| NDN | Photo Gallery | Documents | Classroom | Search |
 |
Birth Control TodayEditorialJanuary 9, 1937 Vol. 144, No. 2, P. 34 The birth-control movement has passed out of the first long phase of its development into a new and more respectable one. It is no longer primarily a struggle, a social and moral revolution productive of heroes and martyrs, police raids, recriminations, and hysterics. It has won through to what might be called a safe period—though the phrase must not be taken in its common or Roman Catholic sense. On the contrary, never did the cause of birth control show fewer signs of even temporary sterility. Its newly won security has given it an opportunity to do the work that it was founded to make possible. Actual education in birth-control methods, the control and standardization of contraceptive appliances, scientific experiment and the development of safer techniques—these are the functions it will concentrate on in the coming years. The roots of this change are imbedded partly in the long struggle itself, culminating in the successful fight conducted by Morris L. Ernst to establish by court decision the legal right of a physician to prescribe contraceptive measures and to transmit or receive contraceptive materials. But the change stems also from the evil years through which the country has just passed. Out of the lower depths of the depression arose a demand from sources that could not be ignored—public-health authorities, social workers, relief officials—that simple, safe, cheap methods of birth control be made available especially for the benefit of those on relief and the unemployed generally, and to all whose economic security was threatened. In some cities contraceptive advice was actually provided by the authorities. Even the Catholic church, sensitive to the pressures of the times, promoted the "safe period" theory and, by so doing, not only yielded an important doctrinal point but encouraged some fruitful research into the actual uses and limitations of the sterile segment of the menstrual cycle. A third reason for the emergence of the movement from its period of civil war and revolution is the steady work through thirteen years of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau—a record of persistent experimentation coupled with service to more than 56,000 patients. This work has gone on almost literally under fire. The material amassed will form an invaluable basis for the scientific and social work that remains to be done. For this, credit must go first to Margaret Sanger, whose valiant and stubborn fight made the whole development possible, and second to Dr. Hannah M. Stone, who has headed the bureau and directed its work. Now it is in a position to call and conduct such meetings as that just concluded in New York, the Conference on Contraceptive Research and Clinical Practice, at which reports were made by a group of some 200 leading biologists and physicians working in this field. Next week we plan to print an article by Dr. Stone analyzing the chief scientific achievements of the year. Meanwhile we note with satisfaction the emergence of the movement into the bright light of scientific acceptance and friendly publicity. |