Our next effort was to get sufficient and important backing from the medical profession of the State to influence Dr. Smith of the Assembly to sponsor the amendment. We did get the Health Board of the Academy of Medicine of New York City to endorse it. (The Academy later denied having endorsed this particular bill.) Doctors of national reputation wrote urging Dr. Smith to introduce it. Thousands of slips were signed urging the measure. The amendment in the form of petitions, was signed by doctors, judges, economists, editors, department of health officials, nurses, settlement workers, prominent philanthropists, clubs and club women and many hundreds of voters in the State of New York. All these data were presented as a background to the lawmakers. _Dr. Smith refused on the ground of levity from his associates._ It seems to take more than a “doctors only” inducement to offset the psychology which envelopes any proposition to legislate on birth control. The report concludes as follows: Mrs. Sanger and the Committee approached Mr. Jesse of New York, a very able and prominent member of the Assembly and also conversant with the righteous and urgent need of such legislation. He considered the question and finally decided that he could not sponsor the amendment. This decision was given after he had consulted party leaders in New York. Personally many of these law makers believe the measure of great benefit, but the party whip cuts too deeply for courageous action. The Session drew to a close without the introduction of the amendment. Again when the Connecticut limited bill (restricted to doctors and nurses) was up for its first Hearing, the newspapers were full of the same old pattern remarks from the objectors, and again the _Birth Control Review_ reported that the objections were that it “was against the law of nature, that it was atheistic, that it struck at the foundations of Christian family life, and that it was an insult to womanhood.” There was no sign that the objectors lessened or modified their opposition in any way because the proposed bill was a limited one. In 1923 when the Rosenman Bill, the most limited of any yet proposed, was defeated by the Committee on Codes, Mrs. Annie G. Porritt, managing editor of the _Birth Control Review_, made this comment in the magazine: “How can I wait for the laws to be changed? It means my life now. If I don’t get help in a few years I shall be dead.” This is the cry that comes to Mrs. Sanger from all parts of the United States. But this cry had no effect on the Codes Committee of Albany, when in executive session they killed the Rosenman Bill only a few minutes after they had heard the most convincing arguments for its passage. If the action of our legislators were swayed by reason there could have been hope for a better outcome; but it is not reason but politics to which the Assemblymen were giving heed.