Birth control laws | Project Gutenberg

Statements of this sort were repeatedly made at public meetings for a number of years. They came to be so widely circulated that they were generally accepted among many of the groups which were agitating for social revolution or reconstruction, without much of any analysis to find out whether or not they were an accurate interpretation of the opposition of “politics” to changing the laws affecting birth control information. It is perhaps not strange that this sort of talk became common, but it had two serious disadvantages, one that it shot wide of the mark, and the other that it served to increase the prejudice of law makers against the whole program for correcting the laws, and added perceptibly to their distaste for taking a personal part in that program.

Every bit of direct experience with legislators augments the conclusion that the chief reason the individual legislator hangs back is because he is afraid it will “queer him” to stand for any action, and the reason that “political leaders” advise the legislators to let the subject alone is precisely the same. The subject is embarrassing, that’s all. As one of them advised another, “Whatever you do, don’t get mixed up in any sex stuff. No man in politics can afford that.”

A striking proof of the foregoing point was an occurrence in the presidential campaign in 1920. Senator Harding, when a member of the Public Health Committee of the Senate (since abolished) had written to the Director of Voluntary Parenthood League saying, “I have not had time to study carefully the provisions of your bill, but at first reading I find myself very much inclined in its favor.” This statement was given to the press. Presently it was taken up by some of the opposition campaign speakers who ran short of thunder, and they began spreading the news that if Harding were elected president, “government means would be used to enforce birth control.” No details were given but it was insinuated that the project would be an unheard of intrusion into private life. A representative from the Democratic Headquarters was sent to the office of the Voluntary Parenthood League to secure a photostat copy of the note which Mr. Harding had written. The young man who bore the message happened to be interested in the work of the League, and he frankly admitted that the errand was distasteful to him, as the distorted use it was planned to make of this note was such as would not only reflect discredit upon Mr. Harding, but upon the League. He said he considered it most unwise campaign tactics, and he was the more disturbed over it, because some of the campaign managers had admitted that they themselves approved the bill, but as they considered it a good handle for slurring Harding, they were perfectly willing to use it in that manner for campaign purposes. Their plan, however, was checkmated by some of the levelheaded women then active in the Democratic campaign; they instantly notified the men that it would never, never do. They reminded the men that no matter how relatively silent the organized women of the country might have been on this subject, there was no doubt whatever that they believed in controlled parenthood; obviously, for they had achieved it; and any discreditable slam at birth control would be nothing but a boomerang for the Democratic campaigners. The whole idea was promptly abandoned.

It has been frequently said, inside of Congress and out, that if the “club women” had endorsed the Cummins-Vaile Bill, it would have been passed by the last Congress. There is clearly no way to prove it, but there are certain facts to be stated which throw some light on the subject. In the first place the club women have not been completely silent. In the next place, it is just as obvious that the club women believe in the control of parenthood as that Congressmen do, and that they have not and will not observe the laws which forbid access to the information. The birth rate in both groups is prima facie evidence, which no candid person would deny, as it is out of the question to assume that the educated and more or less privileged class to which both groups belong, are made up of people who are for the most part either ascetic or sterile. The only possible inference is that control of the growth of the family has been achieved by the utilization of contraceptive knowledge. Congressmen are just as able to take note of this situation as any other observers, but when they talk of waiting for the club women to voice their opinions officially in a body, they are merely exercising their ingenuity in thinking up one more form of excuse for not acting.

And the women, to the extent that have been backward about acknowledging what their lives prove, seem to be motivated by exactly the same sort of embarrassments and inhibitions as afflict the members of Congress. And similarly also, their inhibitions are wearing thinner all the time, and there is good reason to believe that ere long the organized women who belong to the more or less privileged class will follow the lead of the organized labor women who, in June, 1922, passed the following resolution at the annual convention of the National Women’s Trade Union League:

Whereas the effect of certain laws of the United States, both State and Federal, is to withhold contraceptive information from the women of the working classes, while it is in most cases readily available to the well to do; and

Whereas it is important that in this, as in other matters, the best scientific information should be available to the peoples’ need, regardless of their economic standing: Therefore be it

Resolved, That we, the National Women’s Trade-Union League, in convention assembled, go on record as opposed to all laws, State and Federal, which in effect establish censorship over knowledge which, if open to one, should be open to all who care to secure it.

