The Life and Crimes of Margaret Sanger III: Eugenics and Birth Control



A 1919 issue of the
 Birth Control Review  



Margaret Sanger established the first birth control clinic in the United States of America at Brownsville, New York in 1916. In 1921 she founded the American Birth Control League to advocate for the adoption of artificial birth control at the level both of public policy and of individual practice. She followed this in 1923 with the establishment of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau which was the first legal birth control clinic and a centre of research into contraceptive methods. In 1928 due to an internal conflict she resigned from the ABCL and took full control of the BCCRB.  In 1929 she founded the National Committee for Federal Legislation on Birth Control. The ABCL and the BCCRB were reunited in 1939 as the Birth Control Federation of America, which became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. Sanger did not lead the merged organisation but she was responsible for the founding of the International Committee of Planned Parenthood in 1948 which became the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1952. Sanger was its first President and held this position until 1959.

The above narrative alone demonstrates the extent of Sanger’s commitment to the ideology of birth control. In the first part of this series we saw that Sanger was an advocate of sexual ‘liberation’ and saw contraception as a means of allowing women to pursue a promiscuous ‘liberated’ lifestyle while attempting to avoid the natural consequence of their behaviour. We have also seen, in Part II, that she came to adopt the Malthusian position that birth control was the only solution to the problem of poverty.  However Sanger had a much wider agenda than merely reducing the birth rate. She believed that a ‘qualitative factor as opposed to a quantitative one is of primary importance in dealing with the great masses of humanity.’[1]  In other words she saw the primary end of birth control as improving the ‘quality’ of the population rather than population reduction. In 1921 she stated that ‘The campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.’ She continued ‘The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective... Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.’[2] She considered certain human beings to be ‘human weeds’ who ‘clog up the path, drain up the energies and resources of this little earth’.[3] On another occasion she regretted that while ‘nature eliminates the weeds... we turn them into parasites and allow them to reproduce.’[4] Such sentiments are not original. Sanger is here expressing opinions which were identical in substance to those of other prominent supporters of eugenics such as Francis Galton, H.G Wells and Marie Stopes.

An American billboard promoting Eugenics

Margaret Sanger was a long term member and supporter of the American Eugenics Society and encouraged cooperation between organisations advocating eugenics and those advocating birth control. A majority of the AES’s ‘Committee on Eugenics and Dysgenics of Birth Regulation’ were in fact formally associated with Sanger organisations. A main aim of the eugenics movement at this time was to introduce forced sterilisation for those deemed ‘defective.’ Sanger openly advocated that ‘defectives’ should be segregated or sterilised. She expressed her frustration that eugenic programmes were not being implemented more swiftly: ‘We know, without doubt, that certain groups should not reproduce themselves. Why not say so... We cannot improve the race until we first cut down production of its least desirable members.’[5] In her ‘Plan for Peace’ published in 1938 Sanger called for segregation, sterilisation, and what amounted to slavery and forced labour for the ‘unfit’:

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.



More than 30 American states practised compulsory sterilisation during the period from 1907 to 1964 leaving behind more than 63,000 victims whose suffering has never been adequately recognised. Around 60% of these sterilisation were performed on women, yet many of Sanger’s feminist biographers have been willing to ignore her complicity in this system, lest it force themselves or their readers to challenge the notion that Sanger was a great ‘liberator’ of women.

An objective assessment of her published writings leaves no doubt that one of Sanger’s primary aims in advocating birth control was bring about the creation of a future purified race that conformed more closely to those ideas of perfection that prevailed among her own circle. The freedom that Sanger advocated was merely the freedom to indulge in promiscuous sexual acts while frustrating their natural outcome. The freedom to pursue a normal family life was not something that Sanger recognised. Indeed any woman who preferred raising a large family in the normal context of marriage was deemed for that very reason to be ‘irrational’ and unworthy of the vision of sexually liberated womanhood that Sanger had set before them. Her successors in the abortion industry today are still implementing a eugenic programme though they hide behind the rhetoric of ‘choice’.  Parents of children with disabilities are often put under enormous pressure to have their children killed in the womb with the result that, for example, 90% of children with Down’s Syndrome are eliminated before birth. In a society still dominated by the eugenic principles which have been propagated among us for more than a century what kind of ‘choice’ will most parents feel ‘free’ make?

