PART TWO

WHAT CHANGES IN THE LAWS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED?

I. THE TWO FIRST FEDERAL EFFORTS 63

The big repeal petition of 1876 started by National Liberal League—Comstock’s obscenity exhibit wins again—Sanger arrests crystallize growing movement for repeal of law—National Birth Control League founded March, 1915, first organization of the sort in the United States—Repeal bills drafted—Petitions circulated—Noted English sympathizers help.

II. BEATING AROUND THE BUSH WITH STATE LEGISLATION 72

Interest caused by Mrs. Sanger’s arrests caused much activity despite war-time conditions—First repeal bill initiated by National Birth Control League in New York Legislature—Law makers mostly in favor privately, but publicly opposed or evasive—Dr. Hilda Noyes’s experiment in New York village proving that ordinary people want laws changed—Legislator justifies state repressive laws so long as federal law stands as example—Bills introduced in New York, California, New Jersey and Connecticut—The “doctors only” type of bill appears—Further limitations—Efforts toward freedom stimulate reaction toward stiffer repression in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Virginia—All fail—Fallacy that limited bills win legislators more than freedom bills.

III. GOING TO THE POINT WITH A FEDERAL BILL 94

1919 sees first concerted effort to repeal federal law—Initiated by Voluntary Parenthood League, an outgrowth of National Birth Control League—Disbanding of earlier organization and merging of forces—Opposition from birth control advocates on “doctors only” basis arises later—The long hunt for a sponsor—Cummins-Kissel Bill introduced in January, 1923—Re-introduced in next Congress as Cummins-Vaile Bill—Survey of six-year struggle in Congress—Significant characteristics of Congressional reaction—Fear and embarrassment inhibit even those in favor of measure—Suggestions for keeping repeal “dark”—Alternate appeals to logic and humanity—Public opposition (mostly Catholic) relatively slight—Sponsor in Senate received 20 letters for bill to every one against.

IV. THE HEARINGS ON THE CUMMINS-VAILE BILL, AND THE AFTERMATH 123

Delay in arranging hearings analogous to delay in sponsoring bill—Joint hearings by Senate and House Judiciary Sub-Committees held on April 8 and May 9, 1924—Mr. Vaile in opening remarks pleads for restoration of American freedom to acquire knowledge, which was taken away 50 years ago—Birth rate in United States proves that people want and get some information in spite of law—Catholic speakers discuss birth control, not the bill—Wages of government employees quoted as reason for passing bill—Prof. Field shows historically that suppression does not suppress—Mrs. Glaser argues for freedom for scientists to learn and teach regarding control of human fertility—Mrs. Carpenter shows how federal law operates to prevent Chicago Clinic—Prof. Johnson gives eugenic view-point—Hearing reopened at request of Catholics—Lengthy irrelevancies—Congressman Hersey heckles the witnesses—Report of Senate Sub-Committee a sop to the workers for the bill—Unique effort to get vote of full Committee before adjournment, as aid to reducing inhibition in next Congress.

V. WHY CONGRESS HAS BEEN SO SLOW 166

No one answer covers all reasons—Quiet request to Congress for repeal might have succeeded twenty years ago, before sensational law-breaking created prejudice—Laws defied without first attempting their repeal—Speeches and writings of early agitation not calculated to induce Congressional initiative—Struggle announced in advance as likely to be long and bitter “fight”—Shortage of funds for publicity on behalf of bill the second reason for slowness of Congress—Third and most dominant reason found to be general embarrassment over subject—Distaste, inhibition and fear, in varying degrees almost universal among Congressmen—Striking instances—Fears covered careers, colleagues, families and constituents—Fear on behalf of young girls greatest of all—Political opposition to birth control legislation misinterpreted by “radicals”—Abortive attempt in Harding presidential campaign to use his tentative interest in this bill against him—Club women afflicted with inhibitions similar to those of members of Congress—It is leaders, not members, who hold back endorsement by large organizations—Organized labor women endorse repeal ahead of club women.

VI. A “DOCTORS ONLY” FEDERAL BILL 200

“Doctors only” federal bill followed straight repeal bill just as limited bills in states followed straight repeal bills—Advocated on Margaret Sanger’s initiative—Provides medical monopoly of extreme type—Arguments in its behalf analyzed and answered—Proponents of “doctors only” bill do not live up to own demands for limiting contraceptive instruction to personal service by doctors—Birth control periodical carries thinly veiled advertisements for contraceptives—Improved type of “doctors only” bill drafted by George Worthington—Not so many loopholes and inconsistencies as in first bill proposed, but still a special-privilege bill, and still leaves subject classed with obscenity—Worthless as means of curbing abuse of contraceptive knowledge—Clause permitting “reprints” from medical and scientific journals practically breaks down all restriction—Makes pretense at limitation a farce.