form, and I will ask that the original bill be printed in the record at

this point.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included in the record.

(The bill is as follows:)

[H. R. 11082, 72d Congress, 1st Session]

A BILL To amend section 305 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and sections 211, 245, and 312 of the Criminal Code, as amended

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subdivision (a) of section 305 of the tariff act of 1930, and sections 211, 245, and 312 of the Criminal Code, as amended, are each amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "The provisions of this section shall not apply (1) to information relating to the prevention of conception if published either within or without the United States by any governmental agency, medical society, medical school, or medical journal, or if reprinted, after such publication, by any person or organization whatever; nor (2) to such information if sent by any licensed physician, hospital, or clinic to any patient thereof, or to any other licensed physician, hospital, or clinic; nor (3) to information regarding the name and address of any licensed physician, hospital, or clinic giving advice relative to the prevention of conception, if such physician, hospital, or clinic is situated in the State, Territory, District of Columbia, or foreign country to which such information is sent; nor (4) to any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing that may be used for the prevention of conception if sent to any bona fide wholesale or retail dealer in medical supplies, or to any licensed physician, hospital, or clinic, or if sent by any licensed physician to any patient of said physician."

Mr. McCORMACK. What are those changes?

Mr. HANCOCK. At the bottom of the first page, in line 10, strike out, after the word "journal," all of the remainder of the line. On page 2, line 1, strike out all of the line through the semicolon and before the last word "nor." In line 12 on page 2, strike out the words "wholesale or retail dealer" and insert in lieu thereof the word "druggist." In line 12, between the word "supplies" and the word " or," insert the following: "for use in his legitimate prescription business."

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Hepburn, you are recognized. Please give your name and whom you represent to the reporter, for the record.

STATEMENT OF MRS. THOMAS N. HEPBURN, HARTFORD, CONN., LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOR BIRTH CONTROL

Mrs. HEPBURN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want to make it quite clear what our committee represents. Last year some of our opponents said that we were interested in this matter for commercial reasons. We are not. None of the members of our organization, none of our officers, are interested in the matter for commercial reasons. We simply believe in birth control. I think that, as I read the names of the doctors of our Federal Advisory Committee, you will realize that some of the most representative medical men, not only in this country but in the world at large, are interested and are giving us their support.

Our Federal Medical Advisory Committee consists of the following:

J. Dellinger Barney, M. D., Boston, Mass., urological department, Massachusetts General Hospital.

John R. Caulk, M. D., St. Louis, Mo., professor of clinical genitourinary surgery Washington University Medical School.

Ross McC. Chapman, M. D., Towson-Baltimore, Md., professor of psychiatry in University of Maryland School of Medicine and College of Physicians and Surgeons in Baltimore.

John F. Erdmann, M. D., New York City, professor of surgery, New York PostGraduate Medical School.

John Favill, M. D., Chicago, Ill., associate clinical professor of neurology, Rush Medical College; attending neurologist Cook County Hospital.

Francis R. Hagner, M. D., Washington, D. C., professor of genitourinary surgery, George Washington University Medical School,

John Hartwell, M. D., New York City, consulting surgeon at Bellevue, Presbyterian, Lincoln, Reconstruction, and Memorial Hospitals, fellow of American College of Surgeons.

Frank Hinman, M. D., San Francisco, Calif., urologist in charge, University of California Hospital.

J. Shelton Horsley, M. D., Richmond, Va., surgeon, St. Elizabeths Hospital. Clarence B. Ingraham, M. D., Denver, Colo., professor gynecology and obstetrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine.

Smith Ely Jelliffe, M. D., New York City, specialist in neurology and psychiatry.

James R. McCord, M. D., Atlanta, Ga., professor obstetrics and gynecology, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.

Stuart McGuire, M. D., Richmond, Va., surgeon in charge at St. Luke's Hospital; consulting surgeon, Memorial Hospital.

Adolf Meyer, M. D., Baltimore, Md., psychiatrist in chief, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

William Allen Pusey, M. D., Chicago, Ill., former president American Medical Association.