However in fairness to the rank and file of the club women it must be stated that two years earlier, in June 1920, they gave every evidence of being willing and even glad to pass a resolution of protest against the barriers to contraceptive knowledge, and it was only the timidity of the leaders which prevented their having full opportunity to do so. This circumstance occurred at the Biennial Convention of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs at Des Moines, and was reported as follows in the Birth Control Herald:

At the Des Moines Convention in 1920, at the close of Mrs. Dennett’s address to the Health Conference on “Children by Chance or by Choice,” the delegates began a rapid fire of questions. Mrs. Dennett asked if she might put just one question to the delegates, namely, as to how many of them wanted the prohibitive laws of this country regarding contraceptive knowledge to remain as they are now without change. Not a hand was raised, whereupon Mrs. Dennett said “That is interesting in view of the fact that your Resolutions Committee has declined to report out a resolution on that question.” Instantly a delegate asked the Chairman, Mrs. Elmer Blair, to have the resolution read. The delegates listened hard. A second slow reading, was asked for. Then without pause someone moved the adoption of the resolution and it was carried unanimously with a rising vote of thanks to the speaker. Over 500 delegates were present, constituting about a third of the whole Convention.

The wording of the resolution was as follows:

Whereas one of the primary necessities for family and therefore for public health, is an intelligently determined interval between pregnancies, to be secured by regulating the inception of life and not by interfering with life after it starts, and

Whereas the lack of knowledge as to how to secure such an interval frequently results in serious disaster for mothers and babies and indirectly for the entire family and community.

Be It Resolved that this Conference on Public Health urges the speedy removal of all barriers, due to legal restrictions, tradition, prejudice or ignorance, which now prevents parents from access to such scientific knowledge on this subject as is possessed by the medical profession.

Of course it was evident that any resolution which was carried unanimously by a third of the delegates would carry by at least a good majority if submitted to all the delegates, and the rebuke thus administered to the resolutions committee created quite a bit of consternation among the officers of the Federation. But the resolution was not submitted to the whole convention, nor has one been allowed to come forth at any subsequent convention, although considerable effort has been made to have it done. The nearest approach to it has been the making of a recommendation by the officers, that the whole subject of birth control be “studied by the clubs.”

If, as some of the Club women say, the chief reason for not endorsing voluntary parenthood is because the Catholic members are opposed, it would seem a perfectly simple matter to remind the Catholic women in the first place that they are a very small minority, and in the second place, that there is nothing compulsory about the use of contraceptive knowledge. If Catholics wish to remain ignorant on the subject, they are, and should be entirely free to do so, but they should not seek to enforce ignorance on others. (B. C. Herald.)

It is said that the Catholic Clubs have threatened to secede from the Federation if a birth control resolution were passed, and that the leaders are so concerned to keep up the membership in the federation that they, like the political party leaders, have put organization first and left fair play to the mass of citizens to take care of itself as best it might. But there seems also evidence that the excuse about the Catholics is in part at any rate, a cover for the underlying excuse of embarrassment about dealing with the subject at all.

Practically all roads of investigation in this matter lead back to this one difficulty. If that were overcome, the minor obstacles would seem inconsequential. A situation similar to that found in the women’s clubs has developed in public welfare organizations of many sorts. The members were ready to move, but the leaders and officials were full of doubts and excuses. Ever since 1918, various members of the Social Work Conference, which annually gathers together representatives from nearly all the public welfare organizations of the country, who have been clamoring to have the question of birth control placed on the official program of the Conference, but thus far it has been relegated to “side show” meetings. In 1922 the request was formally made in a resolution passed with but one feeble dissenting vote, at a meeting with several hundred delegates present, but the officers have still held back at all the subsequent Conferences.

This inhibition of leaders has been so persistent that a definite effort was made by the Director of the Voluntary Parenthood League to try to help them break through it, and release their naturally helpful instincts so they could function without hindrance. It took the form of a semi-open letter, which was marked, “Not for publication—at present,” and read as follows:

Dear Citizen:

The Cummins-Vaile Bill has wide-spread, splendid and rapidly increasing endorsement. But there are still some persons of consequence, who believe in the aims of the legislation, who say, “I do not feel free to express my opinion, on account of my position.” They explain that as they are officially connected with this or that organization, they are obliged to forego giving any endorsement, though “personally in hearty sympathy.” They are fearful lest their individual opinions should be deemed official.

