Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control," Apr-July 1916.
Typed speech. Source: Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress , Margaret sanger Papers Microfilm, LCM 129:12 .
Much of this text was drawn from the Hotel Brevoort SpeechJan. 17, 1916. The draft was one of the texts Sanger used during her American speaking tour in 1916. For other speeches given on that tour, see Chicago Address to Women, Apr.-May 1916, Birth Control and SocietyApr.-June, 1916," and "Condemnation is Misunderstanding," Apr.-Jun. 1916. No final version was found. al speaking tour in 1916.Emendations to the text were made by hand by Margaret Sanger. Entire paragraphs struck out, most likely for shortening the speech have not been deleted from this version.Sanger added a note reading: "Original speech given by MS in 1916--this was the first public utterance on the whole subject & was delivered 119 times in one year--"
To me ↑I believe that↓ birth control is the keynote ↑signal↓ of a new social awakening. To me it is not only ↑merely↓ an economic expedient, but it is also a great social principle, interlocked with the veryspiritual progress of the race itself and its future. That is why it seems to me that this meeting is in harmony with the basic idea of birth control, because it brings together all of us social workers of such diverse outlooks and temperaments, which indicates that it is an idea vital to us all.
I realize keenly that many of those who understand and would support the birth control propaganda if it were carried out in a safe, sane manner, cannot sympathize with or countenance the methods I have used in my attempt to arouse the working woman to the fact that bringing a child into the world is her greatest responsibility. I know that physicians and scientists have a great technical fund of information. For years and generations they have had all the technical information on the subject. There is nothing new, nothing radical in the idea of birth control. Aristotle advocated it, Plato advocated it, all our great and modern thinkers have advocated it. It is an idea that must appeal to any mature intelligence. Yet all this scientific and technical discussion has had the effect of producing more and more technical discussion, all very necessary and very stimulating to that very small group of women and women who could understand it. But all during the long years while this matter was being discussed, advocated, refuted by the scientists, the people themselves, the poor people especially were blindly, desperately practicing family limitation just as they are practicing it today, but to them birth control does not mean what it does to me. To them it has meant the most barbaric methods. It has meant the killing of babies, infanticide, abortion, in one crude way or another, for women from time immemorial have tried to avoid unwanted motherhood. We all know the tribe of professional abortionists which has sprung up and profited by this terrible misfortune. We know, too, that when the practice of abortion was put under the ban of the church, the alternate evil, the foundling asylum, with its horrifying history sprang up. We know too that when the laws against imparting knowledge to control birth ↑prevent conception↓ were passed, ↑in this country↓ thousands of women were forced into the hands of midwives and cheap abortionists unless they would bear unwanted offspring, with the consequence that there is no other country in the world ↑today↓ which has so large a number of abortions nor as large a number of deaths resulting therefrom as the United States of America. ↑No laws make crime to prevent by knowledge.↓ It is a conservative estimate that 250,000 abortions are performed each year in this country, while about 50,000 deaths result therefrom, and all this time our quacks and abortionists roll in wealth while our law makers close their Puritan eyes.
↑Difference in B.C. & abortions↓
How often have I stood at the bedside of a woman in childbirth and watched the tears flow in gladness and heard her sigh of relief and words "Thank God" when she was told that the child was born dead. What can man know of the agony of carrying beneath one's heart a little life which every instinct tells the mother it cannot survive, For even when it is born alive the chances are that it will die within the first year. We know that there are 300,000 babies under one year of age which die in the United States every year from poverty and neglect, while 600,000 parents remain in ignorance of how to prevent 300,000 more babies from coming into the world the next year to die of poverty and neglect. A few simple words of advice on how to control birth would enable these people to avoid this horrible slaughter! In my fourteen years' experience as a trained nurse I found that 75% of the diseases of men and women were the result of ignorance concerning their sex functions. So great was this ignorance among girls and women concerning their bodies that I decided to devote myself to the study of women's diseases. I took up gynecological and obstetrical nursing and then I found the great discovery that knowledge to control birth was obtained and practiced by the women of wealth ↑means↓ while the poor women were kept in ignorance of this knowledge. I found that these poor women had emphatic views on the crime of bringing children into the world to die of hunger, and would rather risk their lives through abortion rather than give birth to children they could not feed, clothe and care for.
