Morris Sheppard (D-Tex.), the Senate sponsor of the bill.

After suffrage for women became a reality in the United States with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, women’s advocacy groups decided to wield their new power by securing maternity aid legislation. While there was a lot of popular support and a lot of pressure for the legislation, there were groups that opposed, notably the Sentinels of the Republic and the anti-suffrage publication Woman Patriot. Some opponents made claims about this legislation being socialist or a step to bolshevism. The relevance of this bill is that it was a significant major foray into social welfare legislation.

Arguments for in the Senate:

William Kenyon (R-Iowa), responding to Senator James A. Reed’s (D-Mo.) acerbic criticisms of the bill, states, “Who were the men who formulated this measure? As I have sat here and listened to the wonderful satire, humor, and shafts of irony, I have wondered about the men who fathered this measure. It is not my bill, though I am glad to stand here and champion it, for I believe in it. It is the bill of the Senator from Texas [Mr. Sheppard]. Is he a bolshevist? Is he trying to tear mothers away from babies and babies away from mothers? He has more babies to exhibit than either the Senator from Missouri or myself. He has stood for everything that is good in public and private life. He has not a diseased, brain, evolving bolshevistic ideas.

How about the joint author of the bill in the House, Judge Towner, from my State? He is one of the ablest, most conservative, and careful men in public life, and one of the best men. He was a lecturer on constitutional law in the State University of Iowa, a man with a family. He is not a bolshevist. He has not one of these diseased brains that the Senator from Missouri is talking about” (July 22, 4207).

Arguments against:

Francis Warren (R-Wyo.) argued against on the grounds of limiting spending and government interference, holding that “…the Treasury of the United States is to-day a sick patient. We shall either have to put an end to these miscellaneous new fad appropriations, which, like the camel’s nose under the tent, seem small and unimportant in the first view we take of them, but which crowd upon us with every succeeding year until they help to place us under a taxation of burden that is wringing the withers of every taxpayer – individual, partnership, or corporation – or else we shall have to submit to an appreciable increase of the burden” (July 22, 4210).

Arguments for in the House:

John E. Raker (D-Calif.), held, “The purpose and the only purpose of the bill is to promote the welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy as provided in the bill. All our schools and all our efforts in the line of education from the primary schools to the college, all the money spent for schools and for education is to better the condition of the human race. This bill has for its object like education on a specific and on special lines. No one has raised the constitutional question, no one has gone into hysteria over the study of animal life or money expended by the Federal Government for those purposes; no one has gone into hysteria over spending money in order to see that we might have better plant life; not one has gone into hysteria over a thousand and one other things that we are spending money on to better plant and animal life” (November 19, 7980).

Alben Barkley (D-Ky.), future vice president, argued that “We appropriate millions each year to save the lives of dumb animals” (November 18, 7934). He also argued that prominent opponent Thomas U. Sisson (D-Miss.) had no problem supporting $50,000 for rural sanitation and questioned the distinction between that and maternity aid (November 19, 7984).

Clarence F. Lea (D-Calif.) argued that this measure was primarily educational, and not a matter of government doing what the individual can do, as it cannot be expected that the individual would be able to self-educate on such a matter, and cites government educating farmers on best farming practices as a legitimate precedent (November 19, 7988).

Wynne F. Clouse (R-Tenn.) argued that appropriations for this purpose were constitutional, and cited the general welfare clause of the Constitution (November 19, 7984).

Everett Sanders (R-Ind.), who would serve as President Coolidge’s secretary, contested that this bill was socialist, stating, “It is claimed that it is socialism for the State or municipality to carry on the work as it is for the Federal Government. What is mean is that it ought not to be done by the Central Government. Well, we have centralized powers in the Federal Government, and that is as inevitable as the rising sun” (November 19, 7987).

Jasper Tincher (R-Kan.) argued that the bill does not violate “state’s rights” rather helps them with funding maternity aid (November 19, 7987).

R. Walton Moore (D-Va.) argued that this bill is an extension of what the Federal Government had been doing through the Public Health Service (November 19, 7988).

William Graham (R-Ill.) cited a broad public consensus for this measure, including support from President Harding and endorsement by the Republican and Democratic platforms of 1920, argued that one in ten babies dies within their first year and that the US ranked behind ten other nations in infant mortality, and cited New York City’s adoption of the bureau of child hygiene as a model for success (November 19, 7989-7991).

William Bankhead (D-Ala.) concurred with Graham’s citing of infant mortality numbers in the US and defended the measure’s constitutionality (November 19, 7992).

Daniel Reed (R-N.Y.) argued for the measure both on a humanitarian and an economic basis, stating that the price of saving a baby was $5 vs. $50 for burying a baby, and went on to say that “We are spending $200,000 a year to look after the benighted reindeer up in Alaska” (November 19, 7993-7994). Something to note about Daniel Reed: he would become one of the most uncompromising opponents of the New Deal.

Meyer London (S-N.Y.) argued for the importance of education in proper maternity practices, “The progress of our civilization, if we have any, is due to the rising of the general level of education, to the spreading of knowledge. The individual brain has not improved. We have no intellect to-day that is greater than intellects produced thousands of years ago, nor have we added a single ethical conception to the code of ethics of the world” (November 19, 7994). London was the only member of the Socialist Party in this Congress, and his support was made as a point against the bill by some opponents.

Walter Newton (R-Minn.) argued that the unconstitutionality argument is a stock argument used against any progressive measure and that it is only socialistic if public health and public education itself is, and interestingly stated as well, “…it has been claimed that the passage of this bill would result in the payment of cash to mothers on the birth of a child. I disagree wholly with European systems of maternity subsidies or gratuities. Let that system remain in Europe where it originated; that is the way I feel about it. This bill, however, does not only not provide for maternity benefits of this nature but, on the contrary, it expressly provides against any such payments” (November 19, 7997). Newton’s argument is interesting because it uses a differing conception of progressivism than we think of today. Usually when we think of progressivism, we think of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and AOC, but I don’t think any of them in a thousand years would express opposition to payments to mothers for having children. Newton was I conclude thinking about Theodore Roosevelt-style progressivism, one with in practice quite distinct limits.
William Upshaw (D-Ga.) argued that “This bill is not an effort to supplant State functions or parental authority. It simply proposes to stimulate and encourage each to the noblest possible effort. The liquor traffic was outlawed because it prospered on the destruction of human life and happiness. The highest function of government is not the adjustment of the Nation’s commercial machinery, however important, but the development of that citizenship without which all Government activities would refuse to act. There would simply be no government at all if humanity were not in healthy action” (November 19, 7999).

Arguments against in the House:

The two representatives who figured most in this debate were Caleb Layton (R-Del.) and Thomas U. Sisson (D-Miss.). Layton feared an erosion of state’s rights and socialism, while Sisson asserted this measure was unconstitutional and socialistic.

Caleb Layton (R-Del.) argued, “This bill is unnecessary, because there is no accumulating demand for its passage by reason of any unusual mortality either in expectant mothers or in the newborn children. There never was a time since this Government was established when human life was more carefully guarded and conserved than it is now. The science and art of medicine and surgery have kept pace fully with developments in any other pursuit of man” and held that progress was already being sufficiently made (Congressional Record, November 18, 7927).

Alice Robertson (R-Okla.), the second woman ever elected to Congress, questioned the negative comparison between infant mortality rates in the US vs. New Zealand, stating, “I for one am mortally sick of New Zealand in capitals with the notion that her death rate is less than that of any other country. New Zealand statistics, where birth control is legally taught, are based on her white population only and therefore worthless. But her per capita debt is four times ours in spite of not having unwanted babies. Also the whole thermometer, to use plain English, lies, because there is nothing to tell the year for which these statistics were compared; dates are not given.” (November 19, 7980).

Frank Greene (R-Vt.) argued against the reasoning that the Federal Government aids livestock thus it must aid babies because the purpose of aiding livestock is to feed people (November 18, 7934).

Joseph Deal (D-Va.) argued there was no necessity for this bill as if the statistics were flawed given many births that went unrecorded, and that if the statistics were more accurate the US would be roughly on par with other nations (November 19, 8010).

Thomas U. Sisson (D-Miss.) claimed the bill was unconstitutional and socialistic, asserting that “I do not believe that this bill is constitutional, nor do I feel that as to the legislative provision in it there is a man on either side of this aisle who can convince anyone it is constitutional” and “If the vote could be by secret ballot and Members voted their real sentiments there would not be as many votes for this bill as there will be against it. I doubt if there will be 50 of us who will vote against the bill as is; but if the vote could be secret there would not be 50 votes for it. The gentleman from New York [Mr. London] of course will vote for it because it is purely socialistic” (November 19, 7984).

There was a strong correlation between opposition to Sheppard-Towner and opposition to the 19th Amendment in the Senate. Only nine senators registered opposition to the measure, and of the seven senators who voted or paired against and were present for the vote on suffrage amendment, five had opposed. Interestingly in the House, there was a split among the opposition of those who had voted for the 19th Amendment and against, with 15 for and 12 against. However, when we take into account some people who were known to have been anti-suffrage, the anti-suffrage people outnumber the pro-suffrage people. This includes Charles Underhill (R-Mass.) and Alice Robertson (R-Okla.) who had been previously known for their anti-suffrage activism as well as Joseph Deal (D-Va.) who had opposed it to the hilt as a state legislature. This also includes those who voted against the amendment in 1918 in Gordon Lee (D-Ga.), Peter Tague (D-Mass.), R. Wayne Parker (R-N.J.) and William Stafford (R-Wis.). However, if we use this measure too, we must add James Gallivan (D-Mass.) and Tom Connally (D-Tex.) to the pro-suffrage, anti-Sheppard column. This brings the total to 19 against suffrage and 17 for. Not as strong of a correlation as the Senate, but for both chambers when you account for there being many more supporters of suffrage than opponents, this heightens saliency. What also is of great interest is how much more support Sheppard-Towner received than women’s suffrage, and this is the greatest proof of all of the newfound power of women in politics. That someone like Senator Frank Brandegee, a man known as rigidly principled, archconservative, and outspoken against women’s suffrage, could be moved to vote for this measure, is nothing short of incredible. Although the Sheppard-Towner Act’s opponents rallied sufficiently to prevent its reauthorization in 1929, more comprehensive social insurance would come with the Social Security Act in 1935.

References

Congressional Record. (1921, July 22). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Retrieved from

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1921-pt4-v61/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1921-pt4-v61-20-1.pdf

Congressional Record. (1921, November 18). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Retrieved from

Click to access GPO-CRECB-1921-pt8-v61-7-2.pdf

Congressional Record. (1921, November 19). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Retrieved from

Click to access GPO-CRECB-1921-pt8-v61-8-2.pdf

To Pass HJR1. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0660013

To Pass H.J. Res. 1, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution Extending the Right of Suffrage to Women. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0660002