Again the Catholic oracle is in error about the bill, when he says “it would legalize practices that are a perversion of the divine object of marriage.” He obviously means the control of conception. But the control of conception is entirely legal now in the United States, everywhere, except in the State of Connecticut. The passage of the Cummins-Vaile Bill will not affect its legal status a particle. The only thing that is now illegal the country over is the circulation of information as to how conception may be controlled. That is, the act of controlling parenthood is no crime, but finding out how is a felony. The bill a “direct insult to the motherhood of America.” How so? Are mothers insulted by having an opportunity to gain knowledge? And conversely, are they honored by being kept in compulsory ignorance? The Roman Catholics who spoke in opposition to the bill at the Hearings in 1924, claimed to represent several millions of individuals, but none of them gave any evidence that the individuals had been consulted, or had taken any mass action in conventions, meetings or the like. Leaders simply spoke for the members of the church, en masse, and assumed their opposition to the Cummins-Vaile Bill because the Church teaching has been that the control of conception is wrong. They discussed the question of birth control rather than the issue of the bill, which is only the right of the citizen to be able to find out, lawfully, what birth control is. It does not necessarily follow that Catholic citizens, who may most conscientiously believe and act upon what the church teaches regarding the utilization of birth control knowledge, are therefore opposed to freedom of access to the knowledge. Indeed there are some striking examples to the contrary, including a Catholic United States Senator. And the fact remains that the Church as such has not officially taken any stand against this bill. It has merely preached against birth control. It is interesting in this connection to note that in the last Congressional election, one of the leading Catholic clergymen in Denver openly advised his congregation to vote for the re-election of Mr. Vaile as he was valued far more for his stand on some other questions than he was disliked for his stand on this one question. During the month which followed Senator Cummins’ first introduction of the bill, he received but one protest against the measure and that was from Anthony Comstock’s successor, John S. Sumner. The Birth Control Herald had this to say regarding the letters the Senator received: