No one comprehensive answer can be given to the question as to why Congressmen have not yet acted on the removal of the chief of a set of laws which all of them know will inevitably be removed, and which all of them admit are not enforced now and never could be, and which they themselves, like most of the educated and privileged folk everywhere, have proceeded to break with impunity. However, the answer is not a complicated one. Part of the answer probably is that Congress was not quietly asked to do this thing many years ago, say fifteen or twenty, before the birth control movement had become a defiantly agitational matter, abounding in spectacular law-breaking, denunciatory meetings, jail sentences, hunger strikes, and general hullabaloo of the sort toward which most men in politics feel a stiff aversion if not actual antagonism. The birth control movement, as most of the Congressmen of the present generation have witnessed it, did not begin with any request for a change in the laws, but burst into flame about ten years ago with a sensational campaign to induce defiance of the laws on a large scale. It cannot be wondered at, since no one went to Washington then and concretely asked that a bill be introduced to change the laws, that Congressmen did not step forward on their own initiative and offer to do it. Their minds did not work that way. Instead, they merely looked upon all the “noise,” so far as they thought about it at all, as something with which they wanted to having nothing to do. It seems a fair guess that if in 1905 or thereabouts, when the effort of the seventies to repeal the entire Comstock obscenity statutes was well in the past, some group of “solid citizens,” lawyers, doctors, ministers and the like,—had gone to Washington and laid before Congress the fact that Comstock had obviously blundered when he included contraceptive information in the obscenity law, and that it was a very simple matter to correct the blunder,—it might have been done forthwith, without any particular self-consciousness or any struggle. But, of course, such a guess is incapable of proof, since no one tried the experiment at that time. And when it was tried in 1919, the later developments in the birth control movement had already stimulated and aggravated the aversion and inhibition on the part of the members of Congress which has ever since been the most serious barrier to progress. In looking back at some of the writings and utterances which appeared a decade ago, it is perhaps not surprising that many members of Congress looked askance when in 1919 they were asked to tackle the birth control question. For instance, “The Woman Rebel,” the paper which Margaret Sanger published and edited in 1914 in New York as her first message to the public, contained the following editorial announcements: “The aim of this paper will be to stimulate working women to think for themselves and to build up a conscious fighting character.