#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 It’s been more or less superseded by the Supreme Court and new laws in the past century and a half, but it remains on the books.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

[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?

--

[meret118]

"Screws up female brains": MAGA leaders are conditioning Republicans to back birth control bans.

. . .

As the Washington Post reported last month, right-wing activists have been flooding social media with the same lies that Kirk was echoing in this video. It's a well-financed disinformation campaign, getting a major boost from MAGA billionaire Peter Thiel, who has aggressively financed teams of messengers to falsely claim that hormonal birth control "tricked our bodies into dysfunction and pain." Doctors report that the tidal wave of misinformation about birth control is creating a health care crisis, including women who "come in for abortions after believing what they see on social media about the dangers of hormonal birth control."

Of course, the real reason MAