to the memory of their colleague, staff member, and friend Ritchie H. Reed, who deepened their conviction that every individual has a unique contribution to the dignity and worth of all humanity.

Preface

“For the first time in the history of our country, the President and the Congress have established a Commission to examine the growth of our population and the impact it will have upon the American future. In proposing this Commission in July 1969, President Nixon said: “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be population growth. Whether man’s response to that challenge will cause pride or despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.” The Commission was asked to examine the possible extent of population growth and internal migration in the United States between now and the end of this century to assess the impact that population change will have upon government services, our economy, and our resources and environment, and to make recommendations on how the nation can best cope with that impact.

In our Interim Report a year ago, the Commission defined the scope of our mandate: “. . . to formulate policy for the future” — a policy designed to deal with “the pervasive impact of population growth on every facet of American life.” We said that population growth of the magnitude we have experienced since World War II has multiplied and intensified many of our domestic problems and made their solution more difficult.

We called upon the American people to begin considering the meaning and consequences of population growth, internal migration, and the desirability of formulating a national policy on the question.

Since then, the Commission and staff have conducted an extensive inquiry. We have enlisted many of the nation’s leading scientists in more than 100 research projects.

We have heard from more than 100 witnesses in public hearings across the country and have met with experts in many days of executive meetings. And we are aware that the population has become an active subject of consideration in several states in our country concerned about their future.

We have come to recognize that the racial and ethnic diversity of this Commission gives us confidence that our recommendations — the consensus of our members — do indeed point to how this nation should move in solving its problems.

Because of the importance of this matter, the Commission recommends that future federal commissions include a substantial representation of minorities, youth, poor citizens, and women among their members, including congressional representatives, and the commission staffs and consultants include significant numbers of minorities, youth, and women.

We offer this report in the hope that our viewpoints and recommendations will stimulate severe consideration and response by this nation's citizens and governments worldwide to an issue of great consequence to present and future generations.”

Chapter 1: Perspective on Population

“In the brief history of this nation, we have always assumed that progress and “the good life” are connected with population growth. Population growth has frequently been regarded as a measure of our progress. If that were ever the case, it is not now. There is hardly any social problem confronting this nation whose solution would be easier if our population were larger. Even now, the dreams of too many Americans are not being realized; others are being fulfilled at too high a cost. Accordingly, this Commission has concluded that our country can no longer afford the uncritical acceptance of the population growth ethic that “more is better.” And beyond that, after two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that no substantial benefits would result from the continued growth of the nation’s population.

The “population problem” is in the long run and requires long-run responses. It is not a simple problem.

It cannot be encompassed by the slogans of the prevalent extremes: the “more” or the “bigger the better” attitude on the one hand or the emergency-crisis response on the other. Neither extreme is accurate nor even helpful.

It is a problem that can be interpreted in many ways.

It is the pressure of the population reaching out to occupy open spaces and deteriorating the environment.

It can be viewed as the effect on natural resources of increased numbers of people in search of a higher standard of living. It is the impact of population fluctuations in growth and distribution upon the orderly provision of public services.

It can be seen as the concentration of people in metropolitan areas and depopulation elsewhere, with all that implies for the quality of life in both places.

It is the instability over time of proportions of the young, the elderly, and the productive. For the family and the individual, it is the control over one’s life concerning the reproduction of new life — the formal and informal pronatalist pressures of an old-fashioned tradition and the disadvantages of and to the children involved.

Unlike other outstanding public issues in the United States, the population lacks the dramatic event — the war, the riot, the calamity — that galvanizes attention and action.

It is easily overlooked and neglected.

Yet the number of children born now will seriously affect our lives in future decades.

This produces a powerful effect in a double sense: Its fluctuations can be strong and not easily changed, and its consequences are essential for the welfare of future generations.

There is scarcely a facet of American life that is not involved with the rise and fall of our birth and death rates: the economy, environment, education, health, family life and sexual practices, urban and rural life, governmental effectiveness, and political freedoms, religious norms, and secular lifestyles.

If this country is in a crisis of spirit — environmental deterioration, racial antagonisms, the plight of the cities, the international situation — then the population is part of that crisis.

Although population changes touch all these areas of our national life and intensify our problems, such problems will not be solved by demographic means alone.

Population policy is no substitute for social, economic, and environmental policy.

Successfully addressing population requires addressing our problems of poverty, minority and sex discrimination, careless exploitation of resources, environmental deterioration, and of spreading suburbs, decaying cities, and wasted countryside.

By the same token, because the population is so tightly interwoven with all of these concerns, whatever success we have in resolving these problems will contribute to easing the complex system of pressures that impel population growth.

Considering the population issue raises profound questions of what people want and need — indeed, what they are for. What does this nation stand for, and where is it going? At some point in the future, the finite earth will not satisfactorily accommodate more human beings — nor will the United States.

How can a judgment be made about when that point will be reached? We answer that now is the time to confront the question: “Why more people?” The answer must be given, we believe, in qualitative, not quantitative terms.

The United States today is characterized by low population density, considerable open space, a declining birthrate, and movement out of the central cities — but that does not eliminate the concern about population. This country, or any country, always has a “population problem” in achieving a proper balance between size, growth, and distribution. On the one hand, and the other, the quality of life to which every person in this country aspires.

Nor is this country alone in the world, demographically or in any other way. Many other nations are beginning to recognize the importance of population questions.

We need to act prudently, understanding that today’s decisions on population affect future generations. Similarly, we need to act responsibly toward other people in the world: This country’s needs and wants, given its wealth, may impinge upon the inheritance of other, less fortunate people in the decades ahead. The “population problem” of developing countries may be more pressing now.

Still, in the longer perspective, it is both proper and in our best interest to participate fully in the worldwide search for the good life, which must include the eventual stabilization of our numbers.”

A Diversity of Views

“Ultimately, then, we are concerned not with demographic trends alone, but with the effect of these trends on the realization of the values and goals cherished as part of the American tradition and sought after by minorities who also “want in.”

One of the primary themes underlying our analysis and policy recommendations is the substitution of quality for quantity; we should concern ourselves with improving the quality of life for all Americans rather than merely adding more Americans. And unfortunately, for many of our citizens, quality of life is still defined only as enough food, clothing, and shelter. All human beings need a sense of their dignity and worth, a sense of belonging and sharing, and the opportunity to develop their potential.

But it is far easier to agree on abstract values than their meaning or the strategy to achieve them.

Like the American people, this Commission has not decided on the relative importance of different weights or on analyzing how the “population problem” reflects other conditions and directions of American society.

Three distinct though overlapping approaches have been distinguished. These views differ in their analysis of the nature of the problem and the general priorities of tasks to be accomplished.

But, despite the different perspectives from which the population is viewed, all of the population policies we shall recommend are consistent with all three positions.

The first perspective acknowledges the benefits to be gained by slowing growth but regards our population problem today primarily as a result of large numbers of people being unable to control an essential part of their lives — the number of children they have.

The persistence of this problem reflects a practical denial of freedom of choice and equality of access to the means of fertility control.

In this view, the population problem is regarded more as the sum of such individual problems than as a societal problem transcending the interests of individuals; the welfare of individuals and that of the general society are seen as harmonious, at least at this point in history.

The potential conflict between these two levels is mitigated by the knowledge that freedom from unwanted childbearing would significantly stabilize the population.

Reproductive decisions should be freely made in a social context without pronatalist pressures — the heritage of a past when the survival of societies with high mortality required high fertility. The proper mission of government in this matter is to ensure the fullest opportunity for people to decide their future based on the best available knowledge; then, the demographic outcome becomes the democratic solution.

Beyond these goals, this approach depends on education, research, and national debate to illuminate the existence of any severe population “problem” that transcends individual welfare. The aim would be to achieve the best collective decisiOn about population issues based on knowledge of the tradeoffs between demographic choices and the “quality of life,” however defined. This position ultimately seeks to optimize the individual and the collective decisions and then accepts the aggregate outcome — with the understanding that the situation will be reconsidered from time to time.

The second view does not deny the need for education and knowledge. Still, it stresses the crucial gaps between what we claim as national values and the reality experienced by certain groups in our society.

