DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 163 518 4 CS 204 595

Easel-Walters, Lynne '. AUTHOR . TITLE Birth Control as Obscenity: Margaret Sanger hod "The 'Woman Rebel."

c. PUB DATE Aug /8. . mOTE. 2$p.: Paper prgsented at the nnial Meeting of the Association for Educdtion in Journalism (61st,

Seattle, Washington, August 13-16, 1978) . . . , .

EDRS PRICE ..4_ MF-$0.83 HC-$1.67 .Plus Postage. ' . .D1SCRIPTORS .* *Censorship; *Contraception; Federal-Legislation;

. Females; *Freedom of Speech; Newipapers: Propaganda: . . San60:oni: *Sexuality; Social History; Social Values:

United States History . IDENTIFIERS *Obscenity:- .*Sanger (Margaret)

ABSTRkCT, In spite of the negative aspects of her determination to be the sold motivator, controller, and martyr for the birth 'controlmovement, Margaret Sanger was epositive social force in testing and denotincing the Comstla law. The law, named for Anthony Comstock, a postal Inspector who had 'lobbied Congress to forbid the distribution of obscene_matszials'throughout the United States, equated birth control and sex education with obscenity. After Comsto.ck declared issues of a socialist newspaper unmailable because Sanger had mentioned the namesof venereal diseases in her articles on sex, Sanger resorted to publishing. her own newspaper, / "The Woman Rebel,.." The first issue and six of the next eight issue's were suppressed for their controversial content and'Sanger was indicted on nine counts of law violation,' despite the fact' that tike articles contained. only general discussions of contraception. 4fEer Singer fled tp Europe, alleging that the courts' were treating her unfairly, her estranged husband, was arrested for passing on one cppy of,her birth control pamphlet. Resentful of his,publicity, Sanger

returned seeking a court trial in order to achieve publicity for her . cause. When the government decided not to-prosecute tter, she achieved.' publicity by forming an organization to promote contraception. (MAI)

I

1

Nr

*******************44*********************************************i**** 'Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best'that can be made

* , from the original >document. **********************************************************************

N.,

10

11. , RI U I DEPARTMENT or NEALTN EDUCATION &WELPARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS OCKUmiN7 HAS BEEN REPRO. CE) OOCEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVE* FROM 114e PERSON OR ORGANIZATION oalotN- c-4 AT1NO IT POINTS OF Y/EW OR OPINIONS stATea be NOT NECESSARILY REE-PR, HISTORr LCt SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OS EOLICA NON POSITION OR POLICY Pr\ r-4 C:3 ' BIRTH CONTROL AS OBSCENITY: 1,1.2 MARGARET SANGER AND THEWOMAN REBEL

/

/ . IA

.

Ve.

tonne Nksel-Walters 'Assistant Professor I.

School of Communication ' University of Alabama I "PERMISSION To REPRODUCE THIS1 MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED gIT I Lynne Masel-Walters

To THE EDUCATIONA:.. RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC/ AND USERS OF THE ERIC SYSTEM

:Presented to the History Division,Association in Journalism Annual for/Education Convention, Seattle,Wash., August, 1978

4 I. Birth.Control as Obscenity: Margaret Sage.and The Woman Rebel*

When Margaret Sanger died in 1966, her eulosts called her a visionary,

a pioneer and a monumental figure 9f the first half of the twentieth century.

110 Thepe were not just the usual maudlin overgeneralizationslof funeral

orators. er was a force in social. history. Without her devotion toq4

contraceptive cause, ter1,1111121*esto test the la* that impeded it and her 4__

understanding of the value of publicity, birth control material would nct be

as freely available as it is today.

This is nottosay that Sanger's contributions to the movement were wholly

positive. Sanger's devotion was to "her" cause, and manlioof her moreill -

advised endeavors were attempts to maintain control of the birth control move -

went. In testing the laws, she frequently chose the wrong gtounds, giving up .

the less dramatic but more constitutionally sound argument of free speech and

press in favor of evidence on the social and medical efficacy of contraception.

And publicity for birth,control often was promotion for Nbrgaret Sanger.

The case examined in this paper, which concerns the publication of The IMAIPP

Woman Rebel, illuittrates:these corbadictions,jn doing so, it also illuminates

confusions 11 the historical record, confusions that were created by Santer

. - helself as she molded her image of motivator of and martriforNhebirth

0 control movement.

We live in an age in which the majoritir of adult females practice

dome form of contraception. Thus, it seems strange to us that, fifty

years-ago, individuals were jailed for promoting birth control. Odd, too,

-.is the fact that, while today's obscenity cases involve hard core 4 'peronography, yesterday's obscenity laws involved the dissemination of

'birth control advice and devices. Hard to believe, it is nonetheleds true. .

*This research was supported bya. Creative Endeavors Grant from Centre,. Michigan University 3 - i 0

a a

2

. zz, the early years of t40 twentieth century, contraCeptionwe's co . . . . . 1 . . ) . be not Only contrary to thelaws of God and nature, but to the laws

. ofpan as well. Federal and state legislation branded both the infoma-

k.. tionend instruments of contraception as.obscene, and provided for the

yenishment of those.who attempted to enlighten the public -oii the practice

. . of contr011edfertility.. 1..,,:: '.' , 4 , 0 1 The laws oI' man regarding the pornographic nature of birth coilirol..

techniques were really the laws of °moan, Anthony Comstock. -Beeauses ,

of Comstock's activities 'shead of the SOciety for, the- of

Vice, his re* became synonomous for repressed sexualtbehavior and re

. pressive legislation regarding sexual behavior. CoestOcic had an abhorence

of obscene material.Such material, be belieVed, could fail,into the -

hands of young people, cueing them to be degraded and debauchiddl To

prevent this from occurring, Comstock begah avre-man. crusade Up rid .

Americo iterery and pdcteral representions of sexual actities.

The crusade began in New York City in 1872.E Here,in one year, Comstock

11

I brought about the arrest of 11 dealers and publishers ;Of obscene liter- I I, ... ature and drawings, and the destruction of plates fr&m 1.67,poAographic 1. books.2 lktt he was not satisfied. ,Comparing his,work td standing at the

40, mouthora sewer, Comstock mall ed that there was muofimore to be done. d' AAA itwould not be done unless aii were passed. that for lid the dis-

tribution of obscene material throughout the United States.,Thus, he

' and his backers lobbied pngress for the passage o614ch,a law. They

were sucoessfal. In 1873, the federal legislature amended Section 211

of the Criminal Code. The new law,, which made nonmailableNeillLyobscene,

lewd, or lascivious andeveryAthybook, pdeturel'Paper,:letter, writing,

print, or other pllication of an indecent character:'. .,h14: relied begvily

on the Hicklin Rule for the determination of what would constitute un- I 4 . °. ,

3

11

- * - deliverabiematerialk. Enunic ated byLbrd Chief Justice Cockburn in England

in 1 tgealle definelig;:obscene, material whose'tendency vis to deprave

or corrupt those whbse,mdnds are open to such immoral influences, and into

,. . .., whose hands.aipblication'of this ;sort may fall:"I',Individuals in the United , ... , . , .States who attempted to mail pieces producing such a "tendency" would be

4 . subject, 112derSection 211, to a fine of $5°,006,and/or five years iqprisOn-:

, vent for the first offense:6 To insure that these provisions wereen-

forced, Comstock pressured Congress to name him toot office inspector.

As such; he had sole responsibility for the deterndnation and elindnation

of obscene_matarials in the mails.?

The law that bore ttomstcak's name and legitimated his mission also

forbade the mailing of birth control' itformatic6 and devices. Miry Ware

Bennett, a leader of the contraception movement and a woman who would be 1 prosecuted under the law in 1930 for her fenphlet, "The Sex Sid)).of 4 Insisted that Comstock had no thought of "penalizing normal birth Contro3,.

information;"- Rather, she said that he was "simply so bent upon wiping

out the shocking commerce in pornographic literature... that he rushed r' heedlong into the question'Oelegislation without due considerationas

to thefesults...."8Comstock's owd words provided support for ppnnettls

coatentionthatti4law wasriptiAapd,at the legitimate'dissemination of

contraceptive matter. In 1915, he noted that he did.not intend the law

to prevent the use off. nob material by the medical professions.9 This might_s

.111 be hindsight and an at ' to Justify the nineteenth century law in terms

. of twentieth century - riencea and criticism. Evidence from Comstock's

the and from the time t theleiwas passedindicatesthat.he did, indeed,

desire to suppress All ctraceptive devices and information.1° / -ComstOck wasAme religious man. fundamentalist, he believed

in the literal interprieta on of the Bible, among whose injunctions is t- .4 4 1..

"go forth'nd 'Furth., hebelieved in the ,necessity for constant

'vigilance against tetations. sin, vigilance that ,required a high degree

of discipline.11 nun they not use self control;" Comstock once railed

against those who too often led ged th fornication. "Or must they sink 4. to'thmlevil'of the beasts?" are of.pregnency,:Oodis "naturalbtrrier6,"

'were thelvimary restraints to. ch animalistic behavior. "If you turn

'lose Csic;% the passions -end bre down the fear, you bring worse disaster

than the war. .It would debase sacred things.41and diseminate ;kg; a

greater curse than the plagues diseases of Europe."12

Whatevei were Cometock's .tivations, it is unquestionably true that

1 the law he promulgated was the first. in Amerl.can history -63 put barriers

in the way of distribution'6?c ntraceptilie matter. PreVibus to the amend,

4 ment of Section 2111, newspapersandmagazine.s occasionally discussed birth

.1 control, and advertisements for ontraceptive devicei wer;-dirried by

reputable 1.1biications,13 The Retook Law brought an end to this. From . .76 , : . 1872, the inter-state distributi of such matter wasfOrbiddenVSoon,

antra -state diseeminatiOn would be illegal as well. Following th?. falderal

lead, 22 states enacted "little Ponstock Laws." The New Yk Legislature,

for example, passed Section 1142 of the Penal, taws.. Titled "IndeCeni

exposure,obscene exhibition, books and prints and bawdy and other dis-

.4K ,orderly houses,"thisavi carried ComstOck'scarefully written prohibition.

against the distribution of birti controlinformation and diviCat.14 4

41Des*te the. ease with which the federal and state laws were passed, '

Comstock bills were not universally popular. Somecritics noted that e

. the laws were too general, not discriminating between "reerpornographiu r material and helpfuledUcationalmatters.45Others !kited the repressive

tendencies of such legislation. Morris.Ernst, for one, compared laws that/

squelched the attempt to "explain the mysteries anibeauties of sex and ."«,iti

5

i6 birth" to the historical-harrassment of Bruno, Calileo and Copernicus,

Another grOupof critics disliked the 'tyrannical power" over the spread of

informatit3n that the legislation gal* to government officials, especially

to the'Post Office inspector.17 "If tarp concede :this power to Ithe-Poet 0 'Office;..., -Wemight,4,3t as well give to the street car compeiiiies and

railroads the right to refilse to carry passengers whose ideas they do not

"18 like.

