Margaret Sanger on the Boardwalk — Again!

Top: Top: An image of the letter from Margaret Sanger (though this is clearly not her signature) that accompanied the Birth Control Review.
Bottom: The February 1923 issue of the Birth Control Review.

Margaret Sanger made another appearance on the most recent episode   of HBO’s series, “Boardwalk Empire,” which aired on October 21, when the character of “Margaret Schroeder Thompson” (played by Kelly MacDonald received a copy of the February 1923 issue of the Birth Control Review, accompanied by a letter from Sanger. The “Schroeder” character had recently opened a women’s clinic in Atlantic City which offered instruction in hygiene and reproduction, though because it was sponsored by a Catholic hospital, contraception could not be discussed.

In Season 1, the character had obtained a copy of Sanger’ pamphlet, Family Limitation, for her own use. Kudos to the producers/writers of the series for their portraying an historically accurate version of  the state of the birth control movement  in  the early 1920s

What does Helen Gurley Brown’s Legacy have to do with Margaret Sanger?

Tags

Cosmo, Cosmopolitan, Helen Gurley Brown, Sex and the Single Girl, What Every Girl Should Know

Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl, a landmark work that catered to the single woman of the early 1960s.

Helen Gurley Brown’s recent death prompted both fans and critics alike to debate her legacy and impact on women’s rights. Was she a feminist? An anti-feminist? Whether she helped or hindered the feminist cause can be debated, but Brown never questioned her ideals. “How could any woman not be a feminist?” she once asked aloud in an interview with Cosmo in 1985. Making a woman feel “comfortable to be themselves” was Brown’s primary goal, and one she considered to be quite feminist in itself.

Though Brown is best known as the editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan Magazine, it was her first book, Sex and the Single Girl that brought her to the public eye and secured her position at Cosmo. The book was a celebration of a single life in which women enjoyed as much sexual freedom as men did. So, what does Sex and the Single Girl have to do with Margaret Sanger? In short, quite a lot.

Though Brown did not feature birth control in the book, she did refer to it as a “safe” and “reliable” option for women who decided to engage in sexual intercourse. Without birth control, there would be no Sex and the Single Girl, and Sex and the Single Mother, some may argue, doesn’t have quite as provocative a vibe!

Sanger and Brown had much in common. Both women experienced hardships in their early lives that propelled them to fight for what they separately defined as women’s rights. Born in Green Forest, Arkansas, an outpost of the Ozarks, to a “hillbilly” family, Brown remembered her difficult upbringing as she searched for an alternate road; one unlike that of which her parents had experienced. Offering women a different view, and celebrating a lifestyle that didn’t conform to the societal norms for women at the time, was what drove her career.

Similarly, events of Sanger’s childhood served as the impetus behind much of her resolve. The painful memories of her mother’s childbearing experiences and her premature death at age 52 left Sanger–one of eleven children– passionately focused on women’s reproductive rights. Both women wanted better than the choices their mothers had, not just for themselves, but for all women. As a result, they dedicated their life’s work to ensuring that women would have broader options.

Helen Gurley Brown’s landmark work Sex and the Single Girl was published in 1962 on the brink of the Sexual Revolution. Featuring the terms “sex” and “single girl,” the title alone was enough to incite collective gasps amongst traditionalists emerging from the sexually suffocating 1950s, a decade dedicated to celebrating the ins-and-outs of housewifery. Sex and the Single Girl offered a new path, one for women who failed to fit into the happily married mold. And although much of the advice had a “how to please your man” feel, the nature of Brown’s advice was always to encourage what she believed to be the advancement of women, whether it was economically, sexually, or personally (though the bits about striving to be an office sex symbol make that sometimes difficult to understand).

Though controversial, Sex and the Single Girl did not break any obscenity laws as Sanger’s early works did. What Every Girl Should Know, Sanger’s breakthrough newspaper column, published in the socialist The Call, and later in 1921 in a compiled format, was the first work to challenge the status quo and enlighten young women regarding their physical and emotional maturity. Sanger’s main focus was on providing young women with factual information about sex and reproduction so that they could make informed decisions about their reproductive lives.

What Every Girl Should Know was considered so controversial that the Post Office banned one of the columns since it dealt with venereal diseases. Because the words “gonorrhea” and “syphilis” were included in the article, they violated the Comstock Law of 1873, which outlawed lewd, lascivious, indecent, and obscene publications. Instead of the column, its readers turned to the The Call one Sunday morning, to see the article masthead — “What Every Girl Should Know” and then the words: “NOTHING by order of the Post Office.”

