It has been foolishly and falsely stated recently that I have a strong feeling against Margaret Sanger. I have none but kindness and regard for Mrs. Sanger, but to the principles she upholds I am unalterably and as strongly as lies in my nature opposed.

Gentlemen, this must be borne in mind: That what the Government sanctions becomes the rule of our young people. When we had prostitution in Maryland, in Spring, Dallas, Raborg, and Josephine Streets, I heard the argument often, "The Government sanctions it and it must be right." Our judges used to meet and fine the madams $5 and then let them go about unmolested in their illegal trade. It would be an awful mistake to put such a burden on our Federal Government, already so heavily overburdened. This bill would make it possible for a drug store say in Hawaii, or a pseudo-medical journal in any of our States-I think more particularly of Hawaii because the status of morals there is more prominently before us-to advertise wares and to pass literature relating to this subject in a seductive way that might flood the land, tending further to break down the morals of our young people, suffering already too much at the hands of the uncontrolled movies. My friends returning from abroad tell me latterly that they have been shocked by the London drug stores which display and recommend contraception devices.

It will undoubtedly also foster the trade of the abortionist, because it is in itself a quasi abortion when one begins to interfere with those natural functions and relations of life which involve its most profound affections, it being but a short step, if such interference has not prospered, to call in the abortionist to finish the act and to bring about the previous status.

We doctors are abundantly able to regulate this condition so far as they need regulation in disease. I meet it in my daily practicenot every day, not every week, I am thankful to say, but from time to time patients come for advice on this very subject, and are often easily satisfied, as was one that I met yesterday. A little earnest talk and she changed her viewpoint.

I beg any of you who may be doubtful about this matter not to take such a plunge in disrupting, as so many believe it will disrupt, our morals by advocating this measure, but, being uncertain, to vote against it.

Gentlemen, I was thinking, coming over from Baltimore this morning, how curious it is that these moral questions reflect themselves into the physical. The review of the matter in all its bearings, and some of the things that I read not only filled me with abhorrence, but I actually felt nauseated.

I thank you for this opportunity of addressing you.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Doctor, I would like to ask you one question, if you please. Of course, we all know of your very high standing in the profession. Have you any knowledge of what percentage of the commonly used contraceptives are effective in preventing pregnancy?

Doctor KELLY. No; there is no way of securing such figures; the matter is so secret. I do know that they often fail. I would not say that they fail in any large percentage.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. That question was prompted by your statement that the general use of them might lead to more abortions. That was why I asked the question.

Mr. HAWLEY. Suppose legislation of this character were enacted, and the various instruments and drugs were made practically available generally; what effect would that have on the morals of the youth, in your judgment?

Doctor KELLY. Unquestionably, sir, it would be a sanction for the act, and young people are talking very freely about these things to-day. That is induced by the movies they see and the novels they read, and unquestionably many young women would be led to take the next step. Passion is aroused, control is lost, and the act follows, under the assurance that it is safe.

Mr. McCORMACK. Doctor, what effect, in your opinion, would it have upon the unity and strength of the family life? I am not talking about a family; I mean throughout the Nation.

Doctor KELLY. It would contaminate and degrade it, and with the degradation of womanhood would come degradation of childhood, as in all those heathen countries I speak of; family life would descend to a level largely of mere sex gratification, with occasional childbirth, often unwanted.

Mr. McCORMACK. Have you any opinion as to what effects it would have physically upon a people?

Doctor KELLY. Morals generally would go.

Mr. McCORMACK. I agree with you; but I am referring to the physical effects of the use of contraceptives. Of course, that is an artificial and unnatural means of accomplishing self-satisfaction.

Doctor KELLY. It is not always observable, but it very often sets up local irritations and keeps up a sense of desire and lack of satisfaction; not exactly an inflamed condition, but a congestion of the parts.

Mr. McCORMACK. Self-abuse would be very harmful physically, also, would it not?

I

Doctor KELLY. Always.

Mr. McCORMACK. Is not this related to self-abuse?

Doctor KELLY. Yes.

Mr. WATSON. Doctor, you have stated the moral effect, in which agree with you. But the proponents of the bill have emphasized the statement that the protective use would decrease the population in the slums, and that would be some advantage to civilization. Do you believe in that theory?

Doctor KELLY. Mr. Congressman, from my earliest years I have associated intimately with the poorest people of the land. If they come into my office and are not able to pay for my services, I thank God that He sent them there, and I give them my best attention. They are not the people who pay attention to these things. It is the younger people, in the unmarried state, who want protection. It is the wealthy people who seek what they call their pleasures, and do not want to have them interfered with by the period of pregnancy and the nursing and care of the child afterwards. They are the ones who use them more.