Although never refused aride on a public conveyanceecause-ofhpr

unconventional`fdeas, the woman who made.this statement fr uently found

that thy lead to a denial of her access to the Mails. 4he womanwas

Margaret Sanger. As a leader of the birth control movement and the most

outspoken advocate of contraception she was bound to run afoul of.the

Comstock laws and the man whose name they bore..The woman he labelled an

"abortionist"19 and Comstock, whom she ,called. "stunted" and i'neurotic,r2D

could not have been more unlike. Pile he !sea religious Protestant, she

was a anti-religious Catholic. He';was self-effeicing; she was self-promoting.

He considered the feminist causethat she Supported "odious" acid unnatural,

and deplored the radical movements she flirted with as a Young woman.With . such contrary natures and beliefs, Comstock and Sanger seemed destined to

clash.21 - The first shot fired by Comstock in his battle against the leader of

the birth co rol army was aimed at a socialist newspaper to which Singer

contributed. The Call) in'1912, printed two series of articles written by

Sanger. The first, "What Every Mother Should KnOw0", provoked no govern-

mental reaction. The second did. "What Eve*Girl Should Know,m contained 0 403 prablems,"0r: This; a "simpleelucid1tion of the nature of sex and " .°, apparently, wasiiittidy!too.much for'Comstock. As a result of the Sanger

f . I . , articles, he deplared.the'Cill.nonmailable. The newspaper printed in its -.

*.. . .. 4.0 tok 4"gq" 1

ssue "What.Every Girl' Should Know:' NOTHING!' BY order Of the Post

1 3, office Department.'2,

What Comstock found objectionable in these articles was the discussion

of venereal disease, specifically. the use of theords gonorrhea and

typhillis: Birth control; itt desirabilityand techniques, Was not even

. covered; Sanger had not reaphed that point in her essays.24"Without once

Fuelling, then, upon the subject that was the primary cause in her life, . Margaret Sanger found herself in violation of .the Comstock Law.

A similar situation occurred the second time -ahe was involved with

Section 211. The cause here was Sanger's newspaper, The Woman Rebel. And

it was Sanger's newspaper. She was its "editor, circulation director,

'treasurer, bookkeeper." Although Sanger had 1 e financiil backing,

she was determined to keep her.publication Ring. er motivation; in t was the desire to providethe man reader with infc'rmatim on the "conditions

which enslave her and the manner-in which she is enslaved-P.3y the machine,

by sex convq4tion, by motherhood, by wage slavery, by bourgeois morality, .

by customs.jaws and saperstiticbs.026 But Sanger also wanted to defy the ----- Comstock LeJw0011A61behind a barricade of law books and legaktechnicalities

but by spreading thewinformation among the workers diredtly."27

The Woman 'Rebelfliadefy Section 211; but, like the articles in the

Call, it di' not do so-by impartipg birth control inforailon. Thefirst

issue of the newspaper (Nardh, 1914) and six out of the next eight editions

were suppressed by the Post Offce.2! :fet, these newspapers occitained only

the most general of discussions on contraception. Topics covered included

thecost. ofs large iy, the aims of the Birth Control League, the

prevalence bf abortion:inKIklited States, and the harmlessness of

. . 29, preventive means of birth control. But if onelooks. for elucidation as

to what exactly. those preventi4e(megnspre, onewill not find thet.infor- 1

i ..

fti

, . yi...... (.../ a r'matiofi in the s4pressedissues of The Woman Rebel. What one will" find,'

. , . . along with the aforomentiOned tontraceptive generalities, is a strange

. .0. . ) -amalgam of vindictive articles. What Max Eastman called "very conscious

extremism and blare of rebellion foritsoWn sake,"30 theee pieces

. t . contained attacksbn wierything from the church to capitalism.Also

-included in the paper weskitphilosophic essay,.largely derived.from the works. of Richard Carlisle. The essay noted th tin Some circumbtances, the assassination of national leaders was justified. anger said that

she iTinted.this piece "in the nameof free speech:" With it, she

was taunting the government t6 take action, as the CliSougtiOn of assassin-

! atiockhlsolwmprohibiisd under Section '2111-Besides, she said,. the

article was "vague, inane,. andinocuoue."31'

Legal authorities abviously did not agree with Sanger's benign'

. $ . . . evaluation Itlf the assassinationedaY. She did not Chow this at the ..

-time, unsuccessfully haiing.requestefrom the,New York the

titles of the articles causing the confiscation of The Woman Rebel:

But the essay onAssassination was included with the birth control

pieces in the nine counts of violation of Section 211 for dich.danger

was indicted in Augtist, 1914.32

We know thatMargaretSanger was arraigned at the old pift office

balding in Mhnhattanion.August 25;33 but here the records becomes confused;

Oneaspectof theconfusionconcens'the role of the general circulation

press. Sanger dpparently believed that the Presessas against her.'