It is not an uncommon thing to see ↑groups↓ of women forming in line outside a doctor's office any evening after working hours, between 6 and 8 o'clock, on the lower East Side of New York City.
↑90% women married 95% have more than 2 children 99%religious↓
These women go there and ↑to↓ face the tortures of abortion rather than condemn an unborn child to poverty, and ↑while↓ all this time our wise men and sages and scientists are discussing the subject of birth control among themselves. Their ideas are sterile, ↑for↓ they have not influenced or effected the tremendous facts of life among these women, the working women, the disinherited.
You all know the life ↑lives↓ of the children of the cotton mills of the South, of the boys in the mines, ↑wend their weary way to work↓ ,of the children working in the canning industry ↑go carts↓ but do you know that in New York City there are thousands of little infants between ↑under school age↓ 3 and 5 years of age who toil far down in sub-cellars beneath the earth. There they sit cross-legged upon heaps of rags, their little backs are bent, their faces bloodless, their little fingers keep busy curling feathers, making artificial flowers, or rolling cigarettes. Year in and year out they toil in places where the sun has never shone. This work is ↑slavery↓ forced upon them because they are invariably members of large families who need their pitiful earnings. The same applies to child labor everywhere. Statistics show us that the majority of child hands of factories and mills of Lowell and Fall River, Mass., come from parents who average nine living children.
We also find from records concerning the women of the under-world that 85% of these come from parents who also average nine children, and later discoveries have found that 50% of these girls have been found to be mentally defective. Many of them at the age of 22 or 23 years have the intelligence of children ↑child↓ not over 8 or 9 years. Can we not see how difficult it is for this girl with the ↑an↓ adult body and child's mind to compete in the struggle of life against the more intelligent and better born? We know too that the fertility of the mentally defective parent is four times that of the normal parent. In New York City ↑all larger cities↓ today there are 10,000 ↑thousands↓ feeble-minded girls living in prostitution, clamoring at the doors of charities ↑the State↓ to take them in and care for them and protect them from the life of degradation which they have been leading. The institutions for the feeble minded are full and overcrowded. There is no room for these. Are not our feeble minded institutions and insane asylums monuments to careless and reckless breeding? Is it not time that our physicians, scientists, social workers and sages, is it not time that they face this array of facts and stop quibbling in hair-splitting debates over woman's morality. I say this because you all know that the principal objection in the minds of these people against the idea of birth control for the working woman, is that it may have a tendency to decrease her standards of morality. Solicitude for woman's morals has always been the cloak that authority has worn in its age-long conspiracy to keep her in bondage!! ↑ suffrage--young girl--pest↓
When I was in Spain a year ago I found that the Spanish woman was far behind her European sisters in readiness or even desire for modern freedom. Upon investigation as to the cause of this I was told that there are 5,000 villages and towns in Spain with no means of transportation except donkeys over bridle paths, and that all attempts at building roads and railroads into Spain met with strong opposition of the clergy and the government on the grounds that roads and railroads would make communication easy thereby bringing the women of the country towns into the cities where they would become immoral! Do we who have roads and railroads think that our women are less moral than the Spanish women? Certainly not. Yet we in this country are after all only just emerging from the fight for the higher education of women which met with the same opposition early in its day. We now know that education has not done all the dreadful things to woman that its opponents predicted were going to result, and so shall we find that knowledge to control birth which has been in the hands of the wealthy women of this country for the last 25 years, so shall we find that it will not tend to lower their standards of morality, for if the women of wealth have withstood this ↑test↓ have we ↑any↓ reason to think that the working women will use it less wisely?
Statistics show us that the birth rate of any quarter is in ratio to its wealth, and further give us figures to prove that in large cities the rich districts have a birth rate of one-third of that of the poor districts. In Paris for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 50 the poor districts yield 116 births, while the rich districts yield 34 births. In Berlin conditions are approximately the same. For every 1,000 women of similar ages there are 157 births in the poor quarters and 47 in the rich quarters. The same applies to London, Vienna, New York, in fact to all large cities the world over, which can be inferred that one class of women use means to control birth which is condemned when taught to the other class. But the menace of our civilization and problems of today are not the stationary birth rate among the upper class as much as the tremendous increase of the poor and diseased population of this country.
