Just my humble opinion. Writings of this nature would be more persuasive if they did not imply that the one and only reason anyone ever took contraception was ‘free love.’ My grandmother had 11 children back to back...the last two were stillborn. This was actually considered a small family prior to condoms and the pill. I recall reading a letter of author Jane Austen (circa 1800) where she received news of a peer who was yet again pregnant hard on the heels of yet another pregnancy. Jane remarked on the woman’s exhaustion from continuous pregnancies with sympathy. I think some people wondered if 12 children were about as many children as they had the ability to provide for. Especially as childborth has come along way medically - it used to be more dangerous. I am not saying that other comments posted here are entirely groundless but that the paint brush used to paint anyone/everyone who ever wanted to try or tried contraception as those who wanted unrestrained fornication etc. Balance...perhaps those worried about increasingly difficult pregnancies were told that they would not conceive if they took the pill - shall they too be counted with the free love, no responsibility fornication ‘addicts?’
Back to Sanger — her main interest was NOT the emancipation of women — it was eugenics, pure and simple. More from the “fit” and less from the “unfit.” She was a big hit with the Klan, as can be seen here (scroll down for famous picture): http://bigjournalism.com/sswift/2010/01/22/thirty-seven-years-after-roe-v-wade-a-disenfranchised-silent-generation/