Shenoted thatthe newspapers failed to eivethe "official tYranNe

invalved.in the confiscation of Tlie Woian-Rebel any publicity.34 In fact,

onereporter who came toSanger's. apartmenterherehe was the brunt of if her daughter's teasing, peavishly suggested that she stay home and "spend

.34 thoughton disciplining" hei faMily." 'A supporter backed Sanger's contention "9 8 1

that the press failed to endorse her cause.NeweRape of the time,

Frederick'Bloesom said,.cauld hscarcelyfiAthe courage to print the

dreadful words 'birth control' tucked away in the center of a news f

paragrai0...."36Sanger and Blossom insisted that they could not

understand, this attitude On the part of the media because The Woman Rebel

O fight was based on governmental violation of the First Amendment. After

oll, Sanger and her publication were battling for the same freedom of the

press that subtained the unfettered operation of those'newspapers that O nOw failed to support. her.437

. Whylwere the'birth control adherents so convinced of media hostility

I to the cause? Certainly, the press did not'embrace Sanger wholeheartedly. 4 . &me newspapers, such as the Pittsburgh Sun, finding The Woman Rebel

I nnauseating."38-But il must be realized that general circuIition publicatiXawere in the same poiition in regard to the illegality of

6 printing articlei'on birth control as was Sanger's journal. FUrthermore,

. A in her personal papers andautobiogtaplphy, there is little evidence that

Sanger intended to wage hebattleon First Amendment groOnds. Had 'she I .416 % gone on trial in 1914,'the deniallkotf press freedom probably would not

have been one of her major arguments.Material .dealing with the two

major obscrity,cases in which she was defendant indicaes this. 'The idea

ofreform of the Gdmstock lawsas,they dondernentraception, Zander

the banner of,free.dxpression,only tirieflY cAssidSang4rtmind.39Despite

the problems of the mass pressin dealing ,wit:h the aoncepT and content

of The Woman Rebel,-despite the weak link between-its cause and theirs, there

tie little reason to believe or evidence tolVr6ve Sanger's COntention that

she was at test ignored, at worst deplored by the nation's newspapers.°

. A similar problem exists with Sanier's cOnIention that the court and 1n 9

itsofficerS concerned with The Woman\Rebel case were ranged against her.

She notes in her-autobiographx her "childlike" faith in the judicial system.

"All I had to do," she said, "was explain to those in power what I was

doing and everything would dome right."41But her "faith" was soon

destroyed. The authorites, Sanger insisted, "were anxious to forestall

a the distribution of birth control knowledge and knew that this could

best be done by imprisoningme."42To insure that she be incarcerated, the

court thwarted her every move, or so.she insisted.Sanger's special

'complaint was_about Assistant District Attorney Harold A. Content. She

said that this"ferociousLyoung fellow," was attempting, with the connivance of I. 4.

Judge Hazel, to prevent 'her from having adequate time to preinare her ease.

Again, there lis,contradictory evidence. Content seems far from ferodious.

lit his-letters to her he is kind and gentlemanly, trying "at all times to

be courteous to ylm and copsiderate of your rightefir44'

Further, Content does noVappear to be anxious to unnecessarily hurry

danger's trial. Heand Sanger both knef'that shevioletea Section 211.

After all, that was one of per motivationS for publishing The Woman Rebel.

. If this were the case; why would Content ,be so eager to rush.the trial, c., denying Sanger an opportunity to have. an adequate defense. It is unlikely

that he was. But *his is beside the question. Whether Sanger knew, or

only imagined that Content was burriing her off to jail, she used the I. .s speed of the trial, the denial of "my right and freedom," de justification / folavoiding the wholematter.4 fleeing to,Europe.45 4 Although Sanger does not'dwell on the issue, the.decision to

drtmaticallY postpone the case' may have. had as much to do. with the material .

for which she was to be prodecuted as with the speed of the prosecution.

the indictable articles from The Wpan Betel did notprovide information on- ' . ,'

10

411, o . . birthcontrol ttchni0Les, nor did they depict contraceptive devices. / Strangely enough, the articles did not even advocate the regulation of

fertility. To go to jail for such incubus pieces, would haved{(a;410! t Stinger's purpose, given little.pUblicity t6,the real Cause'and made her a

martyr for notbing

Had Sanger been indicted for. distributing a pamphlet she had.just

written, she no doubt would have been more than happy to go to jail:In

ct, in 191.5, Sanger had her lawyer, Leonard Abbott, irite-United

Stated Attorney H. Srfowden Marshall suggesting a deal. Sanger would send P

her pamphlet, knoiing it to be nonmailable and sUb4eCt'ta indictment, if

the District Attorney's office would drop the chArges based onTheftman

Rebel articles 46 - . . ..' ,Altheut the deal was not accepted, the'llimrphlet Sanger proposed to - w , ..- .- send-ias unquestionatlyaniviolation of the Comttocklamp.:"Family, 4 ...... Limitation" was everything The_Women Rebq pieces were not. It Comb ned

socialist and feminist arguments for Contraception47 with pictuies and it

descriptions' of birth ontrol devices then availablethe douche, vaginal

suppository, condom, sponge and pessary, infinitely more the stuff of

artyrdom, more repugnant to Anthony d6stoek and more indictable under his

- law"Family Limitation," at least in 1915, wa t the key to the, cell that

the government was saving,For Margaret er

if.Nargaret Sanger was not 11.1..enough to be/imprisoned for "FarollY.

'Limitation," her husband was.. ile the.was in Europe, William Sanger, from ti

-wiatom Margaret was estrang maritally as Iell as geographiCally, gave away

a copy of the paciohle The iscipient-was a young man whohadleometo

William Sanger's udio to beg for advice.:The'young man' was an agnt of

Anthony Comstock. He returned an hour later, accompanied by the old man.

Wit:telt, to /'crest 1Nillium Sanger 'for distributing cbscene.literature.48

1;2 .

