Sanger’s Dilemma
Most folks have at least heard of Margaret Sanger, the 20th
century feminist and proponent of birth control access. Focusing on her work from the 1920s
onward, Sanger faced a not-so-unique dilemma. A not-so-unique dilemma faced by many past and present
progressive movements: the
separation of an issue (in this case, women’s access to birth control) from the
oppressed group struggling to achieve their goals. We’ve seen this in the woman suffrage movement (moving the
focus from woman suffrage to arguments of state pride and the benefits for male
voters) as well as the modern LGBTQ rights movement (moving the focus from the
voices within the LGBTQ community to awarding non-LGBTQ people for their
behaviors/achievements).
One particular dilemma faced is outlined in various sections
of Andrea Tone’s book, Devices &
Desires. Sanger, infamous for
her then-illegal birth control clinic in New York established in 1916,
envisioned a populist approach to contraception “where women from all walks of
life could use contraceptives without reliance on doctors” [Tone, Andrea. Devices & Desires: A History of
Contraceptives in America. (New York: Hill and Wang, 2002), 118]. Sanger soon distanced herself from this
approach, as well as distancing her birth control advocacy from women’s
rights. Instead of advocating for
birth control as a woman’s right to contraception, Sanger chose to focus on
birth control from a medical standpoint.
During the 1920s Sanger was committed to inexpensive/free birth
control for women (without the need for a doctor). Period. It was
a radical idea for the time, one that not even the National Woman’s Party
(formed by Alice Paul) would support.
Sanger quickly learned two things: the extent of sexual reform was
extremely limited in the early 20th century, and the political and
social influence of medical science was greatly increasing. “Narrowing her agenda, she sought birth
control allies through an ideology that trumpeted women’s health over their civil
liberties and cast doctors, not patients, as agents of contraceptive choice” [Tone, 125]. Sanger also began to oppose over-the-counter
contraceptives “whose use bypassed physician expertise” [Tone, 125-126].
Herein lays the dilemma. Sanger’s focus on contraceptives as
purely a medical issue accomplished two things: it created distance from the
woman’s movement (which was costing Sanger many male allies) and began to bring
doctors and physicians (who were dominantly male) into Sanger’s corner. Do to Sanger’s efforts (and ironically the Comstock Laws,
which permitted prescriptions by physicians), birth control could now be watched
over by experienced medical professionals further legitimizing contraceptives,
but at the cost of putting health above patients’ rights.
Sanger became stuck in an interesting pickle on the topic of
women’s rights. On one side she
opposed the use of condoms “because they forced women to depend on men for
fertility control,” [Tone. 126]
but due to her result-motivated approach to the medicalization of birth
control, “doctors’ power [increased] over women’s bodies” [Tone, 138].
Unfortunately for Margaret Sanger, her ideals regarding
accessible and safe birth control for women became a by-product of her
time. The early 20th
century was not a friendly time regarding both the morality of women’s rights
and of contraceptives. The era was
ripe with ideas similar to those of Anthony Comstock in regards to equating
birth control to promiscuity and murder (in the case of abortion). Sanger needed to ally herself with
doctors and big businesses (suppliers of contraceptives) and put medical
science before patients’ rights in order to make any progress during a very
restrictive era. It is important
to note that while Sanger advocated for medical involvement in contraception,
she understood that working-class peoples (the demographic she primarily
focused on in her clinics) would have restricted access to medical
professionals. Tone ends the
chapter stating that “to her [Sanger’s] credit, she never gave up her goal of quality
birth control for all” [Tone,
149]. But due to the volatile nature of morality (such as the morality that
drove Anthony Comstock’s obscenity crusade) on the topic of women’s issues in
the early 20th century, it is impressive what Sanger managed to accomplish.
