You may be disappointed that the bill as it now stands in the Senate does not show the effects of your conversation with me. I found that there was a rather strong feeling on the part of those who were most interested in the passage of the bill that it would be distinctly unwise for the friends the bill to make any changes unless they were quite necessary. They felt that such changes would open the way for amendments tending to nullify the whole provision. Furthermore, in regard to the suggestion that the “Medical necessity" clauses be deleted, I find that a number of the doctors think that the original provisions of the bill could be very much better enforced, should it become law, if these medical clauses were left in. In other words, a person who might come under both provisions and might reasonably be expected to benefit physically or mentally, as well as to be prevented from producing defective offspring, would be very much apt to get an affirmative vote of the Board on the question of sterilizing than if he were to be recommended for sterilizing on the eugenical side only.

It is therefore the same bill with two unimportant amendments that is before the Assembly today. Your representative Gipson from Brandon did excellent service on behalf of bill at the public hearing last Tuesday evening. I did not know of the date of the bearing until the morning of Tuesday and it was scheduled for seven o'clock that night so I could not get word to you in time to have you make the attempt to be present. Dr. Stanley was the only one who accompanied me, but we certainly had excellent support from members of both Houses.