L,

4,. il . Ae 9F ft:7 . f 4 * It% IfMargaretthought Judge Hazel waist her, William knew that

. 'Adge McInerney was against hi.' During the trial,the judge called birth.

control propaganda "a crime not'only against.the lawi of maxi but against

, . the laws of God." went on to say, "Ifsome of. the women who are going'

aroundand advocating equal suffrage wiulgo around and advocate-women

,having children, they would do a greater iervice "49 Faded with this Sort * pat of-judicial attitude, it-le,pot stirprisibg that/William Sanger was found

'guilt? aid sentenced_to 3 0 days,in jail or a $500 ` He appealed,

butto no avaii.50 Declaring, "I would rather be in Jail with my conviction

% .thawbe free at a loss of my-manhood and my self-Aspect," William Sanger

/ - , was imprisonecUfororlolatingSection.211.51, .. d. As William Sanger argued his case on the basis of his right to free

expression, his trial and conviction generated_ considerable suppbri fdi:'

.4* - birth control as a free speech 4ssue One, would expect, then, that his

patriot wife would is delighted at tOS public and press enOrsement of

the dense. William Sanger's stand had produced. This :wasnanifie--ease.r.

.Margaret was angry at her husband, for taking away the martyrdom and,-

expropriating the cause she thought was hers. "Bill had to get mixed up

in my work after she said with a'great deal of resentment, "and

bf course male it harder for me and all ofus1"53 1

To be fair to William Sanger) the only reason he got "mixed up" in

his wife's work *as that Comstock was attempting to use him to'flush

' yargaret out'ofhiding. It was Its. Sanger. that Comstock was really after. . , I The old Man did succeed to some extent.With William'sarrest,Margaret r realized that she n4ded to return td the States;She was. doing extensive ti

and valuable resear on contraception in &rope. But she kneir that, if she

did. not go.home immediately, she lose control of :the now advancing

birth control movement. Comstock, however, was dot to taste the triumph )

I

t . 12 .

of his mission over that of.°the abortionist." Testifying at the trial of

- * William Sa4er, Comstock' caught cold. He soon developed pneumonia and, in

September, l91,,le'die04

A month after the deatk of her nemesia, Itirgaret danger arrived in

, New York. It was not exactly the return o a conquering herbine. TO

. . nation, concerned with the war in Europe, lagely.ignored her arrival.

. : Her newspaper friends at The -Masses took no Journalistic notice ofher rpturn:

'Shageeefpllowers had taken over Thee birth control movement and were

leading, it in a direction she disliked Hpr family, of course, was pleased

4 to see her, But even here there were problems; William was in'jail and her

daughter, Peggy, was sick with what would prove to be a fatal attack of

pnauponia. On top of all this, Margaret Singer still: had to face the

charges stemming frSmyhe Waran Rebel articles.fifi

Stitngerts friends and advisors urged her to aitoid,a major clash with

the legal authorities She was ill. Nursing Foggy had injured Margaret

.6 6 s)physically; the death of the girl had exhausted.her emotionally.Sanger

really was no canditiOn to stand trial. Should she do soi her friends -it c said, she would get little of th4 press ooveraje she desired to publicize;

the rth controllImovement. Warnrfrom Europe was pushing information

about, local happe9ingi off the newspapers' pages. Furthermore, the

trailwas based on charges only ineirectly related to the contraceptive .06

,.4 cause. Ittherefore, was i !...lant to the case she was attempting to make,

that birth control informatioWas not obscene; For all these reasons, the

people around Margaret Sanger encouraged her to pleadVuilty.' In this

way, she wouldavoid)&judicial'confrontation'that night be detrimental to

theweilzybeinvf herself and her move ent.,6

Even her lawyer; Samuel tirtermyer, offered the same advice.He

: . 1 13 O N called Sanger and. Assistant District Attorney Content into his office.At

1/4, the_meeting, Content said that he would quash the charges and eliminate the jail term if Sanger would pleas guilty and write a letter promising not to'breakthe riew again. yhtermyer thought this 'was a good solution to

Sanger's problems. She did not. Believing that she had distributed nothing obsCene, she was determined not to plead guilty and to go on with the trial. She did not care, she said, if this meant jail. Prison did not frighten her.Should no lawyer be willing to go along with this, Sanger would defend herself.57

',Armed, as she said, with the "valor of faitb4.11-Sanger entered the 58 courtroom on November 21, 1915 to face the charges of violating Section 211.

The spectator section was filled Mhny supporters had come to see a lone woman take on the judiciarreptentatives of the-"conservative and

59 reactionary forcesft:in the nation. Even the press was there. Despite the impending wax', Sanget was news. And it was beginning to look to the media that, although the government was still intransigent on the matter'

contracepiiva.inf6rmationas obscenity, the birth control movement was_generating significant public support.460

If the spectators were expecting a pyrotechnical display of legal arguments, or the titilating disclosure of the gynecological factors of ' birth control, they were sadly disappointed on .November 21. Judge

Clayton, at the request of the prosecuting attorneys, postponed the trial.