---

[1] Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922

[2] Margaret Sanger ‘The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda’, The Birth Control Review, October 1921

[3] Margaret Sanger, ‘The Need for Birth Control in America’ Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities ed. Adolf Meyer, 1925

[4] Quoted in Angela Franks, Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy, p48

[5] Taken from a letter written to leading eugenicist Frederick Osborn in 1939 and quoted in Franks, Sanger, p11-12 

Hard cases make bad law

Abortion is an issue which comes up time and time again during the US presidential elections. This year is no exception, not least because President Obama takes an extreme position on the issue of abortion, has done since his time as senator in Illinois and is expected to continue if he is elected for a second term as president. According to Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood (PP), Obama worked closely with PP when it came to votes on abortion legislation. According to Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, Obama towed the radically pro-abortion PP line on the following: the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act; the bill to protect liveborn children; the bill to protect children born as result of induced labour abortion where “born-alive infant" includes all infants "born alive at any stage of development." He also co-sponsored the 2007 Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) in the US Senate. Since his presidency, Obama’s administration has blocked attempts to defund PP, has reversed the global gag-rule which prevents US dollars funding abortion overseas, and opposed a bill to ban gender-selective abortion, to name a few. The ethical considerations of certain legislative proposals are one thing, but the clear and persistent pro-abortion motivation of Obama is clear.   

Kathryn Sebellius, the secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration has also unveiled the HHS mandate in the past year which has been virulently opposed due to the fact that it forces even religious institutions (who employ people of different faiths) to pay for abortifacients and contraception as part of their employee insurance plan 

Finally, Todd Akin, a member of the Republican party, recently made a reference to ‘legitimate rape’ and the idea that a woman rarely falls pregnant after being raped owing to the trauma caused by rape. 

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is well known for his changing position on the issue of abortion, though he issued a pledge last year outlining his position on abortion and stating that he only supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. As we know, this is contrary to the authentic pro-life position, which values all human life from conception until natural death, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the conception. Romney recently appointed Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential candidate, who is pro-life and has consistently supported pro-life legislation. Nonetheless, despite Romney’s choice for VP, the Romney-Ryan ticket will run on Romney’s partially pro-life stance. This is contrary to the advertisements produced by the Obama campaign, which claim that Romney supports a blanket ban on abortion.

People whose lives were brought about by rape are often some of the strongest voices in the pro-life movement, precisely because their lives, along with those of the disabled, are most often included in the ‘exceptions’. They are often excluded from the protection of the law, as are disabled babies, because many consider the idea that a woman should be ‘forced’ to continue this type of pregnancy too awful (in the UK, for example, abortion is legal up to birth for disabled babies). Rebecca Kiessling’s mother, who was violently raped and fell pregnant, tried to abort Kiessling twice and failed. Kiessling, who lives in the US, is now a strong voice for the unborn and particularly for those who are conceived through rape. As a recent article on LifeSiteNews.com points out, there is no difference between a baby conceived because of rape and a baby conceived through normal intercourse. Why then, should these children be treated differently? More importantly, why should any unborn child be treated differently, regardless of disability or circumstance? After all, it is not our circumstances which define our humanity and therefore our right to life, but the fact that we are human.

Kiessling appeared, alongside Gloria Allred, a woman who had been raped and aborted her unborn child via a ‘backstreet abortion’, on ‘Piers Morgan tonight’ to discuss Akin’s comment and abortion in cases of rape. Kiessling makes a valid point during the debate which draws no response: “I’m a woman, you say you care about women...what use is my right to anything if I don’t have the right to life?”.

Shauna R. Prewitt wrote in 2009 that many laws are passed to facilitate abortion in cases of rape and incest, but what real support is given to the women who choose to keep their rape-conceived children? 

“...few states have passed special laws to aid the large number of raped women who choose to raise their rape-conceived children. Without such laws, a man who fathers a child through rape has the same custody and visitation privileges regarding that child as does the father of a child not conceived through rape. Moreover, as a result of this legal absence, raped women and their children are left to face substantial and potentially terrible consequences” (p.829).

