How it came about that information concerning one item of science became a criminal indecency—Anthony Comstock’s blundering bequest to the people—Congress an unwitting partner—States hastily followed suit—United States the only country to class contraceptive information with penalized indecency—Legislation aimed at indecency but hit science—Europe laughs at our “Comstockery”—Documentary proof that Comstock and his successor, Sumner, did not expect laws to prevent doctors from giving and normal people from using contraceptive instructions. III. IS ENFORCEMENT POSSIBLE? 46 Relatively few indictments in over fifty years—Ulterior motive in many of those—Post Master General Hays’s leaning toward revision—Post Master General Work’s gesture for enforcement—Clinic reports and medical research data unlawfully published and mailed—Misleading criminal advertisements go unpunished—Government itself breaks the law—Forbidden books found in Congressional Library—Senators and Congressmen willing to break law, but hesitate to revise it. PART TWO WHAT CHANGES IN THE LAWS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED? I. THE TWO FIRST FEDERAL EFFORTS 63 The big repeal petition of 1876 started by National Liberal League—Comstock’s obscenity exhibit wins again—Sanger arrests crystallize growing movement for repeal of law—National Birth Control League founded March, 1915, first organization of the sort in the United States—Repeal bills drafted—Petitions circulated—Noted English sympathizers help. II. BEATING AROUND THE BUSH WITH STATE LEGISLATION 72 Interest caused by Mrs. Sanger’s arrests caused much activity despite war-time conditions—First repeal bill initiated by National Birth Control League in New York Legislature—Law makers mostly in favor privately, but publicly opposed or evasive—Dr. Hilda Noyes’s experiment in New York village proving that ordinary people want laws changed—Legislator justifies state repressive laws so long as federal law stands as example—Bills introduced in New York, California, New Jersey and Connecticut—The “doctors only” type of bill appears—Further limitations—Efforts toward freedom stimulate reaction toward stiffer repression in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Virginia—All fail—Fallacy that limited bills win legislators more than freedom bills. III. GOING TO THE POINT WITH A FEDERAL BILL 94