Lewd, Obscene and Indecent”

“Lewd, Obscene and Indecent”

The 1916 Portland Edition of Family Limitation

PRIMARY DOCUMENT

by Michael Helquist

THE BIRTH CONTROL pam- ment offi cials and church leaders espe- phlet Family Limitation signifi cantly cially condemned the contraceptive shaped American thought, values, guide as corrosive to public morality and behavior, according to the Library and dangerous to the well-being of the of Congress.1 In more than two dozen nation.3 Public offi cials of Portland, Ore- editions published from 1914 into the gon, fi rst engaged in the controversy 1930s, the sixteen-page document one hundred years ago when Margaret gave thousands of Americans their Sanger visited the city in June 1916. fi rst acce ss to comprehensive infor- After arriving by ship from San mation on preventing pregnancy.2 Francisco, Sanger answered reporters’ It also introduced them to an argu- questions during an impromptu gath- ment for reproductive rights from a ering on the veranda of the Portland feminist perspective, one that valued Hotel. She asserted that Americans women’s freedom and control of their needed more common sense and less personal and economic lives. Early puritanism about birth control informa- editions warned against the personal, tion.4 Later, she agreed to the request economic, and political eff ects of too of a union man, Carl Rave, to sell many births, including exploitation by copies of Family Limitation at her fi rst capitalists who needed cheap labor lecture. He had 1,000 copies printed and by imperialists who required a and “paid for by lady friend,” possibly steady supply of soldiers. Margaret Marie Equi, a local doctor, lesbian Sanger, the nation’s preeminent birth feminist, and radical labor activist.5 control advocate, fi rst drafted Family On the evening of June 19, before a Limitation to inspire working-class packed house at the Heilig Theater, women to challenge such exploitation Sanger argued that unwanted preg- by limiting childbirth. nancies, overly large families, poverty, In the early decades of the twentieth and misery could be avoided if people century, the content and distribution of adopted basic birth control methods. Family Limitation roiled communities Near the end of her talk, police offi cers throughout the United States. Govern- disrupted the gathering by arresting

OREGONIAN, JULY 8, 1916, 1. Municipal Court Judge Arthur Langguth found the pamphlet Family Limitation objectionable for discussing sexual matters that might prompt “impure” thoughts, especially when the item was publicly sold or distributed. Margaret Sanger declared the ruling “a cowardly decision.”

Helquist, “Lewd, Obscene and Indecent” 275 tone.”8 She apparently did not seek an 8 0 8 overhaul of the content, and Equi did 9 -2 2 6 not provide one. In her autobiogra- Z S U - phy, written in 1938 — twenty-two C L , s years after her Portland visit h p a r — Sanger indicated that she g o t

o h wanted the 1916 revision to

n appeal more to middle-class

n women. But historians have i

s noted that Sanger did not

e r

g shift to a more conservative

o C

agenda, with middle-class f

r sensibilities, until the early

b i

L 1920s and that she made no related, signifi cant changes to her publications before then.9 The discrepancy may result from Sanger’s misremember- ing her 1916 intentions. That possibility is supported by Sanger’s summary of her MARGARET SANGER, pictured here in 1922, was tour written a month after her a preeminent birth control activist, nurse, and writer. Portland visit, in which she She founded the fi rst birth control clinic in the United did not mention a wish to States in 1916, and her work led to the formation of appeal more to middle-class the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. women.10 Equi was well positioned Rave and two other men on charges to revise Family Limitation. She was a of distributing obscene materials.6 member of the Birth Control League of Sanger tried unsuccessfully to get the Portland and participated in the group’s charges dropped; the police captain monthly meetings. (The league had dis- did agree to delay court proceedings tributed thousands of copies of Family until she returned from lecture stops Limitation throughout Oregon and the in Seattle and Spokane.7 Pacifi c Northwest even before Sanger Before she left Portland, Sanger arrived).11 Equi shared Sanger’s early asked Equi to revise Family Limita- radical views on economic and social tion. She recognized that the text had justice, and she had strong ties to union been “crudely and hastily written” to members and working-class laborers. get basic facts to working women, and She was also intelligent and well read; she wanted it to be more polished she could certainly smooth the narra- with a “slightly more professional tive, update medical advice, and tone