Alexander Randall, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa., professor of urology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

W. F. Shallenberger, M. D., Atlanta, Ga., fellow of American College of Surgeons, Atlanta.

John H. Stokes, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa., member of committee of experts on syphilis, League of Nations Health Organ, 1928-29; professor of dermatology and syphilology, University of Pennsylvania.

Fred. J. Taussig, M. D., St. Louis, Mo., professor of clinical gynecology and obstetrics, Washington University Medical School.

Norris W. Vaux, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa., Philadelphia Lying-in Hospital; clinical professor of obstetrics, Jefferson Medical School of Philadelphia. William H. Welch, M. D., Baltimore, Md., Dean of American Medicine and founder of the medical faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Ira S. Wile, M. D., New York City, fellow of American Medical Association, member of American Orthopsychiatric Association.

Milton C. Winternitz, M. D., New Haven, Conn., dean of Yale University School of Medicine.

The Federal law at the present time tries to enforce ignorance, ignorance on matters that are of vital importance to people. Any law which tries to compel ignorance is under suspicion, and especially this law.

The law was designed to promote morality through fear and ignorance and it has failed. Any morality worthy of the name must, to be efficient, be based on enlightenment.

We are asking you gentlemen to help us change this law in order that the morality, the health and the happiness of the people of this country may be promoted.

I should like to introduce Mrs. Margaret Sanger, who as a trained nurse became convinced of the importance of this work and has devoted her life to the cause of birth control.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to hear Mrs. Sanger.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARGARET SANGER, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOR BIRTH CONTROL, NEW YORK CITY

Mrs. SANGER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, first, may I thank you in the name of our committee for your kindness and consideration in giving us so much of your valuable time this morning.

I also wish to assure you that were it not for our deep conviction that the bill we are trying to persuade you to enact into law, means so very much to millions of women in the country, we would not worry or trouble you to give us time at this particular period of mental distress, in the hurry of your own work.

This bill directly affects 25,000,000 married women of child-bearing age in this country. It indirectly affects the health and the future development and the education of 45,000,000 children in this country, of which 10,000,000 are handicapped, mentally or physically, according to the reports given at the White House conference called by President Hoover last year.

More than 1,400 experts reported that these 10,000,000 handicapped children were handicapped because of conditions of poverty, ignorance, or neglect. And yet, Mr. Chairman, no fundamental cure was offered to prevent the coming of 10,000,000 more children who will eventually be handicapped, from causes of ignorance, poverty, and neglect.

Because of the controversial nature of this subject, commonly known as birth control, I wish to tell you something about its generalapplication.

This movement in its modern state began in this country in 1914. I myself, as a mother of 3 children, a member of a large family of 11, and a trained nurse, early came to the conclusion from my own experience in the slum districts of New York City, that this was one of the most vital factors in maternal health and in the health of children.

I found everywhere women who were seeking some means, some knowledge of what they could do to prevent the coming of other children whom they knew, owing to their own physical defects, they were unable to bring into the world in a healthy condition; or, owing to their husband's economic circumstances, they would be unable to provide for.

So I began to wonder if we could not do something about this law, which was passed by Congress in 1873, nearly 60 years ago. With all the advance that women have made and with all the advance of our charities and our philanthropies and with all the billions that are spent upon disease and defects, delinquency and dependency, we still allow-in fact we almost force married persons who continue in their normal, marital lives, to bring into the world children for whom they themselves could not provide.

So, in order to stir up interest in this question and to get this law changed, it was necessary to organize public sentiment, which has now grown into the birth-control movement.

Birth control is the conscious control of the birth rate by means that prevent the conception of human life. We emphasize "pre

vent"; not interrupt, not destroy. It does not mean abortion. It does not mean the interruption of life after conception occurs. There is no more an interruption of life or a destruction of life in preventing conception than in remaining single or living in abstinence or celibacy. Physiologically speaking, there is no difference.

We say "control." When we control, we do not have to limit any more than when you control your furnace you have to put the fire out. We control the furnace according to the heat that we desire to maintain in the home, according to the season, according to the hour of the day or night. You control your motor car, but you do not have to stop the engine.