Many of my friends will object to this statement because it seems to clash with their economic theories, but there are always objections from some quarter; for every ideal created there is a Herod born to kill it.
To me the question of birth control is by far the most important question that the working people can touch upon, and it should have gone hand in hand with labor organization for the past 25 years. Had this been done we should not have had to face the great problems of unemployment and child labor which we are facing today. It has been my experience that the woman with an income of $10. a week does not desire a large family. I have worked among thousands of them. I have found them with 7, 8 and 9 living children, and I have never yet known one of them to desire another mouth to feed. On the contrary I have found them in constant terror of the coming of another baby and submitting to unwanted childbirth only because of their ignorance. Picture a woman with five or six little ones living on the average workingman's wage of $10. a week. Another baby is coming as fast as nature can manage it. She is already broken in health and spirit, a shadow of the lovely woman she once was. Where is the man or woman who would reproach me for trying to put into this woman's hands knowledge to prevent giving birth to any more? Is this action on my part to be called immoral? Am I to be persecuted and classed as immoral because I advocate small families for the working women while Mr. Roosevelt can go up and down the length of the land shouting and urging this class of women to have large families and is neither arrested nor molested, but considered by all society as highly moral? But I ask you which is the more moral, to urge a working woman to have only those children she desires and can support or to delude her into bearing cannon fodder for the munition makers and professional jingoes?
[illegible?] administratioon closed drug shops New Zealand
Let us ask ourselves which is America's definition of morality.
We in America are inclined to think that all advanced ideas must come from Europe, but it is interesting to find in my studies abroad that the idea of birth control as it is propagated today throughout the world had its incentive ↑impetus↓ from a book written in America. This book was called "The Fruits of Philosophy" and was written by Dr. Chas. Knowlton of Boston, Mass. over 80 years ago. ↑It was driven out of U.S.A &↓ It wandered about the globe for 40 years before it finally found its way into a book seller's shop in Bristol, England. The book seller was arrested for selling it and pled guilty to the charge. Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, two ardent advocates of liberty, took the case out of the book seller's hands and fought it out in the English courts. Previous to this time there had been a great deal of agitation on the small family question by the followers of Malthus. The Malthusian advocates believed in small families but the methods advanced for bringing about this result were continence and late marriage. Dr. Knowlton's book, taking into consideration the normal nature of man, advised on the contrary early marriage with means to control birth, which coming at the time it did appealed to the reason of a more advanced generation. The trial of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh aroused all England and every lover of liberty came to their support. The trial lasted three days. It was heard before a special jury, they were found guiltyand sentenced to six months' imprisonment. So great, however, was the agitation and indignation at this example of legal censorship that the charges were dismissed on a legal technicality.
40,000 of these books had been sold through England for six pence apiece, and it was brought out at the trial that the charges would never have been brought had the book been kept within the bounds of the restricted class by a high price. To what extent this trial of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh won for the English people the right of free press can be judged from the summing up of Mr. Justice Coleridge on an obscenity and blasphemy case two years ago.(Insert).
The English people had been fighting for 35 years to gain that decision. It has not been won without effort, struggle and sacrifice, for in England as in America the people recognize that there is an ever increasing power in the state, the tendency of which is to decrease the liberties of the people, and it behooves each generation to grapple with this power and to challenge it if we would hold the liberties gained for us by our forefathers. We must not expect that these liberties will be given to us easily. We must be prepared to take what each new generation needs and fight to hold them. This is what the English people have been trying to do. They have been struggling for 35 years to hold what Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh gained for them through that prosecution and trial.
Unlike us, the English love for liberty is greater than their dislike of personality. No matter how much they may dislike a person fighting for liberty, they stand squarely behind him, never giving the government an opportunity to silence a voice merely because the person behind it has been unpopular or objectionable to certain elements of the community. It has been this spirit that has triumphed over the censors and has given far greater personal freedom to them than we have in America
When I arrived in England a year ago I found the greatest interest among the English people in our Comstock ↑Post Office↓ laws, which contributed to keep the people of this country in ignorance on the subject of birth control. To my amazement I found that the same group of ↑conservative tho↓ ardent advocates of birth control ↑were↓ most enthusiastic and overjoyed when they found that our obscenity laws had ↑at last↓ been violated. They at once went about to interest and influence the support of every man and woman in England of learning and of high standing to back me up in my fight for this freedom. You all know of the letter written to the President of the United States in my behalf by these people, protesting against the ↑my↓ persecution where this knowledge was concerned and insisted that we are the only civilized country in the word whose laws make it a crime to spread this knowledge. This letter was signed by such prominent men as H.G. Wells, Arnold Bennett, Gilbert Murray, Elmer Maude, Edward Carpenter and many others, and a great deal of interest was also shown in my case by Bernard Shaw, John Galsworthy, Havelock Ellis, who wrote me, and all seemed to take a great ↑took an active↓ interest in the work which was being carried on in this country.
