#Repeal Comstock

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

A group of women Democratic senators introduced a repeal of the 1873 Comstock Act Thursday, citing the threat of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint for the next Republican president. This archaic law needs to go, and talking about it—and the GOP’s plans—is an excellent way to get the word out to voters about Republicans’ radical agenda.

The Comstock Act banned the mailing of contraceptives, “lewd” writings, and any “instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing” that could be used in an abortion. It’s been more or less superseded by the Supreme Court and new laws in the past century and a half, but it remains on the books. Like a dormant volcano, it sits waiting for a shift in the political ground to erupt. Patty Murray of Washington, one of the co-sponsors, talked about the threat in a press conference Tuesday.  “Donald Trump and his allies are planning a detailed road map, they’ve given it out, to rip away a woman’s right to choose in every single state in America,” she said. Lead sponsor of the bill, Tina Smith of Minnesota, told The Washington Post that there is  “a very clear, well-organized plan afoot by the MAGA Republicans to use Comstock as a tool to ban medication abortion, and potentially all abortions.” “My job is to take that tool away,” Smith added.

The shift was presaged by the focus of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in their arguments in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, in which the court unanimously preserved access to the abortion pill. The ruling wasn’t on the merits of the FDA’s decision to expand access to the drug, but rather on a technicality of whether the physicians’ group bringing the challenge could sufficiently claim that they were harmed by it. In that case, Thomas and Alito all but told future plaintiffs how to bring back this challenge: by invoking the Comstock Act. They specifically asked the attorneys arguing the case of the FDA’s pandemic-era decision—made permanent in 2023—to use the Comstock Act in their challenges.

Good to see the Senate Democrats take action to propose the repeal of the odious Comstock Act (even if the Republicans block it like usual). #RepealComstock

[tzifron]

So it may well be that the initial way Trump’s second administration will seek to eliminate access to safe abortion care is by making sure the medication most often used just isn’t available, whether through FDA actions or state ones. But there is also a potentially far more comprehensive strategy Trump might embrace, which has much broader ramifications for public health and civil rights. That’s the Comstock Act; a piece of 19th century federal legislation that is currently a “zombie law,” meaning it’s been largely dormant in recent decades, but was never repealed – and so, it could spring to life again, wreaking havoc.

[sniperct]

So there's this old law on the books called the comstock act

It bans mailing obscene things.

This includes but is probably not limited to:

porn

sex toys

contraceptives

abortion pills

The supreme court threw out a case to ban the abortion pill today simply because the plaintiffs did it wrong, but the conservatives on the court hinted strongly that the comstock act could be used to ban it.

Republicans have been talking about enforcing the act for months, its part of project 2025

The solution is straightforward. Retake the house, expand the senate and keep the white house, so this act can be repealed, among hundreds of other incredibly important things.

[olderthannetfic]

Re: porn stuff and Trump - apparently the main way they want to do this is via the Comstock Act, a 19th century act that banned sending obscenity through the mail. This is primarily going to be used to ban pill abortions, and possibly some forms of birth control. It's a backdoor way to do that. It might be used to ban sending porn through the mail, though that'll run into some First Amendment stuff. It sucks, and this law should have been explicitly repealed and not just not enforced years ago. I don't want to sugarcoat the impact this is going to have on reproductive rights. Mifepristone is a big way that women have still been able to get abortions in abortion-ban states, and this is obviously an attack on that. But I think that that being the main way that they plan to go after porn means that online smut, especially of the written variety, is going to be safe, if they even enforce it against porn in the first place.

There's also this discourse that young bro-y men won Trump the election (it's only sort of true - Harris did win Gen Z men actually, but not by the usual margins, and I think that the radicalization of young men online probably did contribute to some of that). So I think they're going to be hesitant to piss them off by getting rid of Internet porn, along with, as you said, the fact that the Constitution is going to make that very hard. The Project 2025 people absolutely do want to do this, but this is going to be a lot harder for many reasons than what they want to do to abortion.

(Obviously, Trump doesn't care about some of his other supporters who will be hurt by his policies: Latinos come to mind. But young white bro-y men are future Republican politicians, future foot soldiers in their crusade. I don't think they're going to want to piss them off en masse.)

The saving grace for smut fans is how relying on an antiquated law makes it hard to go after stuff spread through new technologies like the Internet.

Also, case law in the U.S. has traditionally treated written smut very differently from visual porn. It's hard enough to restrict the latter, but it's near-impossible with the former in the 21st century.

Of course, who the fuck knows with this Supreme Court, though I'm guessing a least one of those Republican appointments (frat boy Brett Kavanaugh comes to mind) doesn't want porn gone either lol

if there's any saving grace to the far right nominating a reality-TV star who is known for his numerous affairs, it's that he probably won't be willing to go along with the anti-sex parts of their platform that involve hurting his fellow straight white cis men, and it would be really hard to restrict written smut of the kind that appears on AO3 without restricting a ton of stuff those guy are into, too. Anything that would ban AO3 would also ban like, the "Nude Africa" board that Mark Robinson the Black Nazi posted on. Or most of what appears on 4chan and 8chan. Do you think they want to do that?

