PROTECTION OF MATERNITY. 
29 
The Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the 
official organ of that association, in an editorial February 5, 1921, 
entitled Federal care of maternity and infancy; the bheppard- 
Towner’bill,” condemns the bill as being economically unsound; as 
tending toward centralization and as delegating functions to the 
Federal Government which should be administered locally or by 
This' 11 ed itorial means that the American Medical Association, 
through its official organ, has reversed its attitude as regards the 
Sheppard-Towner bill having formerly gone on record as stated in a 
communication by Dr. W. S. Rankin, made a part of the healing .on 
the maternity bill December 20-29, 1920, page 184, as strong v in 
favor of this measure,” but asking that “slight amendments be 
This change of attitude on the part of the American Medical Asso 
ciation as expressed through representatives of the association is 
significant. It has an important bearing on this bill not simply be 
cause it indicates that the allopathic or so-called regular physicians 
generally are opposed to legislation of this kind but because physicians 
who are identified with the various organizations oh record in favor of 
this bill have played such a prominent part in securing the indorse 
ment of maternity legislation by these various organizations. 
The governors of a number of States have recently expressed alarm 
over the present tendency on the part of the Federal Government to 
take over functions which they believe should be administered locally 
or by the States. , 
The Citizens’ Medical Reference Bureau recently addressed a 
communication to the governors of each State calling special attention 
to the so-called Sheppard-Towner bill and asking their views relative 
to bills providing Federal aid to the States for medical care on condi 
tion that the States appropriate an equal amount and bills tending to 
federalize public-health work. 
In the replies so far received most of the governors failed to say 
whether they were favorable or opposed to such legislation. 1 he 
governors of Arkansas, Connecticut, and Nebraska, however, 
expressed themselves as opposed to such legislation while the governor 
of Mississippi is apparently favorable. Gov. Frazier’s indorsement 
is conditional upon such legislation being the means of giving the 
States better health laws and the public medical attention that 
will result in better health, which we contend the legislation would 
not do. , , . 
The Chairman. That is all printed in the record at the former 
hearing, was it not ? 
Mr. Anderson. No, Mr. Chairman; this is new. I his fetter was 
only written about a month ago. 
Gov. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, through his secretary, Mr. 
C. P. Newton, under date of March 28, 1921, replied as follows: 
Gov. McRae requests me to acknowledge receipt of your communication of March 
24 and sav to you that he is rather opposed to Federal aid to States in matters like 
the one in question. He is glad to note the growing interest in public health affairs, 
but it does not occur to him as being wise to encourage undue bureaucratic control, 
or interlinking of State and Federal supervision thereon.