In England it has only been within the past three years that the birth control league has been openly able to defy the laws to the extent of openly giving out the information to the people who requested it. Up to this time and during all those ↑30↓ years they had ↑have↓ worked among the educators only, with the object of getting behind them so strong a group of men and women that the government would not dare attack them. In this they have been successful and now their object is to establish clinics among the working women where knowledge can be given free of charge as has been done for the past 30 years in Holland. ↑working class untouched↓
Immediately after the trial of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh the same group of men and women who had been interested in carrying on this agitation formed what is known today as the English Neo-Malthusian League, which advanced the methods advocated in Dr. Knowlton's book instead of the Malthusian practice as advocated by Thomas Malthus. Their first work was to publish a paper and to spread these ideas into other countries in Europe, and Holland was the first to become interested in the subject and invited Dr. Drysdale, the president of the English League to speak at its Medical Congress in Amsterdam. The following year a league was formed in Holland and a woman physician, Dr. Aletta Jacobs, opened a clinic in Amsterdam and announced that all women who desired this information could obtain it from her free of charge. This was a daring and brave thing to do on the part of Dr. Jacobs. She was maligned and insulted by the members of her own profession, but she stood firmly to her principles and continued to do this work among the women of Holland. From that time on a ↑the↓ number of clinics increased, particularly in the working districts. Today there are 52 such clinics, with nurses in charge, and the medical profession has practically handed this work over to the nurses. Birth control work in Holland is better organized than in any other country in the world. It is the only country in the world where the government has not prosecuted those advocating the idea; with the result that the men and women with ideals have been able to put their energies into the building up of the ↑league↓ instead of wasting their energies and time fighting the government authorities. Today the Dutch league has 5,000 members. Practically every well known man and woman in Holland gives this work his unanimous support. They send out 7,000 pamphlets a year, in three different languages, English, Dutch, and Esperanto, giving all instructions to control birth. Although the work of the league is not sanctioned by the government, it has behind it so intelligent and unanimous a public opinion that the authorities dare ↑have↓ not ↑attacked↓ it.
A few years ago it was given a royal decree by the government as a great public utility, as ↑and↓ the result of 30 years' work has been that the general death rate of Holland has ↑slowly!↓ fallen to be the lowest of any country of Europe, while the infant ↑mortality↓ of Amsterdam and the Hague is the lowest in ↑of↓ any ↑cities↓ in the world. This is not due to either the philanthropic societies or the work of the State. But it is purely the result of the individual responsibility of the Dutch people toward their offspring. Holland proves to us beyond the shadow of a doubt that the practice of birth control leads to race improvement instead of race suicide because the increase in population has accelerated as the death rate has fallen.
This work has been mainly in the hands of Dr. and Mme. Rutgers of the Hague. This little man and woman have devoted their entire lives to spreading this information among the people, and also to teaching the nurses how to carry on this work of the care and hygiene of the human body. To me Dr. and Mme. Rutgers are more important to the welfare of the Dutch people than either the king or the queen ↑of Holland↓ . All the nurses who are sent out to do this work are instructed by Dr. Rutgers and from him take their course of training. He then sends them into the district where they are most needed. He holds in his hands the records of the birth and death rate of the various sections throughout Holland, and whenever he sees that the death rate in rising he at once sends a nurse into that district to establish a free clinic. These clinics soon become self-supporting for the Dutch people believe in paying their way as they go along and so open and frank are the men and women of this little country concerning this subject that they would no more think of bringing children into the world that they could not feed, clothe and care for than we would buy an automobile or a piano, or any other luxury which we knew we could not afford to pay for ↑buy↓ . This instruction is given to every woman married or old enough to be married, with the consequence that the young people are able to marry early and commercialized prostitution is practically unknown among them today.