--

[thoughtportal]

CHICAGO — Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) is a reproductive justice champion who was the first member of Congress after the Dobbs decision to call to repeal the Comstock Act, a dormant 1873 law that a future Donald Trump administration could enforce to ban abortion pills, and possibly all procedural abortions, too.

But earlier this month, she lost her primary to Wesley Bell, a county prosecutor whose campaign received at least $8.5 million from AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group that’s spent millions this cycle to try to unseat Democrats who’ve spoken out against Israel’s genocide on Gaza. AIPAC’s contributions to Bell made it the fifth most expensive primary in history.

Jezebel previously reported that AIPAC has endorsed more than 200 anti-abortion congressional Republicans this cycle alone. In 2006, Bell managed the campaign of an anti-abortion Republican candidate, and in 2013 and 2014 he donated to now-Missouri House Speaker Dean Plocher’s (R) campaign to unseat a Democrat.

After Kamala Harris formally accepted the Democratic nomination on Thursday night, Bell happened to be in the lobby of the hotel where Jezebel writers were staying during the Democratic National Convention. So, I approached him in front of the reception desk shortly after 1 a.m. CT, showed him my press badge, and said that Bush had a strong record on abortion rights, including the Comstock Act, before asking him if he had a stance on the law.

Bell asked, “for reproductive rights?” Sensing that he was struggling to respond, I asked, “Can you tell me what the Comstock Act is?” And he could not.

I asked if he had a card for a communications staffer I could follow up with and he said they’d given them all out, but gave me the email address I should contact.

Finally, I asked if there were positions that Bush has taken on abortion that he disagrees with; he said he agrees with her on that subject.

I contacted the campaign for comment early Friday morning about whether Bell will co-sponsor the bill to repeal Comstock after he’s sworn in. We’ll update this story if they respond.

[docmerry]

Health is on the Ballot in November-Reproductive Health

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Perhaps you have been marooned on an uninhabited island for the past decade, in which case, let me catch you up. One of the promises that Trump fulfilled during his time in office, with an assist from Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, was to appoint justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that would overturn Roe v Wade. The appointments of justices Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and Coney Barret gave conservatives a supermajority on the bench,

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).decision in 2022 overturned what had been the law of the land for close to 50 years. Since then, 21 states have passed laws or reinstituted “trigger laws” that were on the books prior to 1973 that restricted or prohibitted abortion. Stick a pin in that.

Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barret were recommended by the Heritage Foundation (Heritage), which is a conservative think tank that began in 1973 and has been active in Republican politics since the Reagan administration.

Heritage is the publisher of "Mandate for Leakership: The Conservative Promise" aka Project 25, a conservative playbook for the next Republican administration. It includes utilizing the 1873 Comstock Act, an anti-vice law that specifically prohibits the mailing of items related to abortion or birth control. Project 2025 suggests that mifepristone, a drug used in medical abortions, should not be mailed to patients under any circumstances. Additionally, this law from the nineteenth century could prevent the mailing of devices used in surgical abortion.

SCOTUS heard two cases in the latest term on abortion. FDA vs Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine was a case brought by Texas physicians that challenged the approval of mifepristone. In a unanimous decision, that case was thrown out because the doctors were found to lack standing to bring the suit.

In the notable case of Moyle v. United States, consolidated with United States v Idaho, the central issue was whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment, including but not limitted to emergency abortions, preempts state law in Idaho and five other states that restrict abortion. Once again the court decided not to decide and sent the case back to the lower courts. The justices were divided, with Justices Alito and Thomas suggesting that states may prioritize the fetus's health over the woman's. Currently, women in Idaho and five other states can obtain an emergency abortion.

Justices Alito and Thomas are both in their seventies. If Trump were to win the election in November, it is anticipated that they would retire during his term, potentially solidifying a conservative supermajority for an extended period.

Just as men’s health is about more than just erectile dysfunction, reproductive health is about more than just abortions. Bills have been introduced in the House and the Senate that address In-vitro fertilization (IVF) and access to contraception. The future actions of those who enforce moral standards remain uncertain.

Across the aisle, Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Walz signed a law that "codified Roe," granting the right to abortion access in Minnesota's constitution. President Biden and VP Harris have considered similar national measures, but without eliminating the Senate filibuster, that would be a heavy lift in Congress.

Regarding the broader strategy, it may not be detrimental. Ruth Bader Ginsburg posited that if Roe v. Wade hadn't made abortion legal nationwide in one sweeping decision, states might have individually repealed anti-abortion laws gradually, similar to the recent trend of states legalizing recreational marijuana.

We don’t live in that universe. We live in this one where reproductive health is on the ballot in November.

[stephen-barry]

FB "fact checker" claim: Trump would not / cannot / never said that he would ban birth control pills

*WRONG*

The Comstock Act, the long-dead law Trump could use to ban abortion, explained

A defunct federal law is Republicans’ best hope of banning abortion throughout the United States...