Whilst modern radical feminists continue to scream and shout for ‘reproductive rights’ especially in cases of rape, how many are supporting their fellow women who make the courageous decision to choose life? 

What’s wrong with gender selection?

There seems to have been a flurry of media coverage on gender selection recently. An article in the Evening Standard quoted the British (Cambridge) trained Dr Steinberg claiming that he had helped around 400 couples choose the gender of their child. The Daily Mail reported that Dr Steinberg currently sees around 40 British couples a year charging around £30,000 each, and the Daily Telegraph quoted him claiming he has even assisted some UK politicians:

“I have had leading British politicians from the UK coming here, to this office, for services that are outlawed in the UK”

This is rather concerning because sex selection is illegal in the UK under the 1990 and 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which states that reproductive technologies “cannot authorise any practice designed to secure that any resulting child will be of one sex rather than the other”. In the Evening Standard a description of the process is provided:

“We harvest on average around of 10 eggs, of which eight or nine will be successfully fertilised,’ says Dr Steinberg. ‘We biopsy the fertilised eggs, and will lose at least half from genetic abnormalities. Then half of those remaining are going to be the wrong gender, so we will be left with just one two of the gender we want, to implant’”

On the clinics website they say something similar:

“After 3 days, several 8-cell embryos will have developed. Our doctor-scientist specialists examine the genetic makeup of the embryos, screening for both genetic diseases and desired gender. Healthy embryos of the gender you desire are implanted in the mother. Any additional healthy embryos may be cryo-frozen for future use.”

Arguing, as Dr Steinberg does, that sex selection could lead to a decline in abortion is disingenuous. Reports from 2010 highlighted the proportion of mothers aborting their children conceived through IVF. It’s argued that babies conceived through IVF are really “wanted” as the parent or parents have potentially spent a lot of money, and perhaps been through several cycles of IVF and the associated procedures. Prof Bill Ledger, a member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which regulates fertility treatment, said: “I had no idea there were so many post-IVF abortions and each one is a tragedy.”

This is concerning because human person exists from conception. There is no such thing as a living human person with subhuman moral status and thus the destruction of embryos is intrinsically wrong

Secondly, the issue with sex selection is that effectively life is treated as a commodity with a pick and chose attitude to children. The child is not seen as a gift, which should be treasured no matter the gender, but as a product which should meet certain demands. How can we condemn gendercide in India and China yet allow 40 couples a year to go to America to choose the gender of their child whilst sacrificing countless embryos?

As Amanda Mitchison argued in the Guardian in 2010 “It may be only a matter of time before women are demanding PGD sex selection on the NHS. If the state will fund IVF for a baby, why not for a baby girl? Or a baby boy?” With politicians going to these clinics don’t be surprised if a group of MPs get together, with the backing of embryologist researchers and fertility doctors, to legalise this. Each human life is unique, and shouldn’t be designed in a lab. The Coalition Government needs to take a hard line against this, before it is too late

What does a paralympic swimmer and a militant pro-abortonist have in common?

Sadly (for the paralympic swimmer), they share the same name. Luckily, they do not share the same outlook on life for those living with a disability. 

As the Paralympics begin and the British media tries to ‘rally the troops’ for what feels like an afterthought, it is timely and appropriate that we consider the incredible hypocrisy which exists in our society and which is reflected and magnified in the media regarding abortion and those who live with disabilities. 

On the 26th of August, an article praising the Paralympic swimmer Ellie Simmonds was published in the Sunday Telegraph. Simmonds was rightly commended for her fantastic achievement at Beijing 2008 (Simmonds became, at the age of 13, the youngest ever athlete to win a gold medal at a Paralympic Games). She also received an MBE in 2009 and was, again, the youngest person to be honoured with this award.  Simmonds does not focus on her disability (she was born with achondroplasia - a form of short-limbed dwarfism) - “I’m just small”. 