When two more postpOnments were granted, Sanger was convinced that The proshoution was indulging in delaying tactics.61This was the exact

opposite of the strategy Sanger claimed the district attorney's office was 1 using against her when The Woman Rebel case first eame up foridjudication in 3.914..l Then, they were attempting to iturrY her to trial. Now

15 .4 s

141

they were trying 'to retard the completion of thecase, presenting "the

anomoly of a prosecutor loath to prosecute and.adefendant 'anxious to be

162

As, with the first phase of The Woman Rebel case, there is contradictory

P t t evidence on this point: In a February 15, 1916 letter to Sanger, Assistant -

District Attorney Content noted that not all of the postponments were granted

-- at the behest of the prosecution.Sanger,*he said, "retained attorneys

just for the purpose of securipg ,adjournments." He reminded her that the

case could have.been tried over a year before had Sanger "notleft the,

jurisdiction in violation of the trust that Judge Hszel.imposed in you when he

released, you on your own recognizance." exasperated, dontent said,You

seem to think that your case is the only one this office has to try." The

attorney then.told Sanger that her case probably would, come to trial the

following Monday, February 18...

With this limited guarantee, Sanger began to prepare her case ip earnest.

We know ai little of her defense as we know of the,prosecution's tactics.What

evidence there is indicates thafshe did not intend toAargue on free speech

grounds.. Rather, her defense centered around the harm that a 7114 of birth

control information was causing the nation's women. Should the facts be

known, and she was going to make them wn in open court, "the Government

would not wilfullysib condemn millions of women to death, misery, or

abortion whilat left them physically damaged and.spirituallycrippled."64

Shewas going to use the trial.as aPublig forum to,arouse the nation:about

birth cont. Serving, figuratively, as counsel for "the poor mute mothers

who are denied their human rights,1/65 Sanger could creatca more'dramatic. ly 3 case and one that better Promoted herself and her cause, than a defenselased

on the constitutionally safer, but less histrionic grounds of free expression.

- ea. 15

A

We wilnever know conclusively whether this was her defense, or, her

strategy; er.was not tried, not giVen an opportunity to speak. On

February 18, the district attorney's atice issued a Cale prosequi, 66 a formal-notific tton of upwillingilessito,prosecute. There are many probable 4 , - 'reasons -for,the go ernment's action. The defendant was not an habitual

offender,nAa "di orderly person," the charge was-an oldone,67.andthe trial

had generated unfavo able.publicity,for the courts. Byt, more than this, the

Prosecution 4adno de ire to grant Banger's wish for self-sacrifice. "We

4were determined that Sanger shouldn't be a martyr if we could help,it,"

4....0;nteht explaized.68 11.( f- Sanger lost 8onethic more than martyrdom as a result of the government's

I action;, she last the battle to publicize information on the desirability of .4 7

and techniques forbirth control. In this battle, she was following the

precedent set by' Annie Beet in England almost 40 years before. Besafit,

along with Charles Bradlaue was tried in 1877 for violating the British

version of the C9mstock Law by distributing a birth control pamphlet, The

. .4 ruits of Philosophy." Written'by an American physician,.Dr:'Charles

Knowlton, the pawphi,et had been printed and sold openly in England for,0 years.

't In 1876, upon the death of th original publisher, Bradlaueh convinced

6.0 Charles Watts to print and disibutethe Knowlton work. Watts wag arrested

for selling this "obscene lite ature" on January 8, 1877. Deciding that the

pamphlet was indefensible, Wat s pleaded guilty to the charges, This angered

Bradlaugh. "I hold the work tbe defensible," he said, "and I deny the right

of amens to interfere with th4 full and free' discussion of social questions

affecting the happiness of the at ion." Bradlaugh,- Joined by Besant, then, 69 determined to republish the hlet to test the right of publication.

. There are several paralle s' between the Besant-Bradlaugh case and that ° 1.

. S

16

t of Margaret Sanger. Like Sanger's efforts with The Woman BeOel, Besant

sand Bradlaugh had given out their publication with the express purposepose of

" defying the obscenity statutes. Also, like Sanger, they planned on. using the

Arial to advance4rthe spread of contraceptiveliterature and the growth of

the birth control movement.

Besant and,Bradlaugh, however; were more sucessful than their would-be t ..American counterpart:713Not only was their conviction overturned on a tech-

. nicality, but their purpose was achieved. TheBritish obsenity laws began to 4 0 , lose their effectiveness. Furthefmore, valuable birth control publicity. .

wasspread. Prior to arrest Of Besent and Bradlaugh, "The Fruits of

Philosophy" had been selling at a rate of '7®& copies, a year. In the three

monthsbetween their arrest and trial, 125,600copieti of the book were sold.

Membership in the organization contraception advocates also began to increase.

And, theEViisitbirthrate beg -plung0 ter:,the.trial.72 it is :

dangerous to makb a causal link bet* case and the slowing ofpopuletion .

growth, but its is,unqu'esttonablyitrue that the trial did generate publicity

for the contraceptive cause&Pf Besant and Bradlaugh said:in the'

introdUctioa to the transcript of their trial: ' t

% The accounts of the tritil which have appeared in the daily and sleekly papers have brought to the knowledge of thousands a great social xeiittion of whose existence they hidno idea before this prosecution took place. Once more. a cause-km triumphed by the fall of its deendeig. Once more a :new trtthhas been sPiead everywhere by its persecutors and has gained a hearing from the dockthat it could 'not have woi from the platfom.73 -.