Image from the New York Call, printed in response to a temporary suppression of Sanger’s What Every Girl Should Know by the US Postal Authorities.

This was Sanger’s first brush with the Comstock Act, which we battled in one form or another until 1937 when its bans on birth control were eased. She continued publishing What Every Girl Should Know in pamphlet form, also republishing an earlier column on sex education, What Every Mother Should Know, the Woman Rebel and Family Limitation.

Sanger’s work predated Brown’s, and their messages were very different. But without Sanger’s pioneering efforts, and her indefatigable work to make contraception acceptable, safe and effective, Sex and the Single Girl would not have been possible. As Sanger wrote in 1916:

In former days the women and girls were kept within the close confines of the home. Innocence was their charm, and ignorance was a virtue. There was no need that the girl should know anything of her body, of the marriage state, or of motherhood, until she was given over by her parents into the hands of her husband for instruction and care.

Today, however, this is no longer sufficient. The girl of today begins her life at 14 years to leave the home and the cloistered care of her parents to enter into the world’s work. Never before has she worked so closely at the side of her brother, and never before has she had greater need for knowledge of her self, her physiology, her emotions and desires–in fact, a need to know herself throughout. Education is her only and principal weapon for her defense against downfall.

Thousands of young girls are being caught in the meshes of modern life because of their ignorance of themselves. Ignorance of a girl’s body is one of the strongest forces that sends her into unclean living: and all the curfew bells, the legislation and the suppression in the world will only strengthen this force instead of lessening it.

From the fourteenth to the twenty-third year every girl passes through a budding period called the adolescent period. She finds herself suddenly changed from a little girl with her hair down her back, whose interests have been dolls and toys, into a different being, with new sensations, new dreams, new awakenings–all of which she does not understand. (Sanger, “Tell Girls Things they Should Know,” 1916.)

The successful single life that Brown initially described in her work could only be achieved with the help of birth control– a message that Cosmo‘s readers were quick to grasp by the the early 1970s. Cosmo itself was a little slower to embrace birth control and regularly discuss its uses within the magazine’s pages, but it was the only leading women’s publication to do so.

Many of Brown’s statements and actions are considered controversial by today’s standards. Some today have branded her a “stiletto feminist,” and hold her responsible for the indoctrination of sex and beauty idolatry that many women hold themselves accountable for attaining. Others see her as a bold woman who fought for women’s sexual and personal freedom at a time when others were hesitant to do so– even despite the questionable direction Cosmo took later on in terms of advancing the feminist cause.

As history debates the legacy Brown will leave behind, it will be important to remember that while she was successful, powerful, and able to be in control of her life’s work, she was also in a position in which she had the freedom of choice and expression to be controversial and groundbreaking largely because of the heroic actions of many leading women who paved the way for her to be so.

__________________________

Click here for Sanger’s “What Every Girl Should Know series.

August 1: An Important Day for Birth Control

Beginning Aug. 1, the Affordable Care Act requires all new insurance policies to provide contraception to women without a co-pay.

Beginning last week, August 1, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), all new insurance policies provided by employers are required to cover contraception without any co-pay or deductibles, making birth control more widely accessible for women around the country.

This mandate comes as part of a larger package of eight new preventive care services for women, including annual well woman visits, domestic and interpersonal violence counseling, sexually transmitted infections counseling, and breastfeeding support and equipment.

Nearly 100 years ago, Margaret Sanger began a global birth control movement, stating famously that “no woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body” (“A Parents’ Problem or Woman’s?” Birth Control Review, March 1919, 6-7). Today is a clear victory for this movement, though it continues to be challenged. In breaking down the financial barrier between women and their necessary health care, the Affordable Care Act takes in important step in fully granting what Sanger strongly felt was “the means by which woman attains basic freedom.” (“Woman’s Error and Her Debt,” Birth Control Review, Aug. 1921, [MSM S70:0911-2]).

As an activist, Sanger spent much of her time advocating for the poor and working class women who lacked both the education and the money to practice birth control.

“We know that the well-to-do and those able to have a private or family physicians are equipped with knowledge. But the mothers seeking medical advice from hospitals or dispensaries are refused all help even though the life of a woman is endangered by another pregnancy. This can be remedied only when public health policies include this teaching in state programs” (“Birth Control and Civil Liberties,” Community Church of Boston, Oct. 13, 1940, 3-18 [MSM S72:0216]).

