Birth control laws : $b shall we keep them, change them, or abolish them — John Shaqi
Birth control laws : $b shall we keep them, change them, or abolish themDennett, Mary Ware
History
Birth control laws : $b shall we keep them, change them, or abolish them
Dennett, Mary Ware
Birth control; Birth control -- Law and legislation -- United States
No one answer covers all reasons—Quiet request to Congress for
repeal might have succeeded twenty years ago, before sensational
law-breaking created prejudice—Laws defied without first attempting
their repeal—Speeches and writings of early agitation not calculated
to induce Congressional initiative—Struggle announced in advance as
likely to be long and bitter “fight”—Shortage of funds for publicity
on behalf of bill the second reason for slowness of Congress—Third
and most dominant reason found to be general embarrassment over
subject—Distaste, inhibition and fear, in varying degrees almost
universal among Congressmen—Striking instances—Fears covered
careers, colleagues, families and constituents—Fear on behalf of
young girls greatest of all—Political opposition to birth control
legislation misinterpreted by “radicals”—Abortive attempt in Harding
presidential campaign to use his tentative interest in this bill
against him—Club women afflicted with inhibitions similar to those
of members of Congress—It is leaders, not members, who hold back
endorsement by large organizations—Organized labor women endorse
repeal ahead of club women.
VI. A “DOCTORS ONLY” FEDERAL BILL 200
“Doctors only” federal bill followed straight repeal bill just as
limited bills in states followed straight repeal bills—Advocated on
Margaret Sanger’s initiative—Provides medical monopoly of extreme
type—Arguments in its behalf analyzed and answered—Proponents
of “doctors only” bill do not live up to own demands for limiting
contraceptive instruction to personal service by doctors—Birth
control periodical carries thinly veiled advertisements for
contraceptives—Improved type of “doctors only” bill drafted by
George Worthington—Not so many loopholes and inconsistencies as in
first bill proposed, but still a special-privilege bill, and still
leaves subject classed with obscenity—Worthless as means of curbing
abuse of contraceptive knowledge—Clause permitting “reprints”
from medical and scientific journals practically breaks down all
restriction—Makes pretense at limitation a farce.
PART THREE
WHAT SORT OF LAWS DO THE PEOPLE REALLY WANT?
I. DO PHYSICIANS WANT A “DOCTORS ONLY” BILL? 219
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account