276 OHQ vol. 117, no. 2 down some of Sanger’s politi- OHS digital no. bb002610 cal rhetoric. And, importantly, she was known to risk arrest to further a cause.12 During Sanger’s travel to Washington State, the Port- land City Council convened an emergency session and declared Family Limitation indecent and obscene. The fi ve councilmen also passed an ordinance that prohibited distribution of the pamphlet.13 When Sanger returned to Portland on June 29, she spoke at a protest rally organized by Equi at the Baker Theater and then, with Equi and two other women, handed out the newly revised pamphlet. The police promptly arrested and jailed them.14 A week later, on July 7, the A PHYSICIAN, lesbian feminist, and labor three men and four women rights activist, Marie Equi revised what were tried and found guilty. became known as the Portland edition of Municipal Court Judge Arthur Family Limitation in 1916. Langguth ruled that birth control itself was not on trial, but that Sanger’s pamphlet — both ver- ment was suspended. The four women sions — “wandered afi eld to the discus- received no punishment. sion of matters that were apparently Other accounts have detailed indecent.” He criticized the several Sanger’s troubles in Portland — the mentions of copulation that might only city on her tour to place her prompt “thoughts of impure and libidi- behind bars.16 But the 1916 local edition nous character” for young people of of Family Limitation has not previously either sex and even for adults. He been analyzed or compared with edi- believed that exposure to such infor- tions that preceded or followed it.17 mation might suggest that “with ease The Portland version was distinctive and safety, fornication might be prac- for a strong marketing appeal to union ticed” and thus undermine the “mar- members that refl ected the intersec- riage relation.”15 The male defendants tion of labor organizing and advocacy were fi ned ten dollars each, but pay- for reproductive rights. The pamphlet

Helquist, “Lewd, Obscene and Indecent” 277 content remained consistent. Its core was prescriptive, with self-help recommendations in simple,

Courtesy of Michael Helquist explicit language. It described a variety of devices, compounds, and solutions that could prevent pregnancy, including pessaries (similar to diaphragms), con- doms, sponges, laxatives, vaginal tablets, and douches that were believed to have a spermicidal eff ect. Most were available from a druggist; many THE 1916 Portland edition of Family Limitation is a basic, could be mixed at sixteen-page guide to contraception. The 4½-by-6-inch pages home.19 contain three illustrations, with a stock paper cover. The pamphlet described a pessary, for example, also directed specifi c advice to men, as one of the most common preventa- deleted specifi c mention of abortion, tives used in France and in the United and criticized local authorities and the States by middle- and upper-class medical profession. women who could aff ord doctors to Sanger fi rst drafted Family Limita- advise them about the device and its tion in 1913, compiling information and proper use. The text warned women to advice that she had gleaned from use only those pessaries that were soft, consultations with experts in France pliable, and without fl aws or pinholes. and Holland, where there were few Sanger added her personal belief that restrictions on contraceptive infor- a good pessary was the most reliable mation and products. 18 In 1914 she method for preventing pregnancy, authorized printing 100,000 copies. provided it fi t well. In a similar man- New editions followed, but the basic ner, various compounds were recom-