It is difficult to believe that the praise of the Paralympic athletes from some quarters is, however, sincere.  How can we possibly take seriously, for example, the adverts made by the televisual hosts of the games, Channel 4? It feels insincere when we proclaim that Paralympic athletes are ‘superhuman’ and in the same breath declare that abortion for disability is a ‘necessary evil’. Had Ellie Simmonds’ parents brought an end to her life while she was still a vulnerable and tiny human being in the womb, would anyone have protested against the execution of her mother’s ‘right to choose’? Perhaps our pro-abortion critics would answer that the essential difference is that they themselves did not protest -  that Simmonds’ parents ‘made their choice’.  One might well ask: who gave us the power to decide between life and death for any human being, to deprive them of their chance to live their life, and in Simmonds’ case, even to reach the heights of a gold medal at the Paralympic games? Even if Ellie Simmonds had never set foot in a swimming pool, even if she had never left hospital, her life is, and always has been from the moment of her conception, her own and worthy of being lived. 

In a 2001 article published by Spiked Online, Ann Furedi, current CEO of Bpas, and Dr. Ellie Lee, lecturer at the University of Kent, wrote that when a woman aborts her disabled baby, “[s]he is making a statement about herself; what she feels she can cope with and what she wants” and not a statement about the worth of people with disabilities in general.  Further on in the same article, the authors write that when a mother decides to abort her disabled child “It simply implies that she does not wish to be a mother to one”  (note the term “one”).  Furedi and Lee are clearly at ease using such dehumanizing language in relation to unborn children with disabilities (a few years back Lee went further and openly endorsed infanticide on the BBC’s Moral Maze. In the minds of Furedi and Lee, “Issues relating to disability rights are completely different to those relating to abortion”. 

In a 2003 article on abortion and disability by Dr. Lee, published by Pro-choice Forum, she writes that abortion legislation in the UK is too prohibitive. She wants to see it liberalized, including when it comes to aborting babies with a disability:

“the logical consequence of doing so is to draw the conclusion that, to put it bluntly, choice is choice. I know from my experience of making this point that some people - those who are pro-life and some of those with disabilities - get very upset about it. But it is hard to see how this issue can be avoided if we are to have an approach to abortion that is fair, coherent and moral.”

These are the sorts of pernicious ideas that people with disabilities and their supporters have to stave off. For Lee, a more liberalised abortion law is going to make the world more moral and fair.  It would be difficult to think of a better example of inverting the moral order, calling good bad and bad good. For the likes of Furedi and Lee, life will be better for the mother, and for society, when the ‘unwanted’ child with a disability is killed. Yet, comically, Furedi and Lee try to deny that they favour eugenics.  Less comic are the generous public funds that go toward funding the likes of these two, while the State sentimentally celebrates ‘the disabled’.

Of course if ‘choice’ justifies of itself, why do so many modern feminists protest against the abortions which target girls? Putting aside the contradiction in their attitude (how can aborting a girl because she is a girl be wrong when abortion is, they say, a woman’s right and a legitimate practice?), they are recognising that sex-selection abortion reflects the idea, prevalent in communities where sex-selection abortion is popular, that girls are not as ‘good’ as boys. They recognise that as long as girls are targeted in the womb, they will never attain equal status in society when they are born. In the same way, we cannot abort our disabled unborn children and then expect respect, love and support for those children who do ‘slip through the net’. 

A few months ago, a very telling article was published in the Guardian which chastised the government for cracking down on abortion clinics which carry out abortions on unborn children based on their sex, while a report had simultaneously been published which highlighted the lack of support for disabled children available today (long waits for wheelchairs, a lack of communication with the family about care for their disabled child etc). 

The journalist, a supporter of abortion, failed to see the contradiction between her two positions. Of course disabled children are at the bottom of the pile in the UK, of course they are neglected, of course they go without!  Disabled children are the lowest of the low when it comes to abortion. We know that it is almost taken for granted that a woman will abort her unborn baby if he or she has Down’s Syndrome, so why should we expect these children to be provided for when they are born?  Society needs to sit up and take notice of the horrible injustice which is being perpetrated against all unborn children who are aborted and most obviously  against those who are disabled. The Paralympics mean nothing, and are grossly hypocritical, if we refuse to protect (or, indeed, demand the destruction of) disabled members of our society in their hour of need: in the womb.

