80 YEARS LATER: TIME on Birth Control

So where are we today?

Monday, Jan. 26, 1931

Birth Control

The American Birth Control League invited 30 Protestant Episcopal bishops to its convention in Manhattan last week. Not one bishop appeared, although their Triennial General Convention at Denver next September is certain to consider birth control in echo to the last Lambeth Conference of bishops of and affiliated with the Church of England, which discreetly approved the movement (TIME, July 14 & Aug. 25). Nonetheless there were several preachers of various denominations among the 200 delegates who attended the convention. Also-present were a few doctors. Conspicuously absent were women who revel in tales of their own childbearing, women too prudish to discuss procreation in any manner, Catholic women obedient to the Pope’s denunciation of any hindrance to conception (TIME, Jan. 19). Last week’s meeting lacked the vigor of previous conventions. Some speakers interpreted the Pope’s denunciatory encyclical as favorable to birth control. “It paves the way for the inevitable fight over what is one of the most important biological findings in history”—Professor Julian Sorell Huxley of London. Other speakers and a formal resolution politely denounced the recent White House Conference on Child Health & Protection (TIME, Dec. 1) for not mentioning birth control at all. Dr. Ira Solomon Wile of Manhattan called the White House Conference “a total, a complete and excellently devised demonstration of an ostrich policy. This is unjust to the ostrich, however, as it does not bury its head quite so deeply.” Otherwise the birth controllers were placid. They reiterated an old boast that their movement has been endorsed by various sectional conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Congregational Churches of Connecticut, the Universalist “General Convention, the American Unitarian Association, the Lambeth Conference. During ten years of formal organization Birth Control has developed an American League, state leagues in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania; local groups in California. Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Maryland. North Carolina and Ohio; a Committee for Federal Legislation on Birth Control: and 58 big-city clinics for contraceptive advice.

10 Responses to 80 YEARS LATER: TIME on Birth Control

  1. Patricia says:

    In the brief video below, Michael Voris (Vortex, Real Catholic TV) gets to the point about the contraceptive mentality & the undeniable link between contraceptives & abortion. Unless the pro-life movement ultimately addresses this, I don’t think we are going to get very far.

    In 1970, Malcolm Potts, a former medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said, “Abortion and contraception are inextricably intertwined in their use. As the idea of family planning spreads through a community there appears to be a rise in the incidence of induced abortion at the point where the community begins to initiate the use of contraceptives.”


    • Isa Almisry says:

      “In the brief video below, Michael Voris (Vortex, Real Catholic TV) gets to the point about the contraceptive mentality & the undeniable link between contraceptives & abortion. Unless the pro-life movement ultimately addresses this, I don’t think we are going to get very far.”

      Then we are not going to get far:this line of thought concedes the faulty thinking of SCUTUS which took Roe out of Griswold. Indeed, if pressed that far, then what HV allows as “NFP” must be condemned with what is called “ABC,” given the artificiality of the distinction that HV set up.

      As for the Potts quote, there is more to it:”Given a reasonable availability of contraceptives, there is no evidence that induced abortion and contraceptive practice compete…YOUR QUOTE…In developed countries, with the passage of time, the abortion rate has fallen in situations where contraceptive methods are known and available.”

      So yes, I deny “the link”: many use contraceptives who never have an abortion, and many have abortions who do not use contraceptions (what Pro-Abortion types call a “contraceptive choice.”)-this was (is?) particaularly acute in Japan. So too those who use abortion for sex selection, who have no use for contraceptives in their nefarious plans.

      • Patricia says:

        Abortion & contraception are fruits (rotten fruits) of the same tree — both presume that man has complete control over the gift of fertility & over the life & death of the child in the womb. Both reject God’s dominion over how He created man & woman. In addition, many of today’s “contraceptives” are abortifacient in nature.

      • Isa Almisry says:

        So, you are against the rhytym method.

      • Patricia says:

        While one can have a contraceptive mentality in their approach to Natural Family Planning, recourse to spacing children naturally through ecological breastfeeding & the awareness of the natural cycles of a woman’s fertility are not the same as contraception.

      • Isa Almisry says:

        I am aware that HV erected an artificial barrier between the rhythm method and other non-abortifacient (abortion and abortifacient are the same thing, and different entirely from) contraceptives, but it cannot cite the Fathers on that. Which is why your magisterium has no patristics in HV.

        For instance, St. Clement of Alexandria is often cited by the supporters of HV. But he says “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).” And “Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor.”

        IOW, the only moral use of the rhythm method for St. Clement would be to ascertain the fertile period and then, and ONLY THEN, have intercourse. To do so at any other time (including possibly fertile times:that would be taking chances with less than 100% “open to life”), would be the “contraceptive mentality” “outrag[ing] nature.”

        In contrast, as “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” (with full citations to Scripture and Tradition), the condemnation of abortion and abortifacients (same thing) is universal. Which is why the Pro-Life movement should stick to this unanimous witness, rather than “address” innovated distinctions.

  2. John Dornheim says:

    I am not sure. It is like reading a blurb from the Tea Baggers or one of Dobson’s groups. I am glad that reproductive choice is available to anyone who wishes to take advantage of it.

  3. Patricia says:

    “Reproductive choice” is simply another word for allowing the killing of children in the womb through abortion. That is a cruel thing to take advantage of.

  4. Great post & blog..do you mind adding my new blog to your links?

  5. azerty says:


    […]80 YEARS LATER: TIME on Birth Control « The Black Cordelias[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: