A few years ago there was much heated assertion current among “radicals” about how church and State, and especially how “big business” wanted to suppress the knowledge of birth control; how the church (meaning mostly the Roman Catholic church) wanted more souls born, at no matter what cost, so they could be counted in the fold; how the militarists wanted more “cannon-fodder”; how the “interests” wanted more “wage-slaves” to exploit; and how the “government” wanted more millions of citizens to build up and fight for a State that would be dominant in the world; and how “politics,” the servant of all these “tyrannies,” was the force which would hold birth control progress back, in any attempted effort at legislation. But “politics,” as represented by the men in Congress, whose views have been sampled in the last six years, does not act at all in accord with the pattern laid out for it by the “radical.” Politics, that is, political organization, re-acts just about as the individual men do. It squirms at the idea of any constructive service regarding the release of birth control information from legal ban, and the only use it has for the subject at all is a means of damning a political opponent, or rather to threaten to use it thus, in the event that other ammunition fails. If the hypothesis of the “radicals” had been sound, there would surely have been some evidence of it among the 435 men who constitute Congress. Some interest would have been shown in having the present suppressive laws enforced, but as a matter of fact, not a vestige of any such interest has been found, and there has been a general admission that the laws do not and cannot work. Occasional, feeble and ignorant remarks about race suicide are the nearest approach to an interest in making the laws effective, that has been discernible in Congress. An extreme example of this false assumption as to why politics has thus far balked at helping to repeal the suppressive laws, is found in an editorial signed by Margaret Sanger, in the Birth Control Review of May, 1921. It was written after the first short effort to induce the New York Legislature to pass a “doctors only” bill, and was apropos of the facts that one Assemblyman who had promised to introduce the bill had backed out, “after consulting with some of the leaders of the Assembly who strongly advised” him not to do it, as it would do him “an injury” that he “could not overcome for some time”; that another Assemblyman, who was a physician, had “refused on the ground of levity from his associates”; and that a third had decided against doing it “after consulting with party leaders in New York.” Part of this editorial comment was as follows: