Compare this last statement about not speaking on behalf of millions, with the seventh item from Miss Laughlin’s testimony quoted above in which she asks the Committee to consider “the millions” who are, she asserts, “grateful for this provision” in the present law which denies them access to knowledge. Compare also her statement of her individual experience with “hundreds of mothers” who “do not want this information” with the experience of both the New York and the Chicago Clinics, in which the proportions of Catholic women who request contraceptive instructions is sizable. The New York Clinic reports the percentage as thirty-two, and the Chicago Clinic as thirty. However, any divergence of testimony that there may be as to whether Catholics want or will utilize contraceptive information is rather beside the point so far as Congress and the bill are concerned. The issue is not as to whether individuals or groups want this knowledge but as to whether anyone who does want it shall have his right to get it recognized by law. The Chairman of the Hearing allowed a rebuttal to the Catholic testimony by the Director of the Voluntary Parenthood League to be filed as part of the Hearing report. It reads as follows: The question in the bill is not the control of conception but the right of the citizen to have access to scientific knowledge. The utilization of that knowledge is left entirely to the individual. Most of the testimony presented by the Catholic speakers is irrelevant. They argued the question of birth control, which is not per se before Congress. If the Catholics could persuade some one to introduce a bill which would make the control of conception a crime, the arguments against birth control would be genuine, but without such a bill they are not. It would seem doubtful as to whether leaders in the Catholic Church would wish, on second thought, to put themselves on record as opposed to the principles of freedom as to belief and action in private life. As they wish to conserve these principles as applied to their own right to teach and preach their beliefs, they may well take thought about trying to utilize law to suppress the right of others to do the same. There are about 18,000,000 Catholics in this country. As, therefore, they form less than one-sixth of the population, their protest against the Cummins-Vaile bill amounts to a demand that the laws of the country should be made to reflect the religious creed of a small minority.