America and the Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation by Elaine Tyler May Read Free Book Online

uneducated women would not be able to take it prop- erly and consistently, or that it was too expensive and required too much medical monitoring to be useful in remote areas. Is- sues of cost and medical care were real concerns, but in clinics where the oral contraceptive was offered free or for a modest fee, poor women requested it and used it with the same success as more affluent women. Women made their own decisions ac- cording to the contraceptive options available to them.

    Wo men’s desires fo r effective birt h control converged with population controllers’ efforts at social engi- neering. These efforts gained tremendous momentum in the mid-twentieth century due to the era’s rapid population growth and the political imperatives of the cold war. But pop- ulation control has a history that dates back to the nineteenth century. The birth control movement emerged parallel to the population control movement, and although they did not al- ways have the same aims, the two often intersected. Population control was not a concern of the early birth control pioneers. The radical beginnings of the movement were grounded in the quest for women’s rights. Birth control advocates argued that women could never achieve equality unless they were able to control their own reproduction. This was the starting point for Emma Goldman, Katharine McCormick, Margaret Sanger, and other leaders of the movement. At the same time, they saw contraception as vital to alleviating the suffering of poor women burdened by constant childbearing. This impulse brought birth control into the eugenic conversation. Radicals

    were as likely to advocate policies that dovetailed with eugen- ics as conservatives, albeit for different reasons. While conser- vative eugenicists aimed to reduce the population of the “unfit,” women’s rights leaders hoped to improve the health and well-being of mothers and children. As Emma Goldman asserted, “Woman no longer wants to be a party to the produc- tion of a race of sickly, feeble, decrepit, wretched human be- ings. Instead she desires fewer and better children.” 4
    Over time, the birth control movement, especially under Margaret Sanger’s leadership, became more fully aligned with the population control effort. By the 1950s, when the birth control movement shifted to an emphasis on family planning, these currents converged. The two terms—family planning and population control—were often used interchangeably, but they did not mean the same thing. Family planning empha- sized individual choice, whereas population control focused on large-scale reduction of fertility rates. 5
    These movements merged into a coherent public policy agenda that was first articulated during World War II. Initially, family planning was geared toward domestic needs, reflecting the rational, scientific approach to family life. By the time the United States entered the war, birth control clinics had prolif- erated around the country. 6 In 1942, when the Birth Control Federation of America changed its name to the Planned Par- enthood Federation of America, it marked a change in the or- ganization’s direction fully in keeping with this new national focus. According to Abraham Stone, medical director of the Margaret Sanger Research Bureau, “Planned parenthood” sig- naled “the need for individual couples to plan their families

    and for nations to plan their populations.” Sanger vigorously opposed the name change. She believed that “planning” weak- ened the woman-empowering message of “birth control.” Nonetheless, she was overruled. 7
    Wartime brought new attention to rational preparations. Family planning experts urged contraception as a scientific ap- proach to personal happiness as well as national security. One poster declared, “M ODERN LIFE IS BASED ON CONTROL AND SCI -
    ENCE . We control the speed of our automobile. We control ma- chines. We endeavor to control disease and death. Let us control the size of