Now, I think on this bill that women "is came."' I think that she 'is came" in a somewhat hysterical and sentimental way sometimes, because there are always women who are hysterical and sentimental about everything. We know that we are not perfect, and while we have come here in a very well-organized capacity, as I am very glad they have come, then others have come here in an unorganized way, not the women who have been fighting for women's rights, but the women who really have not cared much about women's rights, but who have cared a great deal for men's rights. Let me say that there is no woman living to whom I owe half as much as I do to a half a dozen men. I was fortunate in having a good father and a good brother and innumerable good boy friends in my girlhood, and I was married when I was 18 years old to a very good man, and I have had three sons, and my opinion of mankind has always been very high until this last year, when I began to wonder if I was mistaken. I never cared for women's rights, and I never worried about my rights, and my opinion of man was very high, although I say that with this bill I hope it will pass for the sake of the 25,000 who annually die because of lack of proper care. I will say that I am a very happy woman. There is not a day goes by that I am not glad that every one of my children is a boy, who will not know the suffering through which a woman passes. I sincerely hope that this bill may pass for the sake of the 200,000 who are dying each year, and for the future of our country. It is shown that Italy is the only country in which the population has increased since the war, and in Italy there is not a village where there is not at least a registered woman going out as a midwife to help women in childbirth, but more than all, I wish that it might pass for the sake of the men of this Nation. I thank you. (Whereupoon at 11.50 a. m. an adjournment was taken until Thursday, April 28, 1921, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) PROTECTION OF MATERNITY. THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1921. UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D. C. The committee met pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 a. m., at the committee room of the Committee on Education and Labor, Capitol Building, Hon. William S. Kenyon presiding. Present: Senators Kenyon (chairman), Kellogg, Phipps, Jones (New Mexico), McKellar, Sterling, Walsh, and Shortridge. Also present: Senator Sheppard; H. B. Anderson, representing the Citizens' Medical Reference Bureau, 145 West Forty-fifth Street, New York City; Mrs. Rufus M. Gibbs, 1209 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, Md.; Evan W. Burnstead, secretary Massachusetts Civic Alliance; Dr. Charles G. Hill, Baltimore, Md.; Mrs. Elbert T. Leatherbee, representing Massachusetts Antisuffrage Association; Dr. Emma M. Randolph, Hampton, Va.; J. S. Eichelberger, editor Woman Patriot, Washington, D. C.; Mrs. Fred Manville, Newport News, Va.; Mrs. William T. Wyse, Pikesville, Md.; Mrs. A. M. McManamy, Oregon; Miss Julia Č. Lathrop, chief Childrens' Bureau, United States Department of Labor; Mrs. Henry W. Keyes, Washington, D. C.; Mrs. Maud Wood Park, representing National League of Women Voters; Mrs. Nellie C. Williams, New York City. The committee then proceeded to further consideration of the bill (S. 1039) for the public protection of maternity and infancy and providing a method of cooperation between the Government of the United States and the several States. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the hearing this morning is for the opposition to this bill. The proponents had a hearing last Monday. Mrs. Gilbreth, will you take charge of the presentation of the opponents' case? Mrs. GILBRETH. I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that there are several opponents that I have written to in regard to this matter but who are not here. I hope an opportunity will be given to them to be heard. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. STATEMENT OF H. B. ANDERSON, REPRESENTING THE CITIZENS' MEDICAL REFERENCE BUREAU, NEW YORK CITY. The CHAIRMAN. Your name is H. B. Anderson? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And whom do you represent? Mr. ANDERSON. The Citizens' Medical Reference Bureau. The CHAIRMAN. What is the Citizens' Medical Reference Bureau? Mr. ANDERSON. It is an organization composed of persons in all the different States who are opposed to compulsory medicine. The CHAIRMAN. And how many members have you? Mr. ANDERSON. Oh, it has a very limited membership. Mr. ANDERSON. Probably about 400. The CHAIRMAN. And has it a membership in all of the States? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir; there are associations subscribing to the bureau and in the work. The CHAIRMAN. And where are its offices? Mr. ANDERSON. In New York City. The CHAIRMAN. How many people have you in New York City in your offices? Mr. ANDERSON. Well, there is just one person that is doing the actual work, and such other help as we need from public stenographers. The CHAIRMAN. What I would like to find out is the character of the organization, whether it is a real organization, or whether it is a desk letterhead organization. We get so much of this in Congress Mr. ANDERSON. I do not claim to speak for thousands of people. The CHAIRMAN. About 400 you speak for? Mr. ANDERSON. I would say about that. The CHAIRMAN. And have you representatives in the various States? Take the State of Iowa, who represents your organization in Iowa ? Mr. ANDERSON. We have no special representative in Iowa. We have members in Iowa. The CHAIRMAN. And how many members have you in Iowa? The CHAIRMAN. Have you any? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any in Texas? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How many have you in Texas? Mr. ANDERSON. I do not know the exact number, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And how many have you in Minnesota ? Mr. ANDERSON. Oh, it will probably average about 15 or 20 in each one of the States. The CHAIRMAN. Can you furnish us with a list of the membership in the various States? Mr. ANDERSON. I would rather not furnish a list to be published unless I get permission from the people to do so. The CHAIRMAN. Is it a secret organization? Mr. ANDERSON. No; there is nothing secret about it. The CHAIRMAN. We would like a list of the membership, even though it will not be published. Mr. ANDERSON. In the time allotted me this morning I will endeavor to show, first, that the opposition to S. 1039, for the public protection of maternity and infancy, etc., is overwhelming, and, second, that the bill is wrong in principle. At the previous hearings attention has been called to the strenuous opposition expressed by the Illinois State Medical Society through its official journal to legislation of this character; also to the opposition on the part of medical organizations in Massachusetts. Since then a number of other State and national medical journals have added their protest. The Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the official organ of that association, in an editorial February 5, 1921, entitled, Federal care of maternity and infancy; the SheppardTowner bill," condemns the bill as being economically unsound; as tending toward centralization and as delegating functions to the Federal Government which should be administered locally or by the States. This editorial means that the American Medical Association, through its official organ, has reversed its attitude as regards the Sheppard-Towner bill having formerly gone on record as stated in a communication by Dr. W. S. Rankin, made a part of the hearing on the maternity bill December 20-29, 1920, page 184, as “strongly in favor of this measure," but asking that "slight amendments made. be This change of attitude on the part of the American Medical Association as expressed through representatives of the association is significant. It has an important bearing on this bill not simply because it indicates that the allopathic or so-called regular physicians generally are opposed to legislation of this kind but because physicians who are identified with the various organizations on record in favor of this bill have played such a prominent part in securing the indorsement of maternity legislation by these various organizations. The governors of a number of States have recently expressed alarm over the present tendency on the part of the Federal Government to take over functions which they believe should be administered locally or by the States. The Citizens' Medical Reference Bureau recently addressed a communication to the governors of each State calling special attention to the so-called Sheppard-Towner bill and asking their views relative to bills providing Federal aid to the States for medical care on condition that the States appropriate an equal amount and bills tending to federalize public-health work. In the replies so far received most of the governors failed to say whether they were favorable or opposed to such legislation. The governors of Arkansas, Connecticut, and Nebraska, however, expressed themselves as opposed to such legislation while the governor of Mississippi is apparently favorable. Gov. Frazier's indorsement is conditional upon such legislation being the means of giving the States better health laws and the public medical attention that will result in better health, which we contend the legislation would not do. The CHAIRMAN. That is all printed in the record at the former hearing, was it not? Mr. ANDERSON. No, Mr. Chairman; this is new. This letter was only written about a month ago. Gov. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, through his secretary, Mr. C. P. Newton, under date of March 28, 1921, replied as follows: Gov. McRae requests me to acknowledge receipt of your communication of March 24, and say to you that he is rather opposed to Federal aid to States in matters like the one in question. He is glad to note the growing interest in public health affairs, but it does not occur to him as being wise to encourage undue bureaucratic control, or interlinking of State and Federal supervision thereon. |