This attitude is noticeably frequent among leaders of women’s organizations and welfare groups. They say, “Until my organization speaks, I cannot do so.” But large organizations, as such, speak their views only at annual, or even biennial conventions. So they are often precluded from giving timely assistance to important moves for social welfare. Thus the leaders are prevented from letting their individual opinions be of service at critical moments.

Granted that it is a real problem for officials to determine what is absolute wisdom in working out the dual functions of personal and public life, is it not a mistake to assume that an officer of an organization is of necessity so submerged in the office, as to lose all personal identity and freedom of opinion? Officers are seldom chosen unless they are persons of significance apart from the position. Office-holding should not be allowed to obliterate that significance.

In regard to removing the drastic laws which prohibit access to birth control knowledge, I believe there are very few leaders of fine mind and good heart like yourself, who can be satisfied to remain silent any longer, if they realize the good they may do by speaking out.

And further, I believe that an analysis of the probable other reasons that doubtless account in many instances, for the silence up to date, may make it easier to help in this important matter.

Are you willing to think it out with me?

Looked at quite simply, it seems to be just matter of generous spirit.

It is plain that not only leaders, but a large majority of members of social, civic and welfare organizations, are of the well-to-do educated class which has already obtained and utilized birth control knowledge, despite the laws. The birth rate in families of this class is clear proof that the majority believe in family limitation. Otherwise they would not so universally have achieved it. To assume that sophisticated people who have learned enough of this legally forbidden knowledge for the effective use in their own lives, are not willing to let the millions of unsophisticated poor have legal access to similar knowledge, is to assume a degree of conscious selfishness that is unwarranted. They would not shut their hearts against the multitudes of mothers, such as the wife of the rural delivery letter carrier, who writes as follows:

“I have searched far and wide for knowledge. I have been given advice how to produce abortion, but life was too dear to risk that. So I have stumbled along hoping some day to gain the desired knowledge. In my thirteen years of married life I have given birth to eight children, beside one miscarriage following an attack of flu-pneumonia. I have five girls and two boys living, the oldest girl is past twelve, just ready to pass into womanhood. It makes me shudder to think of the possibility of her going through what I have. I have tried to find out from doctors some preventive measure, but a sneer is my answer. I am now only thirty-six years old, far from being too old for pregnancy, but I feel I cannot possibly bring any more into the world to suffer I know not what. If I had not had one of the best husbands God ever made, I believe I would not have been able to bear up under it all. With only an R. F. D. carrier’s salary for living, it has been a struggle for us both. But God willing, I am going to persevere till I find out how to prevent pregnancy occurring so often, not only for myself, but for my five girls, and also for countless other girls to take our places in the future.”

The consciousness of belonging to the privileged class which has obtained at least some of this knowledge in spite of the laws, should be enough, I sincerely believe, to make the leaders who have till now held back their endorsement, feel that any further holding back is unworthy of their true responsibility as leaders. A leader is one who finding the way good and right opens that way to others.

But something seems to inhibit this natural and generous response to human need, something beside holding office. What is it?

Let me tell you the situation, as we who are shouldering this work for birth control legislation, have found it. I think that the elusive something may be discovered and the barrier eliminated.

In the first place officers are by no means consistent in refusing to express opinions because subjects are outside the direct scope of their organizations. So is it not a reasonable inference that, when this excuse is offered in regard to birth control legislation, it is unconsciously used to cover some other reason?

The leaders often tell us that they would have had this subject presented to their organizations, but they feel that “the time is not yet ripe,” that “the members are not ready,” etc. Yet they well know that the members believe in family limitation and spaced births, as they achieve both.

Is not this inconsistency and excuse what the psychologists call a “defense mechanism”? And is not that mechanism unconsciously built up to cover embarrassment? Sex taboo is still far reaching in spite of modern education. So it is not uncommon to find people who have long ago accepted and acted upon the principle of controlled parenthood in their own lives, but who shrink from the possibility of having that acceptance made publicly noticeable. They even dread a discussion of the dire need of contraceptive knowledge among the ignorant, lest it be too compelling.

In other words, sex consciousness overwhelms conscience, which otherwise would be sensitive to human need and responsive to public welfare.

If this seems to you a precipitate inference, just run over the following résumé of our experience in various organizations.