In France on the other hand, although the knowledge of birth control has been universally disseminated since the time of Napoleon it has never been organized along scientific lines so as to benefit those who most need it. The upper class women, as in this country, have ready access to it, while the poor continue to multiply because of their imperfect knowledge. This leads to a high infant mortality, which rather than a low birth rate is the real cause of the decreasing ↑stationary↓ population of France.
We in America should learn a lesson from this, and I would urge immediate group action for the forming of clinics in the industrial centers of this country where the poor women are over-burdened with large families. Instead of our charity organizations, our ↑instituting↓ baby nurseries, Better Baby leagues, Little Mother leagues, which at their best are simply alleviations for their present distress, would it not be better to help these women and the most of these babies to help themselves by giving them the knowledge to control birth, thereby preventing their bringing into the world children to fill the orphan asylums and other institutions of charity?
To me ↑Our present day↓ society and all its well-intentioned palliatives are in this respect like the quack who attempts to cure a cancer by burning off the top while the deadly disease continues to spread underneath.
I have never felt this more strongly than I did three years ago after the death of a patient on my last nursing case. This patient of mine was the wife of a struggling working man and the mother of three children. She was suffering from the results of an attempted abortion performed upon her by herself. She lived on Grand St., the main thoroughfare of New York down-town Ghetto. I found her in a very serious condition and for three weeks both the attending physician and myself labored night and day to bring her out of the valley of the shadow of death. We finally succeeded in restoring her to her family circle. I remember well the day I was leaving. The doctor, too, was making his last call. As the doctor put out his hand to say good-bye to her, I saw that she had something to say to him, but was timid and shy about saying it. I started to leave the room to leave them both alone, but she said "No, don't go. How can both of you leave me without telling me something that I can do to avoid a future illness such as I have just passed through?" I was interested to hear the answer of the physician, and came back and sat down beside her. To my amazement he answered her question lightly, and jokingly, put her aside by telling her that there was nothing that she could do as long as there were laws upon the statute books, and he advised her to get her husband to change the laws.
Three months later I was aroused from my sleep at midnight. A telephone call from the husband of the same woman, requested me to come immediately, that she was dangerously ill. I arrived to find her beyond relief. Another conception had forced her into the hands of a cheap abortionist and she died at 4 o'clock the same morning, leaving behind her three little children and the frantic, helpless husband.
I arrived home as the sun was coming up from the roofs of that human beehive and I realized how futile my efforts and my work had been. I, too, like the philanthropist, the social worker and the quack had been dealing with the symptoms rather than the disease. I threw my nursing bag into the corner and announced to my family that I would never take it up again, that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for the working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth. I decided I had no moral right to respect a law,--a worn-out piece of parchment,--obsolete in every respect, I had no right to respect above human life, and I decided to violate it wholesale. I found to my surprise that there was almost no scientific knowledge available on this subject in this country. I decided to go abroad to study the question there.
My first stop was at Glasgow, where I went to find out what municipal ownership had done for the women and children of Glasgow, and I found that every advantage advanced through this administration were all of benefit to those who had small families. For instance, the model tenement houses owned by the municipality were built for those not having more than two or three children, while the men and women who had five, six, nine or ten children were compelled to live in the outskirts of the city, and huddled in the surroundings of their industry. It was the same with every other advantage to be gained through municipal ownership, and when I saw the women with shawls over their heads, a baby ↑babies↓ in their arms and two or three little ones dragging at their skirts, walking through the streets at midnight calling and chanting the cry of help and asking for bread, my heart failed me with courage to remain longer in this model city, and I left to investigate conditions in France. There I found that the women of France, as in Holland, had done more for themselves in five years through the knowledge of birth control than municipal ownership had done in twenty years' time for the women of Glasgow!!
I hurried back to America to urge women here to help me to do this important work. I asked several prominent women, suffragists, feminists, and others, whom I knew not only believe in the idea of birth control but practiced it. I requested these women to help me to do this work which I thought would strike at the root of the evil. I tried to get fifty women to go on record with me to make a test case in the courts but I was told to wait until we got the vote, I was told to wait until I became better known, but the cries of thousands of suffering women would not let me wait.