Mr. WATSON. You think that the working people and the povertystricken people in the slums would not use these things?

Doctor KELLY. I do not say they never would. Some might, but not frequently; not in any considerable proportion.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Doctor Kelly, for your presence and for your contribution to the hearing.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, there are two ladies who would like about one minute each, just to register their protests.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. BURTON. I will ask you to hear Mrs. Robert J. Green, who represents the Catholic Daughters of America.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ROBERT J. GREEN, REPRESENTING CATHOLIC DAUGHTERS OF AMERICA

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am authorized to present this protest in the name of the supreme regent, Miss Mary C. Duffy, of the Catholic Daughters of America:

HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:

MAY 10, 1932.

The Catholic Daughters of America, an organization of 200,000 members in 45 States, Panama, and Puerto Rico, hereby register their protest against the passage of H. R. 11082, which seeks to liberalize the dissemination of birthcontrol propaganda and devices; and append hereto a copy of the resolution passed at its fourteenth biennial convention held in Atlantic City in July of 1931.

"Whereas the vicious and pagan propaganda of birth control has grown to formidable and dismaying proportions within the current year; and

"Whereas we realize the growing dangers to public health and morals, especially to our youth, and the increase of obscenity and pornography which will inevitably result in from this un-Christian teaching: Be it

66

'Resolved, That the Catholic Daughters of America, in convention assembled, hereby present their united protest against this evil and condemn it as contrary to the laws of God, nature, and common decency."

Respectfully submitted.

MARY C. DUFFY,

Supreme Regent Catholic Daughters of America. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your presence and for your contribution.

Who is your next witness?

Mr. BURTON. Miss Mary G. Kilbreth, representing the Woman Patriot Corporation and affiliated groups.

STATEMENT OF MISS MARY G. KILBRETH, REPRESENTING WOMAN PATRIOT CORPORATION

Miss KILBRETH. Mr. Chairman, I will not take your time to do more than put our corporation on record-the Woman Patriot Corporation, of which I am chairman of the board of directors.

We are working entirely in Federal legislation. We were opposed to the Gillette bill in the last Congress, and we are opposed to both the bills in this Congress.

I put a statement into the record yesterday at the Senate hearing, so I will not repeat that, as I do not want to duplicate the record. I simply wish to put our board of directors, who control our policy, definitely on record against this bill, largely on constitutional as well as moral grounds.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether you would consider it of any use to have a list of our board of directors and our officers. There are just 10 of us. We make no pretense to numbers whatever.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. If you desire to put their names in the record, you have that permission; and we thank you for your presence.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

OFFICERS

Mrs. Randolph Frothingham, president, Brookline, Mass.
Mrs. John Fremont Hill, vice president, Boston, Mass.
Mrs. Lewis C. Lucas, secretary-treasurer, Washington, D. C.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Mrs. Frederic Jay Cotton, Boston, Mass.

Mrs. Rufus M. Gibbs, Baltimore, Md.

Mrs. James Cunningham Gray, Boston, Mass.

Mrs. Paul Killiam, Cambridge, Mass.

Mrs. Frederic W. Longfellow, New York.

Mrs. Francis E. Slattery, Brighton, Mass.; and myself, chairman.

Miss KILBRETH. I just want to say that if any more testimony is desired as to our position, Senator Walsh of Massachusetts put quite a long statement by our secretary in the record on March 4, 1931. We have no sectarian aspect to our work whatever.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to file a statement by Mr. William F. Montavon, of the National Catholic Welfare Conference.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that may be done. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY WILLIAM F. MONTAVON, DIRECTOR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. Chairman, statements made by advocates of H. R. 11082 seem to imply that opposition to the bill is on religious grounds. Article 211 of the Federal criminal code does not embody or impose on any citizen any religious creed or doctrine. That article was enacted in 1873 to protect standards very generally established in the codes of the States the purpose of which was to protect the morals of youth and the interests of the family and the home. These standards in 1873 were in danger because of pernicious propaganda from abroad traceable in great measure to agitation accompanying the Marxist movement, which took form in the International Workingmen's Association organized in London in 1864, recognized at The Hague in 1872, and in the United States dissolved at Philadelphia in 1874. Just as this Federal law was originally adopted as a defense of social standards against the program of the first international it is now as a defense against the program of the Third International that I appeal to you to refuse to give support to this bill, the enactment of which would do untold damage to our social standards, would endanger the morals of youth, and threaten the family and the home with total disintegration.

