Editorial

EDITORIAL

Lord Dawson of Penn, physician to the King of England, has with incisive courage again come forward as one of the most authoritative champions of Birth Control. In his recent evidence given before the national Birth Rate Commission set up by the English National Council of Public Morals, Lord Dawson roundly denounced the current hypocrisy of the churches and made a strong plea for sex love as essential to a happy normal life. Sex love, asserted Lord Dawson of Penn, is and should be the physical expression of a lasting affection, cementing the unity in marriage of spirit, mind and body. "The right view is that sex love has, apart from parenthood, a purpose of its own. It is something to prize and cherish for its own sake. It is an essential part of health and happiness in marriage.

Without the physical desire and its periodic satisfaction for its own sake, the union is a poor spiritless thing, feebly cemented-without glow or fire. Sexual union under proper conditions makes for health. When love has come and men and women are united in marriage, sexual intercourse is right and desirable, provided both parties are fit." There is nothing shocking in these simple truths so courageously stated. But there is something supremely fine and noble in a man who dares to state such simple wholesome truths in an unfaltering voice to his nation and to the world, as Lord Dawson has so courageously done.

Furthermore, Lord Dawson has the insight to recognize that there can be no substantial happiness in marriage without the recognition and acceptance of the ethics of Birth Control. By Birth Control he means what we all mean that the conception of children should be a matter of choice, not chance. The regulation of childbirths is being brought about, in the opinion of Lord Dawson, by these factors (1) increasing density of population, (2) increasing sense of the value of child-life and of the responsibility of parenthood, (3) the desire of parents to equip to the very best of their ability their children, both in body and mind, (4) the social and domestic difficulties in the homes of growing numbers, (5) the desire of increasing numbers of women for a larger share in the work and the interests of the world--a share they cannot take if enslaved to unceasing and involuntary maternity. Church authorities, continued the physician to the king, have evaded the real problem. They have counseled restraint and abstinence. At times they apologize for sex-love, at times they seem to ignore this dominating force. "That is the moving force," to quote further from Lord Dawson's evidence--"and man glorifies in its possession. Why not take account of it? Why not give it its place? Why apologize for it? Mere statements that it is immoral, is contrary to the teachings of Christianity, or is condemned by the Bible, will only bring disrepute on those who make them and especially among the young, who matter most." Bravo! Lord Dawson of Penn! Our only regret is that there are no men in public life in America courageous enough to speak so openly on the legitimacy of sex love and its importance to the individual and the nation and the world at large.

It is especially gratifying to the directors of the American Birth Control League that Lord Dawson's pronouncement is an agreement with our stated policies and program. This agreement with our principles is doubly satisfying not only because Lord Dawson of Penn is one of the most distinguished medical authorities of Great Britain, but his position as a legislator in the House of Lords gives emphasis and authority to his opinions. Discussion of the principles and the methods of Birth Control, he says, should be kept separate. The methods of Birth Control should be set forth by the scientists whom they properly concern. This position is that of the American Birth Control League and determines our program, both practical and legislative. We hold that laws should be revised to enable the physician to work in clinics. Lord Dawson, whose reported evidence before the English Birth Rate Commission shows every sign of deep and clear thinking upon Birth Control and all its allied problems, has arrived at the same conclusion. On the other hand, he realizes as we do that the great broad principles of the doctrine, which touch at every point the fundamental problems of humanity, must be openly and frankly and seriously discussed.

Plans for the Sixth International Birth Control Conference are under way. Supporters of Birth Control in many countries are expressing their desire to attend. But the poverty of Europe, which affects both individuals and organizations makes it very doubtful whether some of these delegates can get here unless the American Birth Control League can pay part of their expenses. The International should not be deprived of these men and women for money reasons. For our benefit and for theirs we must have them. But to have them we must have funds. OUR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FUND must be sufficient to provide not only the general expenses of the Conference but to help bring foreign delegates over. We ask our readers to contribute to this fund and to urge their friends to contribute. A coupon for this purpose is to be found on the news section of the REVIEW.

With profound regret we announce the resignation of Mrs. Annie G. Porritt as managing editor of THE BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW. For the past two years Mrs. Porritt has fulfilled this difficult post with untiring energy, devotion and keen intelligence. Under her editorial direction, THE REVIEW has assumed an added dignity. Especially from our English friends have we received much praise for the appearance and tone of the magazine under the editorial guidance of Mrs. Porritt. We take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to Mrs. Porritt for her always conscientious and cheerful co-operation with the hope that her much-needed rest will restore her without delay to the best of health. We regret the loss of Mrs. Porritt as managing editor. Her successor is Mrs. Mary Sumner Boyd.