-.hie other major difference between the Sanger and the Besant-Bradlaugh

cases is that the. English 'birth control advocates did use the free speech t argument,in their trial. The struggle for an unfettered press was.''one of

. the marksf of the Freethougltp.at9 which Besant and Bradlaugh lead.74 In their trial, therefore, they made_every effort to differentiate between 1r 17

the illegitimate attempt of government to limit the spread of contraceptive

information and the legitimate prohibition on distributing pornographic

literature. That ptohibition was a prdper'exercise of a polity thirOperated

under free speech laws which excluded obscene miteriala'from its list of . . 75 protected litterances. FUrther,,they saw their victory as the "triumph

of a Free Press." "The discussiop of a question of ethics, of social 4 science, of medicine...,'! said Besant and Btadlaugh, "has always been the

medium of.progress and the rightNto it mint be wall atoll hazards."76

rgaret Sanger's case certainWwas not the American equivalent of

I t. - talees t-Bradleurh trial, nor was it the "victory and vindication" that

ahe shouted it was outside.the courtroom on February1$.77.But The'WOman

BeVel'case did have some positive effects. For the movement, Sanger's

"gallant zeal" convinced agr4of supporters to form the first organ-

ization promoting contraception, the National Birth Control League.78 For

the public, birth control was made a topic of discussion and concern. And,

for Margaret Sanger,: the case made her a nationally known figure.79and

bolstered her determination to continue to defy lie Sonstock laws. As Sanger

noted:

Against the State, against the Church, against the silence of the medical profession, against the whole machinery of dead institutions of the past,' the women of today arises. 1. She no longer pleads. She no longer implores. She no longer Witions..She inhere to assert herself; tb take back those rights which were formerly hers and hers alone. r

If she mat break the law to establish her . right to vdTEntqry motherhood, then the law ..e must be broke .880 . Broken by Bmneer and her follatt!rs time and time again, the laws

. - preventing the spread of contraceptive information eventually would be

-defeated. Sanger's place in those efforts was controversial then and is

ed now. The records she left behind axe. contradictory. Tie legacy 1J 18

/ she le1Ct behind is not.Although we have a long nay .to go to settle the

yrOblens f'contraceptica and of obscenity, we haye come a longway in

the last 6yeara. No 164ger is birth control and the 'b =" dy house linked A . in the lombac d; no longer are aiaphrans and dirty pd. tures classed.

together. No longer is the dissemination of eontrac'eptive advice and

devices prohibited by law. And this certainly is the legac of Margaret

/ &kneel' 4,

0

f

48

11.

, I

20 19

NO

. 1. Heywood Broun and.Margaret Leach, An ony CQmstoci: Bandsman of the Lord, New.York: Albert 5ind.Chatles.Bone, 1927ppp.r78.81.

Mari! Alden Hopkins, "Birth Control and Public Morals:An Interview with Anthony Coistock," Harper's Weekly, May 22, 1915, p. 490.

3. Tbid.

4. Mary Ware Dinnett, Who's Obscene, New York: Vanguard, 1930, p. xix.

5. James-C. N. Paul and Murray L. Schwartz, Federal Censorship: obscenity in,the Mail, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961, p. 16.

6. Grant S. 1,4Clellan, ed.,-Censorahip in the United States, New York: R. W. Wilsori, 1967,pp. 55-6.

7: Hopkins, "Birth Control and Public 11448," P. 489.

8. Lary*Ware'Dennett, Birth Control' Laws:Shall We Keep Them,,Change Them orAbolish Them,. New, ork: Frederick, W. Hitchcock, 1926, p. 20.

9. Hopkins, "Birth Control and Public Morels," p 490.*

10. Brolin, AnthonS Comstock, p. AlecCraig,,The Banned Books of ,Ehrland and Other* CountriesLondon: George Allen and Unwin, 192, p. 138.

11.Broun, Anthony Comstock, p. 24..

12. Hopkins, "Birth Control and Public Morals," p. 490.

13. Morris Ernst and-Alexander Lindey, TheCensor Marches On, New York: Da Capo Press, 1,971 (reprint edition NewYork: Doubieciay,"Doran-, 1940)) P.140.,

t 14. Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department, "The People of the State of New York v. Marearet'Sariger, Opfendent.-Appeilant,h New York: React Press, p. 4.

15. National Committee for Revision of. the "Comstock" Law to'"editors, publishers and all others who"value the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, April 4, 1938, copy in the Margaret Sanger Papers, Libtary of Congress.

16. Morris Ernst and Alan Schwartz, Censorship: "The-Search for the Obscene, New York:, Macmillan, 1964 p. 92.

17.. Dennett, Who's Obscene, p. rvii:

18. Margaret Sanger, The Case for Birth Control, privately pu sh d 4.

6 20

k ea . 1914,.pp. 10 -11:

14. Craig, The Banned Books of England, iv. 139. . . , .-. A. Margaret Sanger, my fight for Birth Control, New Yoric:,,Farrar and .ffinehart, 1931, 21. . . e . 9 .2t. Brotin, Anthony Comstock, 1-.).249.

22. Max Bastian, "Isthe Truth Obscene?;" The Maws, March, 1115, p. 1. 11. I ' i VI ...

24. Margaret Sanger)Margaret Sanger:An)AtobiographY, New''York: W. W. Norton, 1938) pp. 778. . ,

lreceadern The' garet \rStory and The'FigAt for. Birth, foantrol, Garden City, Now,Xork: Doubleday, 1955, p.,52.

. 26. Advertisement for The Woman Rebel, copy in the Nhrgaret Sanger Papers, Library of__Congress. . .

27. Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger Defends Her Battle for the ght of Birth Control," New rYclicCV4, December 5, 1915, oopy in',the MEttr et/- Sanger-Papers, Library of_CoWias. . . .

28. Margaret Seiager, "'Me' Woman Rebel' and the Fighi for Birth pp t pamphlet privately publishes, n.d.

29. "The Suppressed 'Obscene' ArtiCles (Outline), copy in,the Ahrgaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress.. , . .

