It is noteworthy that this Resolution by doctors did not take a “doctors only” stand. A loop-hole in the California law has allowed the establishment of a “Mother’s Clinic.” It started its service in Los Angeles early in 1925 with Dr. H. E. Brainerd, former President of California State Medical Association as Medical Director, and a clinical and consulting staff of eight other physicians. The California statute forbids anyone to _offer_ his services in any way, to aid in the prevention of conception, but it does not forbid the giving of information if _asked_. In three states effort has been made to introduce laws when none existed before, forbidding the giving of contraceptive information, or to make existing laws still more repressive. Illinois and Virginia were instances of the former, and Pennsylvania of the latter sort. These bills all died in Committee, thanks to the strong protests they aroused from representative and influential citizens. The Illinois measure was modelled upon the New York law, and was introduced in the winter of 1918. Professor James A. Field of Chicago University and Dr. Charles Bacon of the Chicago Medical Institute, both of them representing the Chicago Citizens Committee (for birth control) appeared at the Hearing against the bill. The Illinois Medical Society also sent Dr. C. L. Taylor and Dr. Deal to oppose it. Effective lobbying was done before the Hearing, and by the time that was held, the interest was so great that the session was carried over into the evening. In conversation with members of the Legislature individually, it was evident that they had no idea that the passage of the measure would mean that it would be unlawful for anyone, even themselves to get the simplest and most commonly used sorts of preventive such as are sold at all drugstores. Professor Field and the physicians enlightened them on this and many other points, with the result that the bill was not reported out. It is significant that the way a measure of this sort is presented to a legislator makes such a difference in his opinion of its merit. A proposition to make obscenity less prevalent wins sympathy at once, and if there is no mention made of the fact that it also will forbid the securing of scientific hygienic information for utilization in normal private life, the obscenity point carries the legislator along to approve of the bill. But when he sees the real facts about such legislation, he thinks twice, and thinks sanely. It seems like a sound guess that Congress would likewise have thought sanely, if Comstock and those who rushed his bill through had given the members a chance to know the actual scope of the bill, and think twice. What a pity that no Professor Field and no level-headed doctors were on hand at the time to have saved the day in Washington in 1873, as they did in Illinois in 1918!