Very few Congressmen have even the partial excuse of belonging to a church which disapproves the scientific control of parenthood. In this connection it is interesting to note that a Catholic member who began by saying, “Even if I had no religion at all I should oppose your outrageous idea,” ended by asking for our literature and admitting he was relieved to find that we did not seem to be, as he had thought, an immoral lot who were assaulting marriage and the home; and he recognized the fact that our proposed change in the law was merely to make access to information legal, not to compel people to use it, and that, therefore, the change would not be an intrusion upon any one’s religious faith.” Sound argument and indisputable facts made very perceptible headway for the bill as the interviews accumulated. But the one snag which has always entangled the best of logic is the fact that the nature of the subject embarrasses Congress and therefore inhibits action, even though reason urges action. Over and over again have suggestions been made by members of Congress for trying to accomplish the repeal without having it show. Some of these suggestions have already been noted. Another came from one of the Republican leaders in the House who said, “If only you could think some innocuous _other_ way to _amend_ the present statutes, you could slip your clause _out_ at the same time and it would go easily.” Another prominent member of the House advised, “Get your action at the same time that the proposed amendment is presented to add moving picture reels to the list of articles proscribed in the obscenity laws. While they add films, you quietly subtract ‘preventing of conception.’” A very well known Senator thought it might be “slipped through” as an amendment to the proposed bill to extend Post Office censorship to race track betting news, if that measure should reach the floor. (It died in committee.) None of these indirect methods has seemed wise procedure, partly because the little subterfuge would not work, and when once discovered would produce a situation even less to be desired than that induced by plain lack of courage to introduce the straight bill, but chiefly because indirection seems inherently unworthy, when it is devised to cover an attitude that is not in itself thoroughly creditable. Very great effort has been made to divert the members of Congress who are suffering from this undue embarrassment by urging them to give impersonal consideration to the justice and wholesomeness of the bill, and by emphasis on the fact that the bill does not deal with a new and untried idea but only reflects a condition in American life that has long been an actuality.