30. 'Lager, The Margaret. Sanger Story, 54. :` , ° .060 31. Margaret Sanger, Autobiography, p. 114.

3. Way Taft Douglas, Pio eer of the Future: Mar aret S er, New' York: Hat,Rinehart and WinOon, 1 p. . . * Margaret Sanger to E. M. Morgan, New-YorPostmaster"- April% 2, 1914, Margaret Sanger Papers', Library of Congress:

. . 33: Lader, The:Margarei Sanger Story: p. 57!.. . 34.'"NargaritiSanger, "'The Woman Rebel' and the Fighisforderth Control," p. 1. .

35. Lader, The Margarit Sanger Story, p. 116. a Ott .0 t 36. -treeerick A. Blossom, "Growth of:thiiipilirthCLatp.1. Movement igthe U.S.,"

. Birth Control Review, March;r1917, p. 4. , .

37-.. Emily Taft DouglassPionee406fthe Future," p. 50:

, 38 Lader, The Margaret Sanger Story, p. 54. 0

2 2 A .

21

39. David M. Kenne;y Birth Contrql in America: The Career of Ohrgaret?' . Sanger, New Haven: Yale University Press,,1970,.p. 219.

40. The'New YorkTimes, fo ?pled, oted that.Sanger's arrest wag not due to hex call "upon women to rise," but rat er, to her ''belief that there were, altogether'too many childrenLin this world..."

/ New York Tines, April 4, 1914, P. 19. ', . ., . . .

41. Margaret Sanger, Autobiography, p. 115. . A

1 -..,.., 42. ,Margaret Sanger, "'The Woman Rebel,' and the Fight for Birth Control," pp. 17.2.

43. Margaret Sanger, Autobiography, p. 115.'.

44. Harold A. Content to garet'Sanger, October 13, 1915, Margaret ,...... 1...... );InitgeaSpers, Library of Co ss.

45. Margaret Sanger, Autobiography, .p. 120.

N\lanit. H. Snowden Marshall to Leonard Abbott, December 15, 1445, Margaret er Papers, Library of Congress.

47. -One socilist argument was tacit the working class could pressure the 'capitalists by "refusing to supply tHe market with children to ,be explited, by refusing to populate the girth with salves." 'Feminist argurpents centered ti around the woman's right tp fontrol her own body. When, said Sanger, the liract is,,not "desired on the part of woman and she has na response, it

ula3d.riot take place." Margaret Sanger,"FamilyLimiatatione privately published, 1914, pp. 376.

48. Eastman, "Is the''Truth Obscene?," p. 1.

49. "The Battle Over Birth Control," Curre4 Opinion, Novermbem, 1915, p. 339:

50. People of ihc;State of NewrYork v. William Sanger 1541=414

51.- Kennedy,Birth Control In America, p. 73.

52. "The Battle Over Birth Control," 411e.

_Margaret Stinger to Nan liggins, n.d., from Barcelona, Spence, Margaret . Jr?Opera, Library of, Congress.

54. Bround, Anthony Comstock, pp. 250-9.

55. Kennedy, Birth Control in lmerica,11P. 77-8.

56. Ibid., pp. 79-80.

57. Lader; The Margaret Sanger Story, p, 90. 4 4! 22

I

58. Margaret Sanger, Autobiogrdphy, p. 185.

S9. -Ibid., p. 186.,

. , 60. In a poll taken-by the Pictora]. Review, fors example 97% of the respondents favored birth control. Douglas, Rawer of the Future, p; 92. ., , . a, 61. ihrgaret Singer, AUtobiography, p. 185.

,.. , A '. :62. Leder, The Margaret Sanger Story; p. 94. I

63. Harold A. Content to Margaret Sager, February 15, 1916; Margaret .

Auger Papers, Library of Congress. .

64. Margaret Sanger, AutobiagraphYi pp.185. . .

65.- Douglas, Pioneer' of the Future, p. 90.

. . 66. Harold L. Nelson arid Bwighi'L. Teeter; sr., Law of !Oasis Communications, 2nd. ed., Mineola, New York: The Foundation Press, 1973, p. 638,-

..67. 'Douglas, Pioneer of thenitareivp.93.

68. New York World, February'16, 1916, clipping in Nhrgaret Saner Pppers, Library of Congrigr-- A 69, Hypetla Bradlaugh Bonner, Charles Bradlaugh: A Record'fhe Life

' and Work, London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1902, V.I1, pp.-I6-17.

70. Margaret Sanger, "The Case for Birth Control," pp: 25-6. mo 71. Bonner, Charles Bradlaugh, V.II, p.' 28.

72. C. Thomas Dienes, Law, Politics and Birth Control, Urbana: Univdrsity oIllinois 'Press, 1972, p. 81.

73. The Queen v. Charles Bradleugb and Annie Besant, Lond6n: Freethought Publishing, 877, pp. i-fi: cw

74. Boilner, Charled'Bradlaugh, V.II, A. 17.

75. Dienes; Law, Politics and Birth Control, p. 81. IA

76. The Queen v. Charles.Bmadlaugh aziAnnie Beiant, p.

77- Douglas, Pioneer of theFilturep. 93.

78. Bennett, Birth Control Laws, p. 67.

79. Lader, The Mirgaret Sanger Story, p. 95.

80. Margaret Sanger, "Shall Wereak This Law?," Birth Contra Review, February, 1917, p. 4. )4 2r

3 ,