Many traditional American values, such as freedom and justice, are not yet experienced by some minorities.

Racial discrimination continues to mean that equal access to opportunities afforded to those in the mainstream of American society is denied to millions of people.

Overt and subtle discrimination against women has meant undue pressure toward childbearing and child-rearing.

Equality is denied when inadequate income, education, or racial and sexual stereotypes persist and shape available options.

Freedom is denied when governmental steps are not taken to assure the most exclusive possible access to methods of controlling reproduction or educational, job, and residential opportunities. In addition, the freedom of future generations may be compromised by a denial of freedom to the present generation.

Finally, extending liberty and equality — nothing more than making the American system live up to its stated values — would go far beyond affecting the growth rate. Complete equality, both for women and ‘racial minorities, is a value in its own right.

In this view, the “population problem” is seen as only one facet, not a major one, of the restriction of full opportunity in American life.

The third position deals with the population problem in an ecological framework, one whose primary axiom asserts the functional interdependence of man and his environment. It calls for a far more fundamental shift in the operative values of modern society.

More education and knowledge and eliminating poverty and racism are essential but insufficient.

The population problem, and the growth ethic with which it is intimately connected, reflect deeper external conditions and more fundamental political, economic, and philosophical values. Consequently, improving our existence's quality while slowing growth will require nothing less than a total recasting of American values.

The external environment limits the number of people and the material conditions of human existence.

Like all life on earth, human life is supported by intricate ecological systems that are limited in their ability to adapt to and tolerate changing conditions.

Human culture, particularly science, and technology, has given man an extraordinary power to alter and manipulate his environment. At the same time, he has also achieved the capacity virtually to destroy life on earth.

Sadly, in a rush to produce, consume, and discard, he has too often chosen to plunder and destroy rather than conserve and create.

The land, air, water, flora, and fauna have not only suffered but also the individual, the family, and the human community.

This position holds that the present pattern of urban industrial organization, far from promoting the realization of the individual as a uniquely valuable experience, primarily perpetuates its values.

Mass urban industrialism is based on science and technology, efficiency, acquisition, and domination through rationality.

The exercise of these same values now contains the potential to destroy our humanity. Man is losing that balance with nature, an essential human existence condition.

With that loss has come a loss of harmony with other human beings.

The population problem is a concrete symptom of this change and a fundamental cause of present human conditions.

It is comfortable to believe that changes in values or the political system are unnecessary and that measures such as population education and better fertility control information and services will solve our population problem.

They will not, however, for such solutions do not go to the heart of man’s relationship with nature, himself, and society. According to this view, nothing less than a different set of values toward nature, the transcendence of a laissez-faire market system, a redefinition of human identity in terms other than consumerism, and a radical change, if not abandonment of the growth ethic, will suffice.

A new vision is needed — one that recognizes man’s unity with nature transcends a simple economic definition of man’s identity and seeks to promote the realization of the highest potential of our humanity.”

The Immediate Goal

“These three views reflect different evaluations of the nature of the population problem, other assessments of the viability of the American political process, and different perceptions of the critical values at stake.

Given the diversity of goals to be addressed and the manifold ramifications of population change throughout society, how will specific population policies be selected?

As a Commission and as people, we can only agree on some of the priorities if we can identify acceptable policies that speak to greater or lesser degree to all of them.

The policy findings and recommendations of this Report meet that requirement.

Whatever the primary needs of our society, the policies recommended here all lead in the right direction for this nation, generally at low costs.*

Our immediate goal is to modernize demographic behavior in this country: to encourage the American people to make population choices, both in the individual family and society at large, based on greater rationality rather than tradition or custom, ignorance or chance.

This country has already moved some distance down this road; it should now complete the journey.

The time has come to challenge the tradition that population growth is desirable: What was unintended may be unwanted in society, as in the family.

In any case, more rational attitudes are now forced upon us by the revolutionary increase in the average length of life within the past century, which has placed modern man in a completely different, historically unique, demographic situation.

The social institutions and customs that have shaped reproductive behavior in the past are no longer appropriate in the modern world and need reshaping to suit the new situation.