One-handed pianist Nicholas McCarthy graduates from Royal College of Music

An inspiring story from The Telegraph, about a young man who was born with only one hand and went on to graduate from the Royal College of Music. Contrast this young man's life and what he's already achieved, with the pessimistic ideology of Bpas, Marie Stopes, Education for Choice and Abortion Rights who ardently defend the killing of unborn children in the womb because they have or are suspected of having a disability.

Nicholas McCarthy, 23, was told as a teenager that he was wasting everyone’s time by trying to learn the instrument with only one hand.

But he has now become the first one-handed pianist to complete his studies at the Royal College in its 130-year history. The musician has also joined Britain’s first disabled orchestra, the Paraorchestra, which played to Paralympic athletes to welcome them to London. Mr McCarthy, from Tadworth in Surrey, achieved his ambition by playing music written specifically for the left hand, including works by the Austrian composer Paul Wittgenstein, who lost his right arm in the First World War. Ravel, Prokofiev and Bartok are among the composers who have written pieces for just the left hand. Mr McCarthy said being told by a head teacher that he would always be held back was “soul crushing” but made him more determined to succeed.

He was left to teach himself to play on an electric keyboard from Argos when he was a child, and only started piano lessons aged 14. "There are people in my position having counselling, and I just think: ‘Please get over it and make something of yourself.’ You can turn it into an advantage,” he said. He said of his Royal College achievement "I don't go around thinking of these milestones, but when my teacher rang me up and said 'you've made history', that felt good.

As a teenager seeking his first place at a school for young pianists, he was refused an audition and told he would never succeed. "It was soul crushing because that's all I wanted to do - I could feel it would be an uphill struggle, but it made me more determined, I'm quite a stubborn character" he said. He taught himself to play an electric keyboard from Argos as a young boy, but did not start piano lessons until he was 14.

He had planned to become a chef but changed his career path the moment a friend played him a piano sonata by Beethoven, which "dumbfounded" him. He said "I just fell in love with it and decided that was what I wanted to do. I started playing around with the piano and found it came very naturally."

At the age of 17 he secured a place at the junior department of London's Guildhall School of Music and Drama, winning the annual piano prize. He then went on to the prestigious Royal College of Music in London, and has just graduated. The college's head of keyboard, Prof Vanessa Latarche, said her pupil had been "incredibly enterprising" in overcoming some big challenges such as developing the stamina to present a 50-minute recital with one arm. "He has been a great inspiration to many of his fellow students in showing what it is possible to achieve with a disability" she said.

Nicholas said "When I first joined the orchestra, a couple of the musicians who are partially sighted and blind didn't believe I was playing with one hand, that was a big compliment to me. "The music is all written for the left hand alone, I'm not changing anything, I'm playing the music as it was written. It's written very cleverly, but you've got to be very quick and good with the pedalling to sustain the bass notes while playing the top notes."

Nicholas said he thought a lot of people came to see him perform "for curiosity and think 'how is this possible?'"

Next week he will perform in Malta at the offices of the country's prime minister and in September he will headline his first evening concert at Fairfield Halls in Croydon.

"even more dedicated young adults working on their behalf"

As per last year, this year's SPUC interns went to a youth festival in Walsignham to promote the pro-life message and get people active about campaigning on behalf of vulnerable people in the womb. Below is a short account from one of our interns, about his few days in walsingham:

As an intern I had the privilege of helping to run the stall along with SPUC Scotland at the Youth 2000 festival in Walsingham over the bank holiday weekend, promoting the value of life to hundreds of young people and families.

We sold pro life merchandise as handing out free information packs that contained, key information about abortion, abortifacient contraceptives, SPUC’s campaign for marriage, as well as the Pro Life Times newspaper.

We also displayed a foetal model set showing development of the unborn child, which proved to be a useful visual aid especially for families with younger children.

