Any hastily written, inadequate or spurious information that might be circulated would have to compete with all the best, carefully written authoritative publications from abroad, and all the writings of many excellent American physicians, who have long been ready to publish their wisdom on the subject. There are at least a dozen well known American physicians who have studied contraceptive methods for twenty-five years or so, and who are ready to do their part toward the education of the profession and of the public by publishing technical books and pamphlets for the physicians and simplified hygienic instructions for the laymen. The enactment of the Cummins-Vaile Bill would not prevent any one from securing direct advice from a physician, such as individual needs may require, but there would be every advantage in being able to supplement the instruction of a local physician by reading good books or pamphlets on the subject by some of the world’s best authorities, and vice versa. To argue as if the removal of the Federal ban would interfere with individual instruction is putting up a man of straw. Moreover if the opinion had been consistently held by the editor of the Birth Control Review that no one should receive any contraceptive instructions except those given to the individual by a physician making a “prescription to suit the individual idiosyncrasies,” and after making a “personal physical examination,” the Review would not have carried, as it did for many months, advertisements of contraceptives that were so thinly veiled as to deceive no one. They were advertised as antiseptics. Five such advertisements were in the very issue which contained the announcement of the new “doctors only” bill, and the arguments that no one should have instructions except personally from a doctor. Any reader of the magazine could order these contraceptives by mail from the firms which advertised them, and the orders would be filled, with no “personal prescription” or “physical examination” and with no medical endorsement of the methods. All five of the methods thus advertised may be very inadequate unless used in certain circumstances and combined with other safeguards. Yet the Review allowed its readers to run the risks, and took the profit from the advertisements. These advertisements were presently discontinued, after the magazine had been seriously criticized for publishing them.