278 OHQ vol. 117, no. 2 mended, including Courtesy of Michael Helquist a vaginal supposi- tory mix of boric acid, salicylic acid, chinosol, and glyc- erine gelatin. Users were urged to “allow 20 minutes for melting” and to be sure to insert the compound into the vagina several minutes before sexual activity to ensure that it melted ﬁ rst. These and similar instructions filled twelve of the sixteen pages of the pamphlet.20 Each edition also included a section titled “A Nurse’s Advice to Women,” in which THIS ILLUSTRATION from Family Limitation describes the Sanger relied on use of a well-ﬁ tting pessary as the most reliable method for her nursing back- preventing pregnancy. This birth control method was popular ground to address among middle- and upper-class women in the United States. matters of sexual hygiene and sexual practices. She exhorted women to She was impatient with any woman stop being afraid of their bodies who thought inserting a pessary or and to become informed about their a tablet prior to the sexual act was “physical construction.” She extolled unseemly: the healthy, life-enhancing eff ects of It is far more sordid to find yourself, satisfying sexual acts, and, most of all, several years later, burdened down with she repeated that women must learn half-a-dozen unwanted children, help- how to prevent pregnancy. Her work less, starved, shoddily clothed, dragging years earlier in the slums of New York at your skirt, yourself a dragged-out shadow of the woman you once were.21 emboldened her to write plainly: “The inevitable fact is that unless you pre- Sanger’s early feminist and radical vent the male sperm from entering the views enveloped the prescriptive infor- womb, you are going to be pregnant.” mation and nurse’s recommendations.

Helquist, “Lewd, Obscene and Indecent” 279 Courtesy of Michael Helquist

THE INSIDE FRONT cover of the Portland edition of Family Limitation features a note from Marie Equi condemning the prosecution of the three men arrested for distributing the booklet at a 1916 rally.

She advised working-class women to child-labor restrictions were inconsis- refuse to supply labor markets with tently enforced. Instead, she urged children to be exploited at a time when women to take control of their bodies

280 OHQ vol. 117, no. 2 and to recognize that doing so was “the This new edition is mainly the result of one most direct method for you work- the stupid persecution of the city admin- ing women to help yourself today.”22 istration of Portland, Ore. It caused the arrest of three union men at a Margaret Another standard component of Sanger meeting on June 19, 1916 for sell- the pamphlet addressed the prob- ing this booklet. lem of ill-matched timing of climaxes for female and male partners and Equi then shifted to her primary mes- the practice of “coitus interruptus.” sage, which envisioned linking repro- Sanger believed that a woman left ductive rights, union goals, and wom- unsatisfi ed could experience serious en’s freedom: physical and psychological eff ects, This edition is made chiefl y for union men including “disease of her generative and women. It is placed in their hands organs, besides giving her a perfect with the sincere wish that it may help in horror and repulsion for the sexual realizing the ideals of union labor. We act.” (Biographer Jean H. Baker noted believe it will aid in the emancipation of women and help to bring better working that Sanger “still accepted the andro- class conditions. centric fi ction” that semen deposited on the walls of the uterus was critical To strengthen her message, she listed for women’s health).23 Sanger thought on the front page the names and affi li- the practice was responsible for men’s ations of seven infl uential labor lead- concern about the “sexual coldness ers of the Pacifi c Coast who endorsed and indiff erence in their wives.” She and promoted birth control for their countered that “nine times out of ten members.26 it is the fault of the man” who satis- Equi’s appeal built on the col- fi ed his own desire and then promptly laboration already underway between went off to sleep. As a result, she union laborers and birth control advo- wrote, a woman learned to “protect cates. Union workers and Industrial herself” from sleepless nights and Workers of the World (IWW) members nerves by refusing to become inter- had helped distribute nationwide the ested. (She did not mention masturba- fi rst 100,000 copies of Family Limita- tion as an option). Sanger encouraged tion. Many also knew that the much- sex education for women and more admired IWW organizer Elizabeth cooperation and consideration from Gurley Flynn was a strong proponent men. of birth control. And union members The most striking features of the often witnessed the toll of unwanted Portland edition were Equi’s comments pregnancies for workers and their appearing on the inside front and back families. covers.24 No other edition adopted as In her revision, Equi included more direct an appeal to a specifi c audience political rhetoric and fewer comments or as critical an assessment of local on the healthful effects of sexual officials and physicians.25 The front intercourse. She apparently found the page reads: prescriptive information and medical

Helquist, “Lewd, Obscene and Indecent” 281 advice basically sound, as she made a woman’s choice, but she proposed few changes. Equi emphasized the that the decision would be unneces- eff ectiveness of a few compounds over sary if women took care to prevent others, and she discouraged the use of conception.30 a few.27 She expanded the role of men Sanger’s straightforward accep- in preventing pregnancies and encour- tance of abortion was mostly deleted aged them to accept their responsibil- from the 1914, 1915, and 1917 editions, ity. Equi indicated that she understood and Portland’s 1916 version omitted all men’s concerns about birth control and direct mention of abortion. Whether advised them on how to correctly use a Sanger requested the deletion or Equi condom to avoid “stricture” and break- initiated it is not known. If the decision age, noting that wearing a condom was Equi’s, it was puzzling. By 1916, could help them delay their ejaculation she was a well-known abortion pro- during intercourse. She recommended vider in Portland, and she knew how use of a product, “Sanitube,” that important abortion was to a great many purportedly improved sexual hygiene desperate women.31 Recent arrests for and helped avoid “bringing into the distributing Family Limitation may have world . . . diseased off spring.”28 prompted her to delete explicit refer- Equi polished the text and stream- ences in hopes of infl uencing the trial lined the content of the pamphlet to outcome. (As it turned out, abortion a modest degree. She deleted a few was not specifi cally cited as a cause of Sanger’s chatty asides about birth for the ruling against the pamphlet). control practices in Europe and other She did, however, reprimand her medi- observations not crucial to her mes- cal colleagues for not intervening in sage. She substituted Sanger’s rheto- times of severe distress and disease ric in minor instances; for example, for their pregnant patients, as noted she changed Sanger’s entreaty to on the back inside cover: “comrade workers” to “neighbors and The medical profession, bound by preju- acquaintances.”29 dice and superstition inherited from In an important change from pre- church and state, under the code of vious versions, the Portland edi- professional ethics, is prohibited from tion dropped a specific endorse- rendering any relief in the disease of pregnancy.32 ment of abortion as a birth control option. Sanger’s 1913 draft version Equi cited pregnant women who had refl ected her support for abor- presented to doctors their serious tion as a last resort. She had advised ailments, such as Bright’s disease, women to never allow an unwanted heart disease, insanities, melancholia, pregnancy to continue for more than idiocy, consumption, and syphilis. In a month: “If you are going to have an such cases, she lamented that physi- abortion, make up your mind to [do] it cians are only allowed to “tide women in the fi rst stages, and have it done.” through their pregnancy if possible.” She believed having an abortion was Even though the life of a woman may

282 OHQ vol. 117, no. 2 be “positively endangered” — and time, much less among the general thus permissible under many abortion population. These were a few of the restrictions — Equi noted that the doc- passages that Judge Langguth cited tor cannot “relieve” a woman, that is, as examples of how the pamphlet text provide an abortion, without enlisting had wandered into indecency.35 a colleague in consultation. She would The 1916 Portland edition of Family have known that such agreement was Limitation was distinctive by several difficult to obtain. As a result, Equi measures. It targeted union members claimed that the mortality of these in an early example of modern niche stricken mothers and their infants was marketing to achieve behavior change. very high and that premature births The appeal was specifi c, direct, and were common. enhanced with endorsements from The 1916 Portland edition ended respected union leaders. The text with an exhortation not present in the also directed information and advice earlier versions but retained in the 1917 specifi cally to men about their con- edition, a refl ection perhaps of Equi’s cerns as well as their duties with birth infl uence: control. For the fi rst time, this basic To conserve the lives of these mothers guide engaged both sexes in respon- and to prevent the birth of diseased or sible decision-making for preventing defective children are factors emphasiz- pregnancy and controlling family size. ing the crying need of a sound and sane At the same time, the local edition educational campaign for birth control. refl ected how birth control advocates A call for preventing births of seriously tried to negotiate the hostile environ- impaired children inevitably triggers ment of the political establishment discussion about eugenics.33 For Equi, around questions of reproductive no other document has surfaced that rights. The deletion of all direct men- reveals how she understood the com- tion of abortion may have refl ected plicated, nuanced issue of eugenics. the political sentiment in Portland, No evidence suggests that she sup- and Equi probably had these realities ported involuntary sterilization, man- in mind when she dismissed Portland datory isolation, or forced abortions. offi cials’ “stupid persecution.” Sanger’s own reputation has suff ered Finally, Sanger’s choice of Equi for her endorsement of what historian to revise the edition appears to Jean Baker referred to as “aspects of refl ect what historian Joan M. Jensen a mainstream movement dedicated to referred to as Sanger’s gradual shift improving human beings.”34 from “socialist-feminist arguments The Portland edition retained the of self-help” to a reliance on profes- pamphlet’s affi rmation of sexual activ- sional guidance and birth control ity with straightforward descriptions services from doctors.36 Equi’s beliefs of sexual relations. The matter-of-fact were fi rmly rooted in radical socialist content about women’s sexuality was demands for a political and economic uncommon even among radicals at the overhaul, but she was also a licensed

Helquist, “Lewd, Obscene and Indecent” 283 doctor. Perhaps she represented a of my choosing and did little to bring pivotal transition for Sanger. the goal nearer.”37 By then, Sanger had The reactions to Family Limita- become more conservative as she tion in Portland firmly established sought increased professional support the city’s engagement with a social and more philanthropic donations.38 and political issue that troubled offi - And she chose to ignore her published cials for decades. The confl ict also intention to break the law during her refl ected one of the ways hundreds of 1916 tour in order to draw more public Oregon women exercised their politi- attention to her cause.39 The commo- cal strength four years after they won tion in Portland was certainly noticed the right to vote. Women advocates by much of the public, with several and their male supporters protested reports in the city’s dailies and with the restrictions on dissemination of crowds of observers packing the the pamphlet in the courtroom and in courtroom.40 Regardless of Sanger’s the streets. In a similar manner, Equi’s misgivings about the effectiveness involvement helped establish the role of the Portland visit, the local edition of political radicals in the struggle for of Family Limitation, with its targeted women’s rights and the contributions appeal to union members, was evi- of lesbians to the history of the state dently popular throughout the Pacifi c and region. Northwest. A revised third edition has In her 1938 autobiography, Sanger been located, suggesting ongoing use. recalled her arrest in Portland: “The The pamphlet remained a critical docu- papers made a great to-do about the ment to its readers and a testament to aff air but it was not a type of publicity its time.41

NOTES

The author appreciates the support and mounted an exhibit in Washington, D.C., that assistance with this project generously highlighted the “Books That Shaped America.” provided by Dale Danley; Esther Katz, editor Among the eighty-eight volumes was and director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Margaret Sanger’s Family Limitation, https:// Project; Dr. Christi Hancock, guest editor of sangerpapers.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/ this issue; Eliza Canty-Jones, editor, Oregon family-limitation-a-book-that-shaped-america Historical Quarterly; and the OHQ staff . The (accessed March 1, 2016). author is thankful also for his serendipitous 2. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project, search on eBay, where he found available Microﬁ lm Edition, Library of Congress lists for bidding the rare 1916 Portland version of twenty-two editions. Others are known to Margaret Sanger’s Family Limitation, revised have been produced by diff erent birth control by Marie Equi. groups, unions, and other organizations. http:// 1. In June 2012, the Library of Congress www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/publications/

284 OHQ vol. 117, no. 2 LC-WritingsIndex.pdf (accessed January 15, 548–67. Jensen notes that after 1915 Sanger 2016). gradually shifted “to the Right” into the 3. Margaret Sanger encountered 1920s when she aligned herself more with resistance to her publications and lectures middle-class women’s groups. Intrinsic to ever since she undertook her birth control this transition was Sanger’s greater reliance campaign, including charges against her in on professional advice and contraceptive New York in 1914, a ban against her speaking services from doctors rather than her previous in Akron, Ohio, a near-riot in St. Louis after a emphasis on self-help to empower women. theater manager attempted to prevent her Ellen Chesler, Woman of Valor, Margaret from speaking, and a refusal to allow her Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in speaking in St. Paul. Emma Goldman was also America (New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books, arrested — in New York and in Portland — for 1992), 14–15, 198. her talks on birth control. Sanger complained 10. Sanger, “A ‘Birth Control’ Lecture Tour.” of the steady opposition she encountered 11. Caroline Nelson to Margaret Sanger, from the Catholic Church. For accounts correspondence, June 12, 1915, Sanger and of the resistance, see Margaret Sanger, Katz, The Selected Papers, 136–37; “What “A Birth Control Lecture Tour,” August 9, the Birth Control Leagues Are Doing,” The 1916, The Public Writings and Speeches Birth Control Review 1:1 (February 1917). The of Margaret Sanger, https://www.nyu.edu/ Birth Control League of Portland, Oregon, projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/ was established in May 1915. Members show.php?sangerDoc=320118.xml (accessed disseminated thousands of pieces of birth January 15, 2016); and Jean H. Baker, Margaret control materials, including Family Limitation, Sanger, A Life of Passion (New York: Hill and throughout Oregon and the Paciﬁ c Northwest. Wang, 2011), 75–112. The league convened monthly meetings at 4. Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger, An the Central Library in Portland and attracted Autobiography (New York: Dover Publications, several prominent speakers, including Dr. 1971), 203; Sanger, “A ‘Birth Control’ Lecture Marie Equi; Dr. Samuel Gellert; Dr. Mae Tour.” Cardwell; C.E.S. Wood; Dr. Ella K. Dearborn; 5. “Two Birth Control Trials in Court,” Dr. Bertha Stuart of Reed College; Charles Oregonian, July 1, 1916, 16. On the possible H. Chapman, Ph.D., former president of the financing of the 1,000 copies of Family University of Oregon; and Miriam van Waters, Limitation, see Margaret Sanger and Esther Ph.D., formerly of the Boston Juvenile Court. Katz, The Selected Papers of Margaret There were also chapters of the American Sanger, Volume 1, (Chicago: University of Birth Control League in San Francisco, Los Illinois Press, 2007), 192n18. Angeles, Seattle, and Spokane. 6. Marie Equi greeted Sanger soon after 12. Equi graduated from the University she arrived. “Mrs. Sanger Is Here,” Oregonian, of Oregon Medical Department in 1903 June 17, 1916, 15. Sanger, An Autobiography, and maintained a general practice with an 204–06; “Pamphlet Seller Held, Carl Rave emphasis on serving women and children. Arrested for Birth Control Activity,” Oregonian, She had been an active suff ragist and civic September 9, 1916, 9. reformer before becoming radicalized by 7. Michael Helquist, Marie Equi, Radical police mistreatment in a cannery strike in Politics and Outlaw Passions (Corvallis: Portland in 1913. Equi had already been Oregon State University Press, 2015), 147–52. arrested several times in Portland, including Marie Equi paid the seventy-ﬁ ve dollar bail during the 1913 cannery strike and the for the men. Preparedness Day Parade on June 3, 1916. See 8. Sanger, An Autobiography, 205. Helquist, Marie Equi, 116–22, 142–145. 9. Joan M. Jensen, “The Evolution 13. “Book Sale Stopped: Council Act of Margaret Sanger’s ‘Family Limitation’ Brands Mrs. Sanger’s Pamphlet as Obscene, Pamphlet, 1914–1921,” Signs, 6:3 (Spring 1981): Criticism Induces Action,” Oregonian, June

Helquist, “Lewd, Obscene and Indecent” 285 24, 1916, 18. suppositories could also be found at any 14. For a report of Sanger’s court testimony reliable pharmacy. and arguments by defense attorney C.E.S. 21. Jensen, “The Evolution.” A line-by- Wood, see “Two Birth Control Trials in Court,” line comparison of the 1914 and 1915 editions Oregonian, July 1, 1916, 16; and “Sanger Cases reveals that they are virtually the same. Are Now Up To Court,” Oregonian, July 2, 1916. 22. Family Limitation, 1915 edition, http:// The other two women who were arrested were sangerpapers.org/sanger/app/documents/ Mrs. F.A. Greatwood and Maude Bourner. The show.php?sangerDoc=128069.xml (accessed three men arrested were Carl Rave, Ralph March 1, 2016). A line-by-line comparison of the Chervin, and E.L. Jenkins. 1914 and the 1915 editions reveals that they are 15. “Mrs. Sanger’s Book Declared virtually the same. Obscene,” Oregonian, July 8, 1916, 16; Sanger, 23. Baker, Margaret Sanger, 86–87. “A ‘Birth Control’ Lecture Tour,” 2; “Decision,” 24. The 1916 Portland edition of Family (Judge Langguth’s ruling in the Family Limitation: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ Limitation case), 0201-01 A200-001, Birth pt?id=uc1.31175035151243;view=1up;seq=1 control – legal decision, Portland Archives and (accessed January 15, 2016) Research Center, Portland, Oregon. 25. Ibid. 16. Helquist, Marie Equi, 145–152; 26. The labor leaders listed on the inside “Margaret Sanger Arrested in Portland!” front cover of the 1916 Portland edition are Margaret Sanger Papers Project, June Olaf Tveitmoe, editor of “Organized Labor” 20, 2013, https://sangerpapers.wordpress. of San Francisco; Charles Bennet, Business com/2013/06/20/margaret-sanger-arrested-in- Agent of the River Steamboat M.U. of Portland, portland/ (accessed January 5, 2016); Sanger, Oregon; Marshall Wright, Business Agent of “A ‘Birth Control’ Lecture Tour,” 83–84. the I.L.A. of Tacoma; E.B. Ault, editor, “Labor 17. Jensen, “The Evolution,” 551–52. Union Record,” of Seattle; Joe S. Hoff man, Jensen did not include the 1916 Portland Business Agent of the AMC&BW of Seattle; edition in her analysis. and Anton Johansen, General Organizer of 18. For notes and discussion of the the UB of C&J. All had endorsed the birth sections of the 1913 draft for Family Limitation, control movement. see http://www.glennhorowitz.com/dobkin/ 27. Equi emphasized taking Beecham’s family_limitation_manuscript_notebook www. Pills, a laxative, for cleansing the bowels glennhorowitz.com/dobkin/family_limitation_ and “assisting with the menstrual flow.” manuscript_notebook (accessed March 1, She suggested three additional douche 2016). solutions, but she suggested that bi-chloride 19. Baker, Margaret Sanger. 85–90, be avoided. The 1917 edition deletes several 110–113; Helquist, Marie Equi, 145–52. Laxatives of the suggested compounds from the 1915 were considered at the time to be helpful as an and 1916 versions, indicating the subjective abortifacient, although it was later considered nature of determining which compounds hearsay unsupported by scientific study. were judged effective and the different Sanger deleted this reference from versions experiences of individuals involved in drafting of the pamphlet after 1920. new editions. 20. Family Limitation, 1914 edition, and 28. Family Limitation, 1916 Portland following editions. The 1917 edition noted edition, 10–11. The 1917 edition drops the that suppositories were becoming more targeted messages to men and does not generally used in the United States than mention use of Sanitube. any other means of prevention. By that time 29. As it turned out, Sanger relied on a

