I am quite ready to be convinced that many of its members are dangerously sincere and are utterly convinced that the objects for which they work will save the Nation. What of it? Where on earth did the notion come from that sincerity was a sort of police pass which would admit the bearer through all restraining lines and permit him to pour kerosene on the conflagration? Would you have your appendix out at the hands of a sincere surgeon or ask a passionate architect to design the foundations of your cellar? And one of the chief difficulties for the interested citizen in this particular matter is that the proponents of the “doctors only” legislation give such a small part of the salient facts to the public in asking for support for their bills. Much is omitted which might radically alter the response to the request for endorsement, if it were but known. For instance, the public is being asked in widely circulated appeals to endorse the bill drafted by Mr. George Worthington, which is to be introduced into Congress as soon as possible. It may very likely be before Congress by the time these words are read. The statement which accompanies the request for endorsement is this: The object of this amendment (to Section 211 of the Penal Code) is to permit the mailing of contraceptive information and scientific reports by duly licensed physicians to bona fide patients, physicians and printers,—and to permit bona fide druggists, manufacturers and physicians to mail articles of contraception. A copy of the Worthington amendment is given. That is all. There is not a word about the fact that this is an amendment to the obscenity law, and that the subject of birth control is still left, a penalized indecency in that law. There is no suggestion given that this amendment is permissive legislation for a class privilege. There is no inkling given that it is legislation that could not possibly be enforced so as to exclude others beside those listed from using the mailing privilege. There is no statement explaining that there is no such thing in law as a definition as to what constitutes a “bona fide” “patient,” or “printer” or “manufacturer.” The public is merely asked to say yes to what looks, at first glance, like a most desirable thing. And apparently the public is being counted upon to say it, without a second glance or a pause for thoughtful inquiry.