And further, one of these contraceptives was recommended by name in Mrs. Sanger’s pamphlet on family limitation, in which she described various methods. Since 1914 ten editions of this pamphlet have been sold or distributed. Many thousands of them have been sent through the mail. Mrs. Sanger herself stated at her Carnegie Hall meeting on her return from the Orient, that she had arranged to have an edition of this pamphlet printed in China. The Birth Control Review reported the publication of it in England also, and protested most vigorously because it had been suppressed under the British obscenity law. In all this widespread circulation of contraceptive advertisement and instruction, there was not even the endorsement of any physician quoted, say nothing of “personal prescription.” If the theory that there should be no information allowed except via a doctor’s prescription for the individual, has been so little adhered to by the very people who advance it, is it not futile to try at the eleventh hour to embody that theory in legislation? If the very people who advocate “doctors only” information are not willing to live up to it, who else could be expected to do so? How could anyone expect such legislation to be enforced? To begin the work for Birth Control by campaigning for unrestricted use of the mails would seem more like sinking Birth Control to a hopelessly commercial and empirical level than establishing it on a firm scientific basis, with the prospect of ever-increasing developments and improvements until the ideal contraceptives are obtained. As the government does not attempt to regulate by law what shall and what shall not circulate about other scientific subjects, there is no tenable reason why it should undertake to guide or protect this one part of science. Other scientific truths are not “reduced to a hopelessly commercial and empirical level” by being free from governmental barriers. A fair field and no favor is all that science needs. Now the League has reached a point where some amendment of the Federal law may aid rather than hinder its work. It has not worked to have restrictions on the mails and express companies swept away. But it does desire to free the medical profession for the new duties that it is anxious to see the doctors undertake, by making it possible for them to communicate freely with each other concerning facts and data of Birth Control, and also by enabling them to secure the material necessary for their prescriptions. Are laws made to “aid” the work of any particular organization, or are they for the benefit of the whole people?