286 OHQ vol. 117, no. 2 new edition in 1917, not Equi’s 1916 revision, Archives and Research Center. to update her prescriptive information more 36. Jensen, “The Evolution,” 549. There expansively and to polish the writing more is no evidence that Equi consulted with the extensively. The 1917 edition of Family Birth Control League of Portland members Limitation is available online at http://www. about the pamphlet revision, but it seems gutenberg.org/files/31790/31790-h/31790-h. reasonable that she would have discussed htm (accessed March 1, 2016). Jensen, “The the more important changes with the league’s Evolution,” 551. Jensen noted that Sanger leaders if not others as well. dropped “fi nanciers and ruling classes” from 37. “Emma Goldman Is Put Under Arrest,” the 1917 edition and substituted “working Oregonian, August 7, 1915, 12. Sanger could women” for “working class.” not have been greatly surprised by her arrest 30. The draft document appears to have in Portland. The year before, Portland police been written in 1913 and served as the basis arrested the anarchist Emma Goldman for for the 1914 initial edition, but others consider publicly discussing birth control. this draft to be a handwritten transcription of 38. Jensen, “The Evolution,” 548–67. Margaret Sanger’s earliest 1914 edition. The Jensen analyzed how the political rhetoric document in question is available at www. in the pamphlets from 1914–1921 evolved glenhorowtiz.com/dobkin/family_limitation_ from the radical feminist ideology of the late manuscript_notebook (accessed January nineteenth and early twentieth centuries 20, 2016). to a more conservative and mainstream 31. See Helquist, Marie Equi, 85–96; also, expression by the 1920s. The 1920 edition of Michael Helquist, “‘Criminal Operations’: The Family Limitation, however, employs even First Fifty Years of Abortion Trials in Portland, stronger exhortations to working women with Oregon,” Oregon Historical Quarterly, 116:1 comments such as “the need for information (Spring 2015): 6–39. concerning birth control is even more urgent 32. Family Limitation, 1916 Portland today” and “big battalions of unwanted edition, inside back cover. This particular babies” make life so difficult for working criticism of U.S. doctors was not retained women and “keep her in poverty and stress.” in the 1917 edition, although restrictions “Papers of Margaret Sanger, microfi lm,” Library on doctors’ helping pregnant patients of Congress, box 200, reel 129. with serious illnesses was included, http:// 39. Jensen, “The Evolution,” 549. sangerpapers.org/sanger/app/documents/ 40. “Two Birth Control Trials in Court,” show.php?sangerDoc=128069.xml (accessed Oregonian, July 1, 1916, 16. January 10, 2016). 41. Margaret Sanger to Charles and 33. Mark A. Largent, “ ‘The Greatest Curse Bessie Drysdale, correspondence, August of the Race,’ Eugenic Sterilization in Oregon, 9, 1916, Sanger and Katz, The Selected 1909–1983,” Oregon Historical Quarterly, 103:2 Papers, 185–88. The Birth Control League of (Summer 2002): 188–209. In 1917 the Oregon Portland had printed and distributed Family State Legislature authorized a state Board of Limitation throughout the Pacifi c Northwest Eugenics that oversaw the forced sterilization even before Sanger’s 1916 visit. There is little of citizens deemed undesirable. reason to believe the IWW and union members 34. Baker, Margaret Sanger, 3–8, 159–65; discontinued this activity. At the start of the trial Chesler, Woman of Valor, 195–96, 214–17. of the four men and three women in Portland, 35. “Decision,” (Judge Langguth’s ruling Judge Langguth ordered all copies of the in the Family Limitation case), 0201-01 A200- pamphlet be returned to the owner, except 001 Birth control — legal decision, Portland for one that he requested for use by the court.

Helquist, “Lewd, Obscene and Indecent” 287