Moreover, the instruments of population policy are now more readily available — fuller knowledge of demographic impacts, better information on demographic trends, and improved means by which individuals may control their own fertility.

As a Commission, we have come to appreciate the delicate complexities of the subject and the difficulty, even the impossibility, of solving the problem, however defined, in its entirety and all at once. But this is undoubtedly the time to begin: The 1970s may not be simply another decade in the demographic transition but a critical one involving changes in family life and the role of women, dynamics of the metropolitan process, the depopulation of rural areas, the movement and the needs of disadvantaged minorities, the era of the young adults produced by the baby boom, and the attendant question of what their fertility will be — baby boom or baby bust.

Finally, we agree that population policy goals must be sought in complete accordance with the fundamental values of American life: respect for human freedom, human dignity, individual fulfillment, and concern for social justice and social welfare. To “solve” population problems at the cost of such values would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed.

The issues are ethical, and their proper solution requires a profound moral responsibility on the individual family and the national community: the former in considering another birth, the latter in considering appropriate policies to guide population growth into the American future.”

Commissioner James S. Rummonds’ Statement in the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future Report

“For our part, it is enough to make population, and all that it means, explicit on the national agenda, to signal its impact on our national life, to sort out the issues, and to propose how to start toward a better state of affairs.

By its very nature, population is a continuing concern and should receive continuing attention.

Later generations, and later commissions, will be able to see the right path further into the future.

In any case, no generation needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction in which they will be found.”

STATEMENT ABOUT THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON POPULATION GROWTH AND THE AMERICAN FUTURE

37th President of the United States: 1969 ‐ 1974

May 05, 1972.

Source: Presidency of the United States. (1972, March 27). Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Retrieved from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-about-the-report-the-commission-population-growth-and-the-american-future

“THE Commission on Population Growth and the American Future has formally presented its report to me today, thus completing its two years of work.

The men and women on this panel have performed a valuable public service in identifying and examining a wide range of population-related problems and have contributed to an emerging debate of great significance to the future of our Nation.

I wish to thank the able and energetic Chairman of the Commission, Mr. John D. Rockefeller 3d, for his tireless efforts, not only on this Commission but in other capacities, to focus the Nation’s attention on these critical issues.

The extensive public discussion generated by this report indicates the need to continue research on population growth and distribution.

While I do not plan to comment extensively on the report's contents and recommendations, the public must know my views on some of the issues raised.

In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortion policies in military hospitals, I considered abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life.

I also want to clarify that I do not support the free distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.

I have a fundamental faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, which are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals–and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.

While disagreeing with the general thrust of some of the Commission’s recommendations, I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the Commission for their work and for having assembled much valuable information.

The findings and conclusions of the Commission should be of great value in assisting governments at all levels to formulate policy.

At the Federal level, through our recent reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, we have the means through the Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget to follow up on the Commission’s report.

The recommendations of the Commission will be taken into account as we formulate our national growth and population research policies and our agency budgets through these processes for the years ahead.

Many of the questions raised by the report cannot be answered purely based on the fact but rather involve moral judgments about which reasonable men will disagree.

I hope that the discussions ahead will be informed so that we all can better face these questions relating to the population in full knowledge of the consequences of our decisions.”

Note: The 186-page report titled “Population and the American Future” was published by the Government Printing Office. Commission Chairman John D. Rockefeller 3d and members Graciela Gil Olivares and Christian N. Ramsey, Jr. met with the President at the White House to present the report.

This information was referenced in Richard Nixon’s statement about the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future report, available online through The American Presidency Project, by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. The URL for the statement is https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/254752.

Memorandum NSDM 314 — Implementation of NSSM-200 Directed by Gerald Ford

Brian Clowes’ Analysis of NSSM 200 and its Impact on US Government Policy

You can download Dr. Brian Clowes’ full report on the extent to which NSSM 200 is the official US Government policy to this date from the following website: https://nssm200.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Kissinger-Report-A-Retrospective-on-NSSM-200.pdf. Dr. Clowes’ report is one of the few attempts to research this topic. He is affiliated with Human Life International.