We received lots of encouragement: from students interested in starting pro-life societies on their university campus, to teachers keen to get the pro life message into classrooms. One particular lady shared her concern about abortion, especially in her home country where abortion is at risk of being legalised. She was interested to know the situation in the UK and when I told her the abortion statistics in UK she was very shocked and upset. Another lady spoke of her experience overcoming an abortion she had earlier in her life, but now feels healed and says how a picture of an unborn child on a pro life leaflet helped her come to terms with it.

Lots of other people, who passed us were fascinated to see the size and development of the child in utero at 20 weeks. It was very encouraging to meet and discuss these issues with such a range of people and to see so many young people excited and passionate about life.

We've been busy over the summer at events such as the conference on disability and sport held in London, the Faith Summer Session, and Evangelium, as well as Walsingham. We've met hundreds of new people and given out 500 pro-life packs, so far. Now we're focused on cultivating the seeds sown and making sure the new academic year proves fruitful for unborn children, because we'll have even more dedicated young adults working on their behalf at universities and towns up and down the UK. 

   

URGENT: Consultation on Welsh presumed consent organ donation Bill closes in 2 weeks

The Welsh government has announced plans to introduce presumed consent for organ donation. They are calling it "deemed consent", in which people living in Wales for a period of six months or more will be opted-in automatically as organ donors. This will include prisoners, tourists, and students.

A consultation on the draft bill "Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill" opened on 18 June 2012, and closes on 10 September 2012. The consultation is open to everyone. SPUC has produced a briefing and summary assisting pro-lifers to fill in the consultation.

I blogged about the dangers of presumed consent for organ donation in January 2008 when Gordon Brown, the former British prime minister, wanted the law on organ donation to allow presumed consent, and July 2008 when the Welsh Assembly rejected presumed consent for organ donation.These measures could impact negatively on the seriously-ill and dying and their families, who may not be aware of medical controversies surrounding the determination of death which,

if known to them, might make some reluctant to donate their organs. The evidence seems mixed about whether such a change would increase the number of organs available. Some countries with presumed consent systems do worse than the UK but some do better, suggesting that other factors may be more important.

There are many serious objections to the proposals that are not addressed at all (or only inadequately) in setting out these proposals; most importantly the question of whether so-called ‘brain-death’ or ‘brain stem death’ is actual death. As David W Evans MD, FRCP has noted:

“the basis upon which a mortally sick patient is declared “deceased” – for the purpose of acquiring his or her organs for transplantation without legal difficulties – is very different from the basis upon which death is ordinarily diagnosed and certified and that highly relevant fact is not fully and generally understood.”

The proposals ignore the facts concerning this area of scientific dispute, yet this is a question with enormous ethical implications. Most organ donors are unaware that their hearts may be beating when their organs are taken, and that they may be pink, warm, able to heal wounds, fight infections,

respond to stimuli, etc.

They are also unaware of common practices of paralysing and (sometimes) anaesthetising supposedly brain-dead donors before their organs are taken.

Simply signing a donor card does not in any way indicate that the prospective consenting donor understands what will be involved, and those who are merely ‘presumed to consent’ are likely to know even less.

In other medical contexts, informed consent is the gold standard. So it really must be asked why in this particular setting informed consent is being set aside. Presumed consent effectively abolishes organ donation understood as a free gift (providing all ethical considerations are fulfilled).

The key documents are:

• the draft Bill http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dhss/consultation/120618billen.pdf
• the bill's explanatory memorandum http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dhss/consultation/120618memoen.pdf
• the consultation document http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dhss/consultation/120618documenten.pdf
• the response form (scroll down to bottom of page. The response form is the Word document) http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/healthsocialcare/organbill/?lang=en

How to respond:

• online: http://goo.gl/kvovB
• email: fill in the consultation response form (above) and email it to organdonation@wales.gsi.gov.uk Please mark the subject of your email: Consultation on the Draft Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill
• post: print out the consultation response form (above), fill it in, and post it to: Organ Donation Legislation Team, Medical Directorate, 4th Floor, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ
• telephone: call the following number and ask for a response form to be posted to you. Large print, Braille, and alternative language versions are available. 029 2037 0011

Remember, the consultation is open to everyone, not just Welsh citizens or people living in Wales.