Just as limited or “doctors only” bills were proposed after the first freedom bills were introduced in the states, so also were they proposed for Federal legislation after the trail was first blazed to Congress by a Federal freedom bill. The special import of the “doctors only” idea in Federal legislation will be discussed in the next chapter in connection with the story of the Federal bill, through fundamentally the same considerations apply both to state and to Federal law. At this point it may be clarifying to take a look at certain happenings when the “doctors only” bills were being urged upon the state legislators, and when the public was being urged to support them. Those who have pushed these efforts to achieve limited legislation have repeatedly asserted that if the giving of information were restricted to physicians, and possibly to nurses, and given only to the married, and only on individual application, the legislators would be much more likely to pass the measure than if it were an “unlimited bill,” that is, a bill which would place this knowledge on just the same basis as any other knowledge so far as the law is concerned. But prophecy is one thing and history is another, and the facts in this case do not seem to bear out the prophecy. When the first of the “doctors only” bills was proposed to the Albany Solons in 1921, two years after the second straight repeal effort of the National Birth Control League, the pattern of legislative objection was not altered one whit. The situation was precisely the same as it was when the bill asked for freedom for all instead of special privilege for a group. Then and at every subsequent effort in any state, the newspapers have reported the same old set of remarks made by the few articulate objectors,—that it meant race suicide, that it was the same thing as abortion, that it would induce immorality, and that it was against religion. As late as the Hearing of 1925 the legislators were still offering the objections of “race suicide,” and that it would “increase immorality.” But in the later years the race suicide bogey has become rather less prominent,—perhaps because Holland and New Zealand were so often quoted that the legislators were obliged to concede that birth control and large increase in the population were compatible and often coincident. In every single instance there has been the same vulgar levity on the part of a few legislators, the same noisy objections from another small portion of them, and the same favorable or tolerant opinions on the part of the majority, but privately expressed rather than publicly, and the same hesitation to let their votes in Committee or in the legislatures reflect either the facts in their own private lives or their real opinion.