So, in controlling the size of the family or controlling the birth rate, we control it in accordance with the mother's health, in consideration of the quality of inheritance that we are going to pass on to our children, in consideration of the father's income anl his earning capacity.

This law, Mr. Chairman, was put upon the statute books at a time when there was very little recognition of the value of the practice of family limitation, when there was very little knowledge of the technique of contraception.

Birth control or prevention of conception was classed in the obscenity clause with abortion, pornography, and indecency; and it does not belong there.

There was no exemption for physicians. There was no exemption for hospitals or dispensaries.

Mr. Chairman, when that law was passed, it practically closed the avenues of knowledge to the medical profession in this country; it closed out knowledge of research that has been going on in other

countries.

It has left us, in so far as the control of child bearing is concerned, practically as in the days of barbarism or savagery. Furthermore, to all intents and purposes, the day that law was passed, women were placed in the category of child-bearing machines. Under this law they practically became conscript mothers.

President Hoover in his address before the White House con ference said:

"Let no one believe that these are questions which should not stir a nation; that they are below the dignity of statesmen or governments. If we could have but one generation of properly born, trained, educated, and healthy children, a thousand other problems of government would vanish. We would assure ourselves of healthier minds in more vigorous bodies to direct the energies of our Nation to yet greater heights of achievement. Moreover, one good community nurse will save a dozen future policemen."

There are altogether seven very definite reasons-perhaps morebut I shall take up only seven, why we claim that birth control should be practiced.

First. Wherever there is a transmissible disease, either the husband or the wife suffering from insanity, feeblemindedness, epilepsy, or any other form of transmissible disease, neither of those persons should consider being a parent.

Second. In conditions where the mother or the woman has a temporary disease, such as tuberculosis or a heart or kidney disease,

pelvic deformity, goiter, and various other conditions, pregnancy becomes a great hazard to the woman's life. We claim that that mother should be protected by having contraceptive information so that she can regain her health before she takes upon herself the burden of pregnancy.

Third. Where parents though seemingly normal themselves, yet have already given birth to defective children, children with cleft palates, children that are subnormal, that are deaf and dumb, we claim that just for the good of the State those parents should refrain from further child bearing, even in spite of the great desire and hope for a normal child.

Fourth. Every mother should safeguard her health as well as that of her unborn child by spacing the births of children for a period of from two to three years.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the days are past when it was a very easy matter for women to give birth to children, as it was two or three generations ago. To-day it is known that the whole organism of a woman's life, her nervous organism, is quite different from what it was in her grandmother's days, and child bearing is a greater hazard to-day than it ever was before. In many, many cases, it leaves her not only in a precarious condition at the time, but often in a damaged condition for the future.

We ask that she be able to recuperate from that ordeal, to take the time to enjoy her baby and to take the time to prepare herself physically and mentally and spiritually for the coming of the next child that she may wish to have. That means a spacing of from two to three years between children.

Doctor Woodbury, of the United States Children's Bureau, published some very interesting data where he clearly shows that too short an interval between childbirths markedly affects the infant death rate. Where the interval between births is three years, the infant death rate is 86.5 (per 1,000 births); when the interval is two years, the rate is 98.6; and when it is only one year, the infant mortality goes up to 146.7. Certainly a very striking increase.

Fifth. There are economic considerations. We believe that it is unfair, that it is not right, for people to have children for whom they can not provide, and it is just as unfair for a man and a woman to have children that society or the community or their older children have to provide for as it is for one country to spill over the other country's border. It is just the same morally.

We know that in our work we have had women come to us who 10 years ago were unable to provide for 4 or 6 children and who to-day have 12 or 15 which the community has been providing for and taking care of.

Mr. Chairman, we found in our records that most of these children have to go out to work, have to compete with their father in the labor market just as soon as they get old enough to get a labor certificate from the community.

We claim that our young people, while they may marry, and it might be advisable for them to marry early, should wait until they are fully complete in their development, through the adolescent period, before they become parents. We believe it would do away with a great many questions of immorality, promiscuity, and various