Case 5. This couple had been married eight years, and had five children And the wife said she could not stand it any more. Another child—no, she preferred death. They practiced coitus interruptus for a while, with mutual disgust, but when the wife was caught again, she said: "No more!" And she would not let her husband come near her. He could do what he pleased—she did not care. After a few months he began to go elsewhere—contracted syphilis, had to give up his position, the home was broken up, the wife went out to work, the children are scattered—in short, a home, which we are told is the foundation of our society, is broken up, and there is misery and wretchedness all around—and all for the lack of a little timely information.
Case 6. Mr. A and Miss B, twenty-eight and twenty-five years old respectively, have known one another for several years, and in spite of their occupation, which is supposed to make people blasé and cynical—he being a reporter and she a special story writer—are quite in love with each other. But their occupation and income are such that they cannot possibly afford to have and to bring up any children. They would love to get married, but the specter of a child—or rather of children—frightens them; and they remain single, to the great physical and mental injury of both. Accidentally they learn of appropriate means of regulating conception, get married and live happily—ever after, that is, until they find themselves in a position to have children and to bring them up properly.
In what way was society injured by this young couple acquiring contraceptive information?
Case 7. Mr. C and Miss D are in love with each other. Unfortunately there is a strong hereditary taint of insanity on both sides. They are too high-minded to think of giving birth to children. They might be all right, but with insanity one does not take any chances. The thing is too terrible. They are condemned to a life of celibacy, which to them means a life of loneliness and misery. But like an angel from heaven comes to them the knowledge that one can live a love-life without any penalties attached to it. They get married and there is not a happier couple living.
In what way has society been injured by this couple obtaining the contraceptive knowledge?
Case 8. Mr. and Mrs. E have been married five years. They have a child four years old which shows unmistakable symptoms of epilepsy. They are horrified and an investigation discloses the fact that on her side in the preceding generation there was a good deal of epilepsy. Of course, the next child may not be epileptic. But then again it may. No parents with any sense of responsibility would take such chances. They decide to give up conjugal relations. They keep it up for about thirteen or fourteen months; then one night an accident happens and very soon she finds herself pregnant. She declares she would rather die than to give birth to and have to take care of another epileptic child. She goes to a friendly physician who performs an abortion on her, and now the couple, not secure against future accidents, if they live together, decide to separate, and a tragedy is in sight. Fortunately they learn that conception can be prevented, and they continue to live together with benefit to themselves and harm to none.
In what way has society been injured by those people acquiring contraceptive information?
Case 9. Mr. and Mrs. F have been married six years, and in these six years they have been blessed with four children. When he married he was getting twenty-two dollars a week, and that is exactly what he is getting now. In the meantime the cost of living has gone up twenty-five per cent., and there are four extra mouths to feed and four extra bodies to clothe. What difference this has made in that little household can better be imagined than stated. The little mother has aged sixteen years in those six years, and there is not a trace left of her girlishness and youthfulness. She loves her children, and does not want to get rid of them. She would not take a million dollars for one of them, but she would not give five cents for another. But this is just what terrifies them; the possibility of another. And that possibility makes her irritable, makes her repel her husband's slightest advances, makes her move his bed to another room. She even tells him to satisfy his sexual desires elsewhere—and at the same time she is in fear and trembling that he might follow her advice. In short, a nice young home is about to be disrupted. Fortunately he reads somewhere an article on the subject of voluntary limitation of offspring, he begins to investigate; his physician pleads ignorance, but he is persistent, the physician investigates and obtains the desired information, which he shares with the patient. Harmony is restored and a happy home is re-established.
Who was injured by the couple obtaining this information? And if nobody was injured, and everybody concerned was benefited, then why should the imparting of such information be considered a felony, punishable like the most atrocious of crimes?
Case 10. Mr. and Mrs. G have been married fifteen years. They were the parents of seven children, a large enough number for any family. Those seven children were born during the first eleven years of their married life. During the past five years, afraid of having any more, they first abstained and then adopted a method which every modern sexologist knows is injurious to the nervous system of both the man and the woman. The man became a wreck; first neurasthenic, then impotent, cranky and grouchy, unable to get along in the office, constantly squabbling with his wife, who became just as bad a wreck. Their economic condition plus too many small children prevented the parents' separation. They remained living together, but they lived like a cat and a dog tied in a bag. Each silently prayed to be rid of the other. But a conversation overheard at a Turkish baths establishment put him on the right trail, and one year later we find the couple reconciled, both in good health and living a peaceful and fairly harmonious life. And those who have benefited most by the change are the children. In what way was society injured? And still if the doctor who gave Mr. G the information should have been caught and convicted, he would have been sent to prison for a year or two or five. Would he have deserved it? Here we have several plain, simple, unvarnished and unembellished cases which are typical of millions of similar cases and which prove conclusively that the law against imparting information about preventing conception is brutal, vicious, antisocial. Should not such a law be repealed, wiped off the statute books?