Trump Swiftly Backtracks After Saying He’s ‘Looking At’ Contraceptive Restrictions

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Chris Britt, Florida Politics

* * *

Republicans double down on efforts to deny women reproductive liberty

April 11, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Republicans in both chambers of the Arizona legislature blocked Democratic efforts to repeal the state’s 1864 law banning all abortions and criminalizing abortion healthcare—leaving no doubt that the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling was the precise outcome Republicans wanted. Although a few Arizona Republicans have expressed regret for their prior support for the 1864 law, it will remain in effect until the voters of Arizona approve a proposed state constitutional amendment that would recognize abortion as a “fundamental right.” See Arizona Right to Abortion Initiative.

The Speaker of the Arizona House has said that he will not allow a vote to repeal the 1864 law and GOP members of the Arizona Freedom Caucus released a statement that said,

The Supreme Court of Arizona made the correct ruling, upheld the intent of the legislature, and preserved the rule of law today by ruling that the pre-Roe law will remain effective. [¶¶] Sadly, it seems that some are choosing to reject the fundamental, core principle of protecting life. Some have chosen instead to jump on the bandwagon to legalize unrestricted abortions for the first 15 weeks of pregnancy —a position that would permit 95% of all existing abortions to continue. This is unacceptable, morally wrong, and abrasively out of step with the central tenants of the Republican Party Platform and Republican voters.

The second paragraph quoted above attacks Republicans who are “rejecting” the core Republican position on abortion—a fundamentalist criticism that applies to Donald Trump, who said on Wednesday that he would not sign a national abortion ban. See NPR, Trump backed a federal abortion ban as president. Now, he says he wouldn't sign one.

Trump is playing word games with the fundamental rights of women. If elected, Trump doesn’t need to “sign” a national abortion ban to enforce a national abortion ban. How can that be?

Project 2025 is a plan being prepared by Trump's reactionary advisors to implement an authoritarian regime under Trump if he is reelected. One prong of Project 2025 is to use the 1873 federal law known as the Comstock Act to effectuate a national ban. See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Arizona’s abortion ban is back. It’s every state’s future if Trump wins. (slate.com)

Like the 1864 Arizona law, the Comstock Act is a moribund law that has been overtaken by newer statutes—but it has not been repealed. A Trump-appointed Attorney General could simply start enforcing a federal law that has been on the books since 1873 and claim that there is no “ban” signed by Trump. The national “ban” on abortion was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1873—and would be enforced as an existing law by his Attorney General (Kash Patel?).

Indictments under the Comstock Act would be challenged in federal court, which would place the ongoing validity of the Comstock Act on the US Supreme Court’s docket. It is reasonable to assume that the reactionary majority on the US Supreme Court will rule in the same way as the Republicans on the Arizona Supreme Court.

In short, don’t fall for Trump's “I won’t sign a national ban” lies. He will instruct his Attorney General to enforce the Comstock Act—and claim that he kept his promise.

Trump's other attempts to moderate his stance on reproductive freedom amount to incoherent flailing. He said on Wednesday that abortion is an issue of “states’ rights,” a formulation that omits women from the legal considerations of an act that can only be performed by them. To date, none of the fifty states has ever become pregnant—and none ever will.

Trump went further, confirming states should be free to jail doctors if they provide abortion healthcare.

But the privileged arrogance of conservative men denying reproductive liberty reached its apogee on Fox News. On Wednesday, a male Fox News commentator (Steve Moore) said that “having to get a bus ticket” to see a gynecologist “isn’t the worst thing in the world.” Beyond Moore’s unbounded arrogance lies profound ignorance.

Women frequently need abortion healthcare on an emergency basis—because they are hemorrhaging or spiraling into sepsis. “Buying a bus ticket” under such circumstances may be a death sentence for the woman. And depending on where the woman lives, the “bus ride” may be a thousand miles to secure healthcare that was a federal constitutional right for the last half century—before Dobbs.

The continued assault on women’s fundamental rights by the Republican Party—combined with the arrogance and ignorance of the men leading the charge—will have far-reaching ramifications in November 2024 and beyond. Every voter who cares about women should be motivated as never before to vote for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot in 2024. Republicans are making that point clearer every day.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[taylortruther]

rather we must concern about abortion pills

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNJhvLvv/

although this woman isn't wrong, i think jessica valenti breaks down the info in more detail in her newsletter. still terrifying, but i also like that i can see her sources so it feels less like fearmongering and more like understanding the issue:

Just because SCOTUS ruled that these groups and doctors don’t have standing doesn’t mean that other anti-abortion activists can’t bring the same case. ... In fact, Erin Hawley, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who led the mifepristone challenge, said today that those states will continue their suits. [...] Now that the SCOTUS ruling is out, anti-abortion activists also have a better sense of what the justices are looking for. As law professor Mary Ziegler wrote today, “One could read parts of this opinion as creating a roadmap to future plaintiffs who *do* want to establish standing.” [...] What they’re really banking on, though, is another Donald Trump presidency. If Trump is elected in November, anti-abortion groups can decimate access to abortion medication. Namely, they’ll replace the head of the FDA and use the power of that agency to limit or repeal the drug. Another Trump administration would also bring with it perhaps the biggest danger to abortion access: the Comstock Act. Under Trump, the Department of Justice could use Comstock to criminalize mailing abortion medication or any tools or supplies used in abortions. This wouldn’t just apply to anti-abortion states, but every state. In effect, it would be a backdoor national ban.

from the ask: tiktok link

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sarah Prager for LGBTQ Nation:

One hundred years ago, queerness was illegal in just about every way in the U.S. There were laws against cross-dressing and sodomy, being trans or queer was classified as a mental illness, and it was legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. At the same time, there was a thriving underground subculture of balls, drag shows, and salons.  During the Harlem Renaissance and blues craze, queer people were open in their own circles, but organizing politically for equality was not in the collective consciousness. The community centers, groups, and newsletters that would become the foundation for the fight for equality wouldn’t come around until the 1950s.  

In Berlin, however, where there was a booming queer scene, Magnus Hirschfeld began the official movement for LGBTQ+ rights. He founded the first organization for LGBTQ+ rights in the world — the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee — in 1897 and the world-renowned Institute for Sexual Research in 1919.  A man who would follow in Hirschfeld’s historic footsteps was born in 1892 in Bavaria, and in 1913 he emigrated to Chicago, where his name became Henry Gerber at Ellis Island (sources disagree on his birth name). He would go on to found the first gay rights organization in the United States after being briefly institutionalized for homosexuality in 1917.

Gerber returned to Germany from 1920 to 1923, when he served with the U.S. Army in the wake of World War I. There, he was in contact with Hirschfeld and learned more about what gay rights advocacy could look like, including subscribing to some of the first LGBTQ+ publications. He returned to Chicago determined to start a parallel effort in the U.S. He spent a year recruiting founding members, and on December 10, 1924, he filed with the state of Illinois for the incorporation of a nonprofit organization called the Society for Human Rights. The state granted him a charter on December 24, officially marking the first LGBTQ+ rights organization in the United States. Sodomy remained illegal in Illinois until 1962 (when it would become the first state in the nation to repeal its antisodomy law), and Gerber and his group could not claim they were advocating for crime. As such, the stated purpose was broad: “to promote and protect the interests of people who by reasons of mental and physical abnormalities are abused and hindered in the legal pursuit of happiness which is guaranteed them by the Declaration of Independence and to combat the public prejudices against them by dissemination of factors according to modern science among intellectuals of mature age.”

Gerber began to publish the first known gay publication in the country, Friendship and Freedom, which only had two issues. Dissemination of queer content through the postal service was illegal under the anti-obscenity Comstock Act, so readers were limited. But Hirschfeld did receive a copy, as did Harry Hay, who would go on to co-found the gay rights organization the Mattachine Society in 1950. Hay said receiving that publication directly contributed to his creation of that group, which was the first openly LGBTQ+ group in the country. There were seven founding members of the Society for Human Rights, including the group President John T. Graves, a Black clergyman. The vice-president, Al Weininger, ended up having an inadvertent hand in the organization’s swift end.

Weininger was married with two children, and one of his family members (some sources say his wife, others his daughter) reported to a social worker that he was part of a group of “degenerates” just seven months after the organization formed. Police arrested Gerber, Graves, Weininger, and others. Other than Gerber, the fate of the rest of the members has been lost to history.  Gerber was released after spending his life savings on his defense across three trials and losing his job as a U.S. postal worker. The police confiscated all of his papers, and zero copies of Friendship and Freedom exist today. 

America’s first gay rights group was founded by Henry Gerber in 1924, and it was named Society For Human Rights. Gerber also published the first gay publication in the USA, called Friendship and Freedom. The publication’s distribution was limited under the Comstock Act.

We are learning more and more about the pre-Stonewall-era of LGBTQ+ history in America by the year.

[meandmybigmouth]

‘I can’t even believe we’re talking about this’: this obscure 1873 law is putting abortion in jeopardy

The Comstock Act of 1873, a relic statute from a bygone era regulating public morality, is being cited by the Supreme Court in a case concerning medication abortion. Democratic Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota is now leading efforts to repeal the antiquated law before Trump allies execute their plan to resurrect it to impose a nationwide ban on medication abortion. 'It hasn't been enforced since the 1930s,' says Sen. Smith. 'It’s rooted in this Victorian era idea that the government should be the morality police

‘I can’t even believe we’re talking about this’: this obscure 1873 law is putting abortion in jeopardy | Watch (msn.com)

ARCHAIC LAWS! POLITICIANS LOVE THEM!. RATHER THAN FINDING THEM AND REMOVING THEM THEY CALL THEM A LOOPHOLE AND IT POWERS THEIR AGENDA!

[renthony]

I was going to keep ignoring arguments in the notes, but this comment is extremely irritating and I want to make something clear:

The idea that I don't really care about censorship because I refuse to reduce my opinions down to a shipping discourse label is laughable. I'm going to assume you're a random blogger who saw this in the wild and aren't actually following me, because if you did follow me, you'd see my regular writing about this topic. I'm particularly proud of the 5k research paper I was recently paid to write about all the censorship heaped on the Nimona film.

