The fear that they would be exploited in the newspapers was assuaged as far as was possible by the assurance that they were not being interviewed for publication, that what was wanted was the quickest and quietest possible action by Congress, and that if they would simply introduce and pass the bill, a large part of the impetus to and need for agitation would be done away with, and then there would be no “noise” to fear, and they would have the satisfaction of having done a decent, needed act in a dignified way that would greatly redound to their credit. This assurance helped perceptibly in many instances, particularly in making them discuss the bill in private conversation without embarrassment or discomfort. The policy of not exploiting the views of the individual members of Congress in the newspapers, and especially of not giving the names of the few opponents who have made themselves ridiculous in interviews has been adhered to throughout the work. When they have put themselves on record as some of them did in discussion at the public Hearings on the bill, that is quite another matter. Also when the bill at the end of six years of effort was allowed to die in Committee, a report of the stand of each member of the Judiciary Committees was published in the Birth Control Herald for the information of those who had supported the campaign to pass the bill. It was not until February, 1922, that any newspaper articles on the work in Congress were sanctioned. Then a feature article was written for the New York (Sunday) Times and reprinted by arrangement in the St. Louis Globe Democrat. The following excerpts from it shed light on the situation as it was reported up to that date: The initial interviews served two purposes: one to give the Congressmen a realization that knowledge about the control of parenthood is just the same simple human necessity for all the people as it is for themselves and their own families; the other to enable us to find an advantageous sponsor for the measure. Most members were quite ignorant to the exact provisions of the present law and the way Anthony Comstock had originally lobbied the measure through. They didn’t know that his proposition had been the suppression of pornographic literature and pictures primarily, and that there had been no discussion on the floor of the inclusion of contraceptive knowledge in the bill, and that Congress as a whole did not know it had voted for a law to suppress it.