The alleged persuasive character of the “doctors only” bill over the freedom bill was still undemonstrated, even with a married-persons-only clause thrown in for good measure in the way of limitations. The men were still afraid to stand for that or any other bill on the subject. “Politics” was still afraid. And the cause of the fear seemed clearly not to be that the bill provided this that or the other, in regard to birth control information, but that the bill brought up the question of birth control at all. That is the persistent sticking point with the man in politics,—nothing else. He feels embarrassed by the whole subject. He feels that it may possibly “queer him” or be used against him by his opponents in some way. And if he reaches the point where he admits the reasonableness of amending the laws to make them reflect the actual practice of the people, and decides that he might as well sponsor a bill for that purpose, then his more wary political associates, his party leaders, step in with restraining advice,—not because they have any really profound convictions on the question, or because they have any sincere opposition, but just because, as a very frank member of Congress explained it, “We have plenty of troubles of our own,—why should we add to the complications by queering ourselves with birth control?” And just here lies the crux of the whole legislation problem. However even if all propositions for the amendment of State laws were straight freedom bills, and even if the State legislators began to lose their fears enough to act there is one outstanding reason why it is folly to try to correct the conditions in the United States by a series of State bills. There are too many states. And even under fairly favorable conditions it would take too long, not to mention the effort and money needed to make twenty-four separate legislatures go through all the motions involved. Laws do not amend themselves. Many people have to work and work hard to get it accomplished. From the view-point of efficiency alone, State legislation is wasteful, so long as the Federal law remains unchanged; State legislation at best would be a slow enough process, but with the precedent of the Federal law still extant, it would be bound to be slower still. From the view-point of human suffering and ignorance, State legislation without Federal action also, is hardhearted and unintelligent; why break down the barriers to information slowly a state or two at a time and keep struggling worried parents in all the other states waiting for the information much of which they might have quickly by the passage of the Federal bill? And why keep scientists waiting all over the country for the right to import and otherwise order from publishers the books which only the passage of the Federal bill will let them secure lawfully, and subject them to picking up information locally or secretly? From the point of view of public morals, legislating a state at a time, even