It has been repeatedly proved at conventions that the members were ready to adopt endorsing resolutions, if only the leaders would permit their being discussed and voted upon. The story of the ways in which organization opinion has been actually suppressed by leaders is a significant phase of social history in this country.

At one great convention, when the large and representative resolutions committee had decided to recommend a resolution, the officers, by dint of prolonged effort into the small hours of the night, coerced the committee into reversing its decision. At another, when it became evident that a resolution would be carried if discussed on the floor, the officers, by appealing to administration loyalty, succeeded in preventing a vote to permit discussion. At another, after being refused by a small resolutions committee and the board of directors, the resolution was brought up from the floor when a full third of the delegates were present, and was carried unanimously. At another, after the resolution had been carried by a sizable majority of the members, the leaders manoeuvered a vote to rescind. At another, over six hundred delegates voted to ask their directors to put this subject on the official program of the next year’s convention. It has not yet been done, though two years have elapsed.

Over and over at meetings of various sorts, the audience has been asked, “How many of those present want the laws suppressing birth control information retained.” And hardly a hand has been raised. “How many want them repealed?” And nearly every hand has come up.

Ironically enough, on several occasions, the very leaders who have prevented any convention endorsements of legislation to free birth control knowledge or even the recognition of the principle of controlled parenthood, have not hesitated to come to the Director of the Voluntary Parenthood League, with this sort of request. “Do you mind telling me what are the most up-to-date contraceptives, and what doctors give the best scientific instructions on methods?” They hasten to add that personally they are in full sympathy with our movement, and usually they want the information for a daughter or a friend, or some one near and dear, whom they wish to have the best knowledge.

The above is a sad story, and the only reason for telling it is to understand what it implies.

In the light of modern psychology, it is understandable why groups, i.e., audiences and delegates, are ready to vote for a resolution, while leaders are loath to initiate or permit action. Whenever any question induces the sort of embarrassment that emanates from sex consciousness, it is inevitably easier to act as one of a group than to act by one’s self. Yet leaders, just because they are such, have exceptional opportunity to let their opinions be of service to humanity. And is not the obligation of mature minds to see to it that, so far as possible, such inhibitions are not allowed to interfere with being just and generous to one’s fellows?

The Congressmen who are now being asked to pass the Cummins-Vaile Bill are tempted to move all too slowly, because they have precisely these same inhibitions that have afflicted the leaders of organizations. The one thing that will most easily inspire Congressmen to move quickly in this matter, is to be relieved in their own minds, by assurance from just such leaders as you, that they will be doing wisely and well to vote for this bill. By shedding your own inhibitions for the sake of others, you will distinctly help Congressmen to shed theirs.

The tests to which some of the leaders have been put, especially among the women’s organizations, have brought forth some ludicrous moments. For instance the National League of Women Voters has circulated “A Pledge For Conscientious Citizens,” written by its President, Mrs. Maud Wood Park, which included this item: “To obey the law even when I am not in sympathy with all its provisions.”

This pledge, if applied to the laws prohibiting access to contraceptive knowledge, looks comic indeed, for the National League of Women Voters is made up of women who very obviously have not the remotest intention of abiding by those laws. They belong for the most part to the same general class as that which formed the basis of the report issued by the Bureau of Social Hygiene, of which Dr. Katherine Bement Davis is the executive secretary; this report gave answers to a questionnaire sent to 1000 married women, mostly college graduates, in which 74% said they used contraceptive methods.

When a National Conference on Law Enforcement was called in Washington in 1924, in which representatives of all the leading women’s organizations took part, inquiry was made of the program committee as to whether there would be discussion of the enforcement of the law which is more broken than any other in the United States, not excepting the prohibition law, namely, the law forbidding access to contraceptive knowledge. The inquiry produced consternation. The enforcement of that law was not so much as mentioned on the program. The laxity of officials and the indifference and criminality of citizens regarding other laws came in for due attention, but not this one—horrors, no! It reminds one of the little girl who had been brought up in luxury, and who had never experienced any method of transportation except her little perambulator and the family limousine. She was making her first trip with her father in a street car, a very crowded one, and she piped up, “Father, there are too many people in this car.” “Yes, my dear, shall we get out?” “Oh, no, father, not us.” So the conscientious women wanted thorough-going discussion of law enforcement, but not that one. Perish the thought!