I have been invited to guest lecture about the Hays Code in a university media studies class. I have spent a great deal of time and effort tracking down media studies texts so that I can write about censorship and related topics in a way that's accessible to people without a university education. I financially support both local and online libraries (such as the Queer Liberation Library, to whom I dedicated a recent essay about Fahrenheit 451) whenever I have the funds. I keep tabs on what books are being challenged in my local school district and why. I am a dues-paying member of the IWW Freelance Journalists Union, because I literally write about this shit for a fucking living, jackass.

I object to using shipping discourse labels for my work because if I bring up the term "proship" or "antiship" in a serious academic or political discussion, they're not going to be taken seriously. Framing this entire discussion around fandom shipping terms is not helpful when the topics are infinitely larger than fandom discourse.

I am not going to stand up at a school board meeting and start talking about how those damn antishippers are ruining literacy. The average person who goes to city commission and school board meetings doesn't fucking know what "proship" and "antiship" even mean. The superintendent isn't on tumblr brushing up on the latest fandom discourse.

I'm not going to start calling Ron DeSantis an antishipper for all his book banning efforts and expect anyone to take me seriously. I'm not going to lecture university students about how Joseph Breen and Will Hays are infamous historical antis, or that the Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson Miracle Decision opened the doors for proshipper victory against the horrible antishipper precedent set in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. I am not going to write an article calling the Comstock Act a piece of antiship legislation we should be worried about in the repeal of Roe v. Wade. I'm not framing huge, serious, far-reaching political and social issues around a binary lifted from people screaming at each other on tumblr over whether or not it's ethical to enjoy horny fanfiction.

These discussions are not, and should not, be dominated by shipping discourse terms. It is unhelpful, reductive, and asinine.

We're done here.

I wonder how fast I'd die of alcohol poisoning if I did a shot every time someone in my notes boiled one of my posts down to "but are you pro or anti ship."

How many times, tumblr? How many times must I say that "proship/antiship" is a completely asinine way to frame this discussion, and no matter how much my opinions may align with one side, I'm not using a fucking shipping discourse label to discuss my media studies and censorship research?

"Are you pro or anti ship?" Neither. I am not engaged in shipping discourse. I am much more concerned with the ways that censorship is used to specifically target marginalized people raising awareness and making art about their own experiences and worldviews. You cannot enact any form of censorship without it hitting marginalized people the hardest.

I do not care about your ship wars when I am discussing things such as the Hays Code and 2024 book bans, and I am incredibly exhausted by how often people derail my posts into shipping arguments. It's slightly more tolerable when teenagers do it, because they're still figuring out how shit works and lord knows I fell into my fair share of rancid discourse as a teenager, but I am appalled at how often it's dragged into my notes by grown-ass adults.

"Proship/antiship" is a reductive framework grounded in bad-faith internet discourse drenched in purity culture. It is not a useful framework to use when discussing dark fiction, censorship, free speech, or obscenity laws. "Proship" and "antiship" are loaded buzzwords that make people stop thinking critically and engaging in good faith, and I have no tolerance for it.

I'm not interested in declaring my side in tumblr ship wars when I'm focused on things like, "when is the next local school board meeting regarding book bans, and am I eligible to run for the citizen advisory council that helps decide the fate of specific books?" and, "with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, in what ways do we need to be concerned about, and what ways can we raise awareness about, the enforcement of the Comstock Act?" and, "as a trans person living in Florida, how do I navigate my existence being treated as an inherent pornographic threat to children that should be censored and legislated out of existence?"

I do not care! About! Fucking! SHIPPING!

[whatsissue]

Voters Protected Abortion Rights in Majority of States, Overturning a "Deep-Red" State's Near-Total Ban

Voters Protected Abortion Rights in Majority of States, Overturning a "Deep-Red" State's Near-Total Ban In a significant turn of events, voters across the United States demonstrated widespread support for abortion rights in the recent elections. Of the ten states where abortion measures were on the ballot, seven states voted to expand or enshrine abortion access, reinforcing the long-held belief among pro-choice advocates that abortion rights are broadly popular. Key Outcomes One of the most notable victories came from Missouri, a deep-red state that voted to codify abortion protections into its state constitution. This measure will effectively repeal the state's near-total abortion ban, restoring access up to approximately 24 weeks of pregnancy. This landmark decision marks the first time since the fall of Roe v. Wade that voters have successfully overturned an abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest. In Maryland and Colorado, voters supported amendments to enshrine abortion access throughout pregnancy. Colorado's amendment also repeals a 1984 state law that prohibited the use of public funds for abortion care, making it a progressive win for reproductive rights advocates. States like Arizona, Montana, and Nevada voted to pass amendments that codify abortion access through fetal viability, allowing abortions up to around 24 weeks into pregnancy. Additionally, New Yorkers approved a historic amendment expanding the state’s equal rights protections to include pregnancy and related outcomes, while also safeguarding against discrimination based on various personal characteristics. Mixed Results Despite the successes in seven states, there were notable defeats for abortion rights in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. In Nebraska, a slim majority of voters supported an anti-abortion amendment that codifies the state’s current 12-week abortion ban, defeating a competing abortion rights measure. Florida's outcome was particularly disheartening for pro-choice advocates. Although 57% of Floridians supported an amendment to restore abortion access until fetal viability, the measure did not pass due to failing to meet the state’s 60% threshold for constitutional amendments. Lauren Brenzel, director of the "Yes On 4" campaign, expressed frustration over the outcome, highlighting that a minority of voters effectively decided the fate of the amendment. Implications of the Results While seven out of ten states voted to protect abortion rights, the elections also saw support for a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who is likely to push for significant rollbacks in reproductive health care access. Although Trump has been less vocal about his anti-abortion stance during the campaign, experts warn that a second Trump administration could lead to the implementation of a national abortion ban that would override state laws. Trump's allies have already outlined plans for Project 2025, which includes strategies for implementing a national abortion ban. Such a ban would invalidate the protections established by the recent state amendments and could potentially enforce archaic laws like the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of abortion pills. Looking Ahead As the GOP secured control of the Senate, the balance of power in the House remains uncertain, complicating Trump’s ability to enact a national abortion ban through Congress. Legal challenges are expected in every state that passed abortion rights amendments, as opponents will likely contest the successful initiatives and seek to maintain existing regulations, such as waiting periods and mandatory counseling. Conclusion The recent elections have underscored a clear message from voters: abortion rights are widely supported across the nation. However, the ongoing political landscape suggests that the fight for reproductive rights is far from over, with potential threats looming at both the state and federal levels. As advocates prepare for legal battles, the outcome of these elections serves as a reminder of the importance of continued advocacy for reproductive health care access. Thank you for taking the time to read this article! Your thoughts and feedback are incredibly valuable to me. What do you think about the topics discussed? Please share your insights in the comments section below, as your input helps me create even better content. I’m also eager to hear your stories! If you have a special experience, a unique story, or interesting anecdotes from your life or surroundings, please send them to me at whatsissue@gmail.com. Your stories could inspire others and add depth to our discussions. If you enjoyed this post and want to stay updated with more informative and engaging articles, don’t forget to hit the subscribe button! I’m committed to bringing you the latest insights and trends, so stay tuned for upcoming posts. Wishing you a wonderful day ahead, and I look forward to connecting with you in the comments and reading your stories! Read the full article

[masterofd1saster]

CJ current events 6aug24

Hot woman? Straight probation.

A Louisiana mayor, who abruptly took a leave of absence before resigning last week, is accused of raping a minor during her time in office. Former DeRidder Mayor Misty Roberts was charged with third-degree rape and contributing to the delinquency of juveniles, Louisiana State Police announced on Thursday. An investigation into the 42-year-old mayor, who was in her second term, was opened on July 26, after the Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s Office requested the state police look into a complaint against Roberts. “As the investigation progressed, LSP SVU conducted interviews with two juveniles, one of which was the victim. Both juveniles confirmed Roberts had sexual intercourse with one juvenile victim while employed as Mayor,” a statement read.***

***

Hero political prisoner

Alexandra Skochilenko. (Dmitry Lovetsky via Getty Images)

Alexandra Skochilenko: a 33-year-old Russian artist, musician, and anti-war activist who was arrested and charged with “knowingly spreading false information about the Russian army” after she replaced five price tags in a local supermarket with stickers containing information about Russia’s war against Ukraine. (“How fragile must the prosecutor’s belief in our state and society be, if he thinks that our statehood and public safety can be brought down by five small pieces of paper,” she said during her sentencing in 2023. “Despite being behind bars, I am freer than you.”)

Putin swapped her and other political prisoners for a group of his spies and murderers.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/evan-gershkovich-prisoner-exchange-ccb39ad3

***

***

Their break was when we didn't shoot them; why are they on bail?

The two illegal Jordanian migrants who are charged with trying to breach Marine Corps Base Quantico in May posted thousands of dollars in bail and were allowed to leave federal custody, The Post can exclusively reveal. Hasan Yousef Hamdan, 32, and Mohammad Khair Dabous, 28, were released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention despite their immigration status — Hamdan had crossed into the country illegally in April and Dabous had overstayed his student visa and is subject to removal proceedings, law enforcement sources told The Post. They were arrested on May 3 for trespassing onto the military installation and handed over to ICE officers because of their immigration statuses.*** The two Jordanian nationals lied to guards at Quantico and claimed they worked for an Amazon subcontractor and were there to make a delivery, Capt. Michael Curtis, a spokesman for the base, previously told The Post. The officers quickly determined that the two had no business being there. The men, who were in a box truck, ignored instructions of military guards and tried to drive onto the base before they were stopped by anti-vehicle barriers.***

These two knuckleheads are part of a disturbing trend this year of illegal aliens attempting to enter military installations and surveil military personnel.

***

Why don't we vote on it, like in a democracy?

George Will has his panties in a bunch over the Comstock Act. Today it lives on at 18 U.S.C. §1461. It prohibits mailing pr0n or abortion devices/pills. Will wants a pardon for D.M. Bennett, author of a "23-page tract, 'Cupid’s Yokes, or The Binding Forces of Conjugal Life'”

Pres Rutherford B. Hayes pardoned Bennett, certainly no later than 1881. Why don't we just ask Congress to repeal 18 U.S.C. §1461?

Isn't repealing old, bad laws how things are supposed to work in a democracy?

***

Compare to the Secret Service stonewalling

NY Times notes:

Iran has arrested more than two dozen people, including senior intelligence officers, military officials and staff workers at a military-run guesthouse in Tehran, in response to a huge and humiliating security breach that enabled the assassination [of terrorist dirtbag Ismail Haniyeh].*** An Iranian member of the Revolutionary Guards, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak, said he was not aware of the arrests, but said that security protocols had been completely overhauled in the past two days for senior officials. The security details for senior officials were changed, and electronic equipment such as mobile phones swapped. He said some senior officials had been moved to a different location.***

Look at how Secret Service directors Kimberly A. Cheatle and Ronald L. Rowe, Jr. responded to Crooks shooting Donald J. Trump. All they have done is stonewall Congress. It's not like some guy on the subway is asking them what they've been doing lately. Congress asks them how they failed, and they have no response. They just stonewall. Moreover, they seem to have no idea how to make things better.

I'm not suggesting that the U.S. arrest anyone.

***

The prosecutor you'd expect in NYC

A Bronx prosecutor abruptly resigned after he was caught on video allegedly attempting to meet a young boy he communicated with online, according to a clip produced by internet vigilantes who expose wannabe child predators. William C.C. Kemp-Neal, 30, quit his post in the Bronx District Attorney’s office four days after the group Dads Against Predators posted footage of him filmed in the parking lot of the Target on East Sandford Boulevard in Mount Vernon. In the clip taken July 8 at around 8:30 p.m., the video vigilantes approach a man identified as Kemp-Neal, asking if he’s Marcus. Almost immediately, Kemp-Neal — who graduated from Fordham Law in 2021 — runs. Kemp-Neal made $84,990 as an ADA, and handled mostly assault, harassment, and child endangerment cases.***

***

Jeffrey Toobin says the situation has gotten out of hand

More sickos are publicly pleasuring and exposing themselves on the streets of the Big Apple, crime statistics show — a nauseating development critics have chalked up to lax laws and a broken mental health system.   Reports of pervs fondling themselves out in the open soared 51% through June 30, up to 378 complaints from 251 during the same period in 2023, according to NYPD data.  Meanwhile cops issued 159 criminal summonses through June 30 citywide to New Yorkers whipping out their genitals — sometimes to urinate — a staggering 396% increase from the 32 tickets written in 2023, according to city data.*** Capt. Joel Rosenthal, commanding officer of the First Precinct, warned the outraged locals that even if the police busted the him in the act, the twisted perv likely would be cut loose in no time.  “This is a desk appearance ticket and a non-bail eligible offense, so he will be out within two hours,” he said. The push against incarceration, together with the city’s inability to hospitalize and effectively treat the severely mentally ill, has driven the surge in disturbing deviancy, according to Carolyn D. Gorman, a mental illness policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute. ***

***

Belongs in the All-the-Way Big House

A fugitive rapist who was on the run for 30 years was finally busted in Iowa after police stopped him for riding a bicycle without a rear reflector, bodycam footage of the arrest shows. George Hartleroad, 71, was stopped by police in West Des Moines on June 26 and provided them with a fake name and social security number, WCCI reported. Video shows the bearded Hartleroad give his name as “Gregory Stallins,” and tell the officer that he is homeless and has been living in Iowa since 1991. He had no driver’s license on his person.*** “Alright brother, time to be honest with me, OK? So the info you give me comes back to a dead guy. Gregory Stallins is dead,” an officer is heard questioning Hartleroad in the video.*** At one point, police asked him to remove his hat so they could snap a photo to run through a facial recognition program.  Hartleroad eventually confessed his true identity. The officer then learned the real man he stopped has been wanted by authorities in Wisconsin since 1994 when he escaped from a halfway house, according to the station.*** He was convicted of rape in 1983 and served five years in prison, Wisconsin records show. Hartleroad said he would go back on the run the next chance he got. “I will jump again as soon as they turn me loose,” he tells the officers as they take him into custody. “They’ve been up in my ass for … 41 years now on a 9-year sentence,” he added. He is in now custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections after he was taken across state lines.

***

Grand Rapids ready for unarmed police?

Hailey Lynch-Bastion wants to be the next mayor of Grand Rapids, and “they” have some interesting ideas for changing the dynamic in Michigan’s second-largest city. The blue-haired Grand Rapids native and employee at the city’s downtown Founders Brewing Company recently sat down with WOOD to discuss the mayor’s race as part of a series on 2024 mayoral candidates that also includes Steve Owens, David LaGrand and Senita Lenear.*** His top priorities include “homelessness and food,” but Lynch-Bastion also has thoughts about relations between Grand Rapids Police and the community, and the department’s approach to fighting crime. “I don’t think they’re using the officers they have appropriately,” Lynch-Bastion said in response to concerns about officer shortages. “I don’t think they need more, I think they need to relax. I think they need to be stripped of some of their …. I don’t like they have guns.”***

***

More wonderful Secret Service

The Secret Service has denied a report that former Director Kimberly Cheatle and other agency leaders wanted to destroy cocaine found in the White House. “This is false. The US Secret Service takes its investigative and protective responsibilities very seriously,” agency spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. *** A story in RealClearPolitics cited three anonymous sources within the Secret Service who claimed that Cheatle*** reassigned an officer who wanted to follow a specific crime scene investigative protocol after the discovery. Guglielmi’s statement did not address that aspect of the report.***

RealClearPolitics also reported that DNA testing on the bag returned a “partial hit,” meaning it may have matched a “blood relative of a finite pool of people.” However, additional searches for DNA matches were not conducted, according to the outlet.

***

Not going to compare them, but here's my comparison

→ Will Cori Bush get the push?: *** Today in Missouri, Cori Bush—the Black Lives Matter activist turned congresswoman—could face the same fate as she goes up against Wesley Bell, a moderate prosecutor who has emphasized Bush’s anti-Israel rhetoric and has the backing of pro-Israel groups. ***Just a few days ago, while campaigning at a public library in Ferguson, Missouri, Bush refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization. The New York Times later reported that “she was reluctant to classify Hamas as a terrorist group given how little she knows about it.” “I have no communication with them,” Bush told The Times, “All I know is that we were considered terrorists, we were considered Black identity extremists and all we were doing was trying to get peace. I’m not trying to compare us, but that taught me to be careful about labeling if I don’t know.”***

***

Good essay by Justice Gorsuch

Our country has always been a nation of laws, but something has changed dramatically in recent decades. Contrary to the narrative that Congress is racked by an inability to pass bills, the number of laws in our country has simply exploded. Less than 100 years ago, all of the federal government’s statutes fit into a single volume. By 2018, the U.S. Code encompassed 54 volumes and approximately 60,000 pages. Over the past decade, Congress has adopted an average of 344 new pieces of legislation each session. That amounts to 2 million to 3 million words of new federal law each year. Even the length of bills has grown—from an average of about two pages in the 1950s to 18 today. And that’s just the average. Nowadays, it’s not unusual for new laws to span hundreds of pages. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ran more than 600 pages, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 almost 1,000 pages, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021—which included a COVID-19 relief package—more than 5,000 pages. About the last one, the chair of the House Rules Committee quipped that “if we provide[d] everyone a paper copy we would have to destroy an entire forest.” Buried in the bill were provisions for horse racing, approvals for two new Smithsonian museums, and a section on foreign policy regarding Tibet. By comparison, the landmark protections afforded by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took just 28 pages to describe. These figures from Congress only begin to tell the story. Federal agencies have been busy too. They write new rules and regulations implementing or interpreting Congress’s laws. Many bear the force of law. Thanks in part to Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, agencies now publish their proposals and final rules in the Federal Register; their final regulations can also be found in the Code of Federal Regulations. When the Federal Register started in 1936, it was 16 pages long. In recent years, that publication has grown by an average of more than 70,000 pages annually.*** a few years ago the Office of Management and Budget asked agencies to make their guidance available in searchable online databases. But some agencies resisted. Why? By some accounts, they simply had no idea where to find all of their own guidance. Ultimately, officials abandoned the idea. Judicial decisions contain vital information about how our laws and rules operate. Today, most of these decisions can be found in searchable electronic databases, but some come with high subscription fees. If you can’t afford those, you may have to consult a library. Good luck finding what you need there: Reported federal decisions now fill more than 5,000 volumes. Each volume clocks in at about 1,000 pages, for a total of more than 5 million pages.  *** You might think that federal criminal laws are reserved for the worst of the worst—individuals who have committed acts so egregious that they merit the attention not just of state authorities but of federal authorities, and not just civil fines but potential prison time. But if that’s your intuition, ask yourself this question: How many federal crimes do you think we have these days? It turns out no one knows. Yes, every few years some enterprising academic or government official sets out to count them. They devote considerable resources and time (often years) to the task. But in the end, they come up short.*** Numbers tell part of the story, but only a part. Today, the law touches our lives in very different ways than it once did. In the past, the rules that governed what happened in our homes, families, houses of worship, and schools were found less in law than in custom or were left to private agreement and individual judgment. Even in the areas of life where law has long played a larger role, its character has changed. Once, most of our law came from local and state authorities; now federal law often dominates.***

J. Gorsuch referred to Yates v. United States, 574 U. S. 528 (2015). The government had a weird theory that Yates had caught undersized red snappers, and then when he was caught by the feds, he had thrown out those fish and replaced them with other undersized red snappers. He was convicted. He appealed to the 11th Cir. which affirmed his conviction. He was lucky the Supreme Court reversed his conviction by 5-4.

Interestingly, the dissent in Yates largely agreed with J. Gorsuch that

That brings to the surface the real issue: overcriminalization and excessive punishment in the U. S. Code.*** Still and all, I tend to think, for the reasons the plurality gives, that § 1519 is a bad law—too broad and undifferentiated, with too-high maximum penalties, which give prosecutors too much leverage and sentencers too much discretion. And I'd go further: In those ways, § 1519 is unfortunately not an outlier, but an emblem of a deeper pathology in the federal criminal code. 574 U.S. 569 - 70.

***