This pernicious and vicious propaganda of birth control-of which this bill in its effects if passed would be a part-is absolutely at variance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, as is known of all men. The Catholic body of this country is fully entitled to be heard on the dangers to the public welfare, present and future, of our country involved in the enactment of this measure. The Catholic body of this country, shoulder to shoulder with its fellow citizens of every denomination, has defended the home and the family. We have devoted ourselves to the relief of human distress of every kind. Our nursing orders of men and women, our Catholic hospitals, homes, and houses of refuge have offered shelter to the distressed, old and young, of every and of no creed. In our own country we conduct and support 642 hospitals and an even greater number of clinics, 345 home schools for orphans, together with a large number of refuges for wayward boys and girls. Such experience qualifies us to speak and gives great experimental weight to our opposition to this measure.

I challenge the statement made here that 25,000,000 mothers indorse this bill and call attention to the fact that no evidence has been introduced in support of that statement.

I also challenge the statement that the medical profession desires the enactment of this bill and call attention to the lack of evidence in support of that statement.

I oppose this bill for the following reasons:

1. The enactment of this bill would remove from the Federal Criminal Code all reference to "any book or information relating to the prevention of conception." Doing this it would give to such books and information produced abroad freedom to pass through our customhouses and would extend to all such books and information imported or produced within the United States the protection of the interstate commerce act and of the post office laws and regulations. The passage of this bill would be in direct and explicit opposition to the laws of the majority of the States. It would practically be a call from our Federal Government to the States to lower their standards governing public morality.

I have compiled a brief summary of State legislation, the enforcement of which would be impossible or extremely difficult if this bill is enacted. I ask permission to file this summary for the use of the committee and for the record. Every State in the Union has laws protecting society against what tends to undermine public morals or to corrupt the morals of youth. I quote from a statute in force in the State represented in the United States Congress by the Senator who introduced S. 4436. The following is quoted from the statutes of West Virginia :

* *

or any

* * *

"If any person import, print, publish, sell, or distribute any book or other thing description manifestly tending to corrupt the morals of youth, or introduce into any family or place of education, or buy or have in his possession any such thing, for the purpose of sale, exhibition, and circulation, * * shall be confined in jail not more than one year and fined not exceeding $200." There is a statute like this in the State of every Senator on this committee How will your States enforce these statutes if the bill before us is enacted? 2. The enactment of this bill would prepare the way for an enterprise extending into every State and Territory, employing the methods of the chair. store and mail-order house, disseminating advertisements tending to corrupt the morals of youth and engaging on a vast scale in the business of preventing conception.

To regulate medical practice is a function of State governments. The enactment of this bill would remove from the States the power they now have to regulate the practice of medicine. The American Medical Association meeting recently at New Orleans went on record against this proposal. The medical profession has not indorsed this bill. Are you gentlemen prepared to recommend the enactment of this measure which is indorsed by neither the medical authorities of our country, who are the legitimate custodians of the health of the pcople, nor the organized religious bodies who are, under the State, the custodians of public morals?

I know that impressive lists of associations and individuals have been filed with this committee by those who advocate this bill. I call attention to the fact that only one or two of them went on record as indorsing H. R. 11082.

The enactment of this bill by the United States Congress would be a tyrannical invasion of the sovereignty of the States and of the rights of the people. I know that you have been told that the Federal statutes which this bill would amend impose undue restrictions on a practice which is permissible under the laws of a large number of States. I challenge the accuracy of that charge and call attention to the fact that no one authorized to speak for the medical profession has made it. The American Medical Association, the most representative body of medical practitioners in the United States, publicly repudiated this charge at the very time it was being made before this committee one week ago. The very day on which a gentleman from Baltimore took up the time of this committee with a curious apostrophe of what he called science, Rabbi Levinthal, of the Brooklyn Jewish Center, president of the Jewish Theological Seminary, is quoted in the New York Herald Tribune of May 12, 1932, as saying:

"The very breakdown of our civilization is tangible evidence of the results of science enthroned. * * * Men crave the message of the ancient Jewish masters. Our people yearn for the old word on new problems."

3. From statements made before this committee it is clear that the small group who advocate the enactment of this bill seek to produce, by legislative enactment, a condition in which population growth will be subject to control in the same manner as stock breeding. One speaker before you defended this control as being less inhuman than slaughter as had been practiced by savage tribes. It has been justly denounced by patriotic citizens as "barnyard morality."