I started to publish the Woman Rebel, TheJan. 17, 1916>. I am not going to take up your time to tell you about it. You all know of its brief existence. They tell me that it was too radical, badly written, hysterical, defiant, to all of which I plead guilty, but as I became more and more convinced of the necessity of birth control I felt myself in the position of one who has discovered that the ↑a↓ house is on fire and I found it was up to me shout out the warning-- Should we criticize the tone of the voice which shouts out the alarm? I might have taken up the policy of safety, sanity and conservatism, but would I have gotten a hearing? Is there not a great deal in the theory in all modern life that if one desires bread you must make a demand ↑ask↓ for cake? This was my belief ↑theory↓ when I started to edit and publish the Woman Rebel.
It was necessary in order to bring the attention of the people to this issue and to its necessity to make the demand so flamboyant that it would arouse attention and interest. You know of the suppression and confiscation by the post office authorities. You know of the indictments handed down by the Grand Jury against me. You know that many postponements of my trial and the final dismissal of the case by the government, and I am reluctant to call it a victory, for what has victory meant to me in this case. It has meant months and months of persecution by spies and detectives, prying into every phase of my activity, coming into my home in the guise of comrades and friends. It has meant the exertion of the meanest and most despicable methods in trying to suppress the message of birth control, as it has meant the opening of all my private letters and the invasion of every constitutional right which we are supposed to enjoy in this country. It would be impossible for me to enumerate all the hindrances and the tricks our benevolent government put in my way the months I was publishing the paper. Indictments were the last weapons in the strenuous campaign to stamp out the idea of birth control. I am glad to say the very reverse of what was intended has occurred for the same authorities who two years ago adjudged me "lewd and ↑licentious↓ " now pay me the pretty compliment that I am not a disorderly person, but why did the authorities change their minds? Because of the thousands and thousands of letters of protest which came to them from all parts of this country, and I convinced them that birth control is too vital a demand in the United States today to be suppressed through the persecution of an individual, which proves to us again that the courts, no matter how powerful, cannot combat a strong and intelligent public opinion. My fight with the government has been to arouse interest in the subject of birth control and in this at least I feel I have been victorious. Some of us may only be fit to dramatize a situation to focus attention upon objectionable laws then those more experienced in constructive organization can gather together all this sympathy and interest which has been aroused and organize and educated ↑direct it.↓ The work now before us is to crystallize this interest into action, not only for the repeal of the laws but for the establishment of free clinics throughout the industrial sections of this country.
Can we not form here tonight a birth control league to carry on this work. Such a league would be a ↑rallying point↓ for the progressive thought in this city and would focus interest on the local necessity for this work. Such a clinic ↑League↓ would enable the working women to help themselves and to do away with charity, which at its best can give only temporary relief. Birth control will ↑shelter↓ women from incessant child bearing. This must be done for her before she can participate in social life. Through it will she triumph over nature's and man's laws which have kept her in bondage, just as man has triumphed over nature by the use of electricity, ship building, bridges etc. Through it will she triumph over the laws which have made her a child-bearing machine and in her triumph over these she will not only free herself but she will also free her children ↑the child↓ , for in her own emancipation will be that of the children ↑childs↓ . She holds them both within her own hands. In her triumph over these she will develop her personality and individuality to ↑& prepare↓ with man for the emancipation of the race.
In Europe they tell me ↑say↓ that to some extent the failure of the US to produce a proportionate number of great men is a disquieting feature of civilization. Two hundred years have elapsed since the settlement began to take permanent shape. The population is now immense. The opportunities for education are unprecedented. Yet the native born men of real eminence, of world wide fame, are very few in number.
Hitherto the development of the race has been unconscious. We have had no responsibility for the ↑its↓ right course! Now in the 20th century ↑1916.↓ in the fullness of time, let us be children no longer-- let us fashion the human race with an intelligent consciousness & let us face the facts of this vital racial & social needs & stand squarely to meet our responsibilities & Birth Control is both a social and a racial need. Let us face the facts of this vital need and stand squarely to meet our responsibilities.
Birth Control will free the woman it will free the child. Thru it we shall produce a race of quality instead of quantity. Woman must triumph over the laws which have made her a child bearing machine ↑bondage↓ . Only in [one word deleted] Thomas Paine [rest of sentence illegible]
Copyright 2003. Margaret Sanger Project