Almost a century later, the economic burden of contraception continued to fall on women.  According to a study by the Center for American Progress (CAP), 55 percent of women ages 19 to 34 struggled with the cost of birth control, leading to inconsistent use. CAP also found that women of reproductive age spent 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than men did, largely due to contraceptive expenses. The ACA mandate reconciles these inequities; it is not only about safe sex and bodily integrity, but also gender equality and fairness. Women’s contraception is not about luxury, as some anti-birth control advocates ignorantly argue, but justice.

Sanger, writing in 1918–even before women achieved the vote–knew this well:

“ Birth control is the first important step woman must take toward the goal of her freedom. It is the first step she must take to be man’s equal” (“Morality and Birth Control,” Birth Control Review, Feb.-Mar. 1918, 11 [MSM S70:793]).

To be sure, yesterday’s mandate does not mark an absolute victory. For one, it only applies to insurance policies that began on or after August 1; many other plans that have been “grandfathered in” are exempt from the law’s requirements to includes these preventive services. In addition, uninsured women who don’t receive Medicaid will have to wait until 2014 to access co-pay free contraception, when the ACA mandates everyone to have insurance (or pay a monetary penalty).

And there is the possibility that the law will be overturned. Extremely dedicated opponents of Obama’s health care reform that continually seek to undo and undermine all that the ACA will accomplish. Some states have already pledged to reject the expansion of Medicaid that the federal government offers, thereby cutting health insurance–and thus accessible contraception–to many of its poorer citizens.

Today, we must all recognize–as Margaret Sanger argued passionately–that everyone benefits from the broad access to contraception. As Amanda Marcotte at Slate notes, if you take the irrational sexual hysteria out of the equation, this contraception mandate is equivalent to the government mandating seatbelts in cars: “Just as people who resisted mandatory seatbelts have benefited along with the rest of us from lower rates of traffic fatalities, they will also benefit from the reduced social and health care costs that stem from reducing unplanned pregnancies.”

As Sanger said, “No adult woman who is ignorant of the means to prevent conception, can call herself free. No woman can call herself free who cannot choose the time to be a mother or not as she sees fit. This should be woman’s first demand” (“Condemnation is Misunderstanding,” Typed draft speech, April-July 1916 [LCM 129:32]). The Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate finally delivers on Sanger’s demand: removing the barrier of co-pays and deductibles, all women–rather than their insurers–will control the decisions they make about their own bodies.

Pink Ribbons Don’t Hold Together When It Comes to Women’s Health

Tags

Komen Foundation, planned parenthood, women's health

Over the past few days, we have witnessed another passionate struggle in the battle that has been fought since at least 1916: the politicization of women health. In October 1916, Margaret Sanger was arrested in for opening her Brownsville birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. Nearly a century later, Sanger’s organization Planned Parenthood is at the epicenter of the continued struggle for women’s control over their own bodies. The controversy around the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the Susan G.Komen Foundation For the Cure unfolds on websites rather than street corners, but the stakes are the same. While we have come a long way from Brownsville, women’s rights to their bodies are still under threat.

On January 31, the Komen Foundation, the world’s leading breast-cancer advocacy group,  announced a decision to cut its funding to Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by Sanger that offers family planning services to over five million women and men worldwide. The funding from the  Komen Foundation (about $600,000 annually) permitted Planned Parenthood to offer free breast cancer screenings to its patients. The decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood ostensibly came in the wake of a new policy change that prohibited the Foundation from donating money to any organization under investigation by the Federal Government. It does not take much research, however, to see that these new policies were an excuse to de-legitimize and cut ties with Planned Parenthood. The federal investigation into Planned Parenthood was opened by anti-choice congressmen into the Federation’s abortion policies only and has not led to any charges. The new president of the Komen Foundation, Karen Handel, who oversaw the policy changes, has a legacy of anti-choice and anti-Planned Parenthood crusading.  More evidence that the policy changes were intended to specifically target Planned Parenthood? The prohibition has not stopped the Komen Foundation from funding $7.5 million worth of cancer research at Penn State, an institution which is currently the subject of a federal investigation regarding the former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who is indicted on multiple accounts of child sex abuse.

Women’s health has always been at the center of Margaret Sanger’s vision. In a public radio address in 1937, Sanger reiterated birth control’s importance to mothers’ health :

“Out of every three women who die from causes related to childbearing, two could have been saved. Too frequent and too many pregnancies are responsible for a large number of these preventable deaths. And abortion, that tragic substitute for reliable birth control, is the cause of 25 per cent of maternal deaths.”

As Sanger’s organization expanded, so did their services to women’s health. From the 1920s, when the first birth control clinics opened their doors, doctors at Planned Parenthood were often the first to detect ovarian and cervical cancer in female patients. Today cancer screenings, including breast exams, have become an essential part of Planned Parenthood : in 2010 the organization was able to offer 750,000 breast exams, many of which were made possible by the Komen Foundation. By refusing to continue to fund these exams, the Foundation bowed to the interests of anti-abortion advocates who criticized its relationship with Planned Parenthood. In doing so, Komen has compromised on its commitment to women’s health services. This affront especially affects low-income and uninsured women for whom Planned Parenthood is one of the only options for affordable women’s health services. The war against Planned Parenthood is, at its heart, a war against poor women’s bodies. Elite women like the Foundation’s president Karen Handel and founder Nancy Brinker will always have access private doctors for their women’s health needs. Much of Planned Parenthood’s clientele, however, does not have that same level of privilege.

The Komen Foundation’s announcement has provoked unprecedented public outrage.  Politicians, bloggers, and media outlets have denounced the politicization of women’s health. Donations to Planned Parenthood flooded in: the organization has received more than one million dollars in the past few days from supporters eager to see women’s health services continue. The Komen Foundation has also reported a 100% increase in donations in the past few days. But just a few hours ago, responding to public pressure, the Komen Foundation declared that it reversed the controversial decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Hopefully the temporary break in ties between these two organizations was just a lapse in judgement on the part of Komen’s leaders. Sanger’s commitment to accessible women’s health care prevails, for now. But the controversy has reminded us anew the importance of being vigilant in protecting the rights that Sanger and her successors dedicated their lives to securing.

The “Tech” of Safer Sex and Reproductive Technology

Tags

birth control methods, Saturday Night Live

This video has been making the rounds since the weekend. It depicts an advertisement for “Lil Poundcake,” whose hair smells like frosting and who comes with accessories like a cell phone and earrings that her human friends can wear too. She is also equipped to administer the three shots over a six-month period that make up the HPV vaccine.

Shockingly (or perhaps not, if you speak satire/happened to watch Saturday Night Live this week), Lil Poundcake is a parody, designed to poke fun at the “HPV wars” that have been taking place during the Republican campaign for the Presidential nomination. It’s a humorous way of drawing attention to the hysteria surrounding the HPV vaccine and proposals (or legislation, where such legislation exists) to make it mandatory for all students – sometimes just female students, sometimes female and male – of a certain age.

One of the more striking things about the video is just how much it highlights the fact that when it comes to safer sex and reproductive health technologies, the delivery methods may have advanced (lower doses of pills than in my mother’s generation, condoms that “feel as though you aren’t using one,” silicone rings administering the same synthetic hormones in birth control pills) but the basic building blocks are the same. Even though there are advances being made (the much buzzed-about “male birth control” comes to mind), when it comes to contraception there are precious few options to choose from – and I recognize that I, living comfortably and legally in a medium-sized city, in a country with accessible health care provided by the provincial government, am coming from a place of serious privilege. If Margaret Sanger were to walk through a sexual health centre, she would most likely recognize most of the devices and methods on display as current – rather than former – birth control methods.

Over at RH Reality Check, Kirsten Moore has a great post up about the differences in technological advancement between smartphones and contraceptives, arguing that if consumer demand for advancement in one mirrored that of the other, the safer sex and contraceptive product market would look quite different:

The opportunities for innovation in products and services are as varied as the women and men who need them. There is no one silver bullet (or pill, or condom) when it comes to contraception: each woman is different and has unique and changing life circumstances. As consumers, we need to talk about what we like, what we don’t like, and what we wish we had when it comes to birth control.

Keeping safer sex and reproductive health technologies out of the public discourse – except to demonize and discredit them – does nobody any favors.

Sanger worked throughout her entire life to improve the accessibility and caliber of birth control in the United States and globally, using methods as diverse as government lobbying for increased research efforts and, when necessary, smuggling. Why, then, should we assume that what we have is “good enough,” and stop asking for something better?

Without open discourse about what works, what doesn’t, and who likes to use what (and for which reasons), there is no room for innovation. There is no question that for many, many people, the barriers to accessing what is actually available are financial, physical, and social. It is, however, possible to improve access to what does exist without forgetting to keep an eye on what might be coming over the horizon.