The first prerequisite to satisfactory study of any subject is free access to the knowledge of it, and that necessitates the _unrestricted_ interchange of experience and information among scientific men. That is not allowed now upon the subject of methods of birth control. We are not in a position where we can freely determine the merits and demerits of the subject. It is not that methods of birth control are not discussed and practiced; they are, everywhere. But the facts—and the fiction—are passed from individual to individual, ignorantly, crudely, unsatisfactorily and in ways that are often vicious. It is only scientific decent discussion of the subject that is prevented, the sort of discussion that is necessary and can only be had, when it is _untrammeled_ among self-respecting men, who can bring to its consideration knowledge and wisdom.... To see that this is brought about _as quickly as possible_ is a thing worthy of the vigorous efforts in that direction that are now being made. (The italics are ours.) The American Institute of Homeopathy, the national organization of the Homeopathic School of Medicine, has already passed a resolution in favor of the straight, clean repeal as provided in the Cummins-Vaile Bill. Several State and local medical associations have done likewise. And so far as the writer knows, there have been only two instances where a medical association has gone on record in favor of “doctors only” legislation. One was the Ohio State Medical Association, the other the New York City Academy of Medicine. The latter organization forms a rather striking instance of the way forceful leadership and minority opinions can be made to dominate a membership which is either passive or holds other views. Early in 1920, the Public Health Committee of the Academy was asked to endorse the straight repeal measure, which later became the Cummins-Kissel Bill. The Committee had twenty-nine members; the question was referred to a sub-committee of five, which presently reported against endorsing the bill, and the report was accepted by the Health Committee. The subcommittee did not approve, On the grounds that such amendment would remove every obstacle to the indiscriminate distribution of information relating to and advertisements of methods for prevention of conception, both from lay and professional sources; but we are in favor of amending the existing law in such a way that it would contain the principle, that nothing in the obscenity law shall apply to duly licensed physicians, licensed dispensaries, and to the public health authorities in connection with the discharge of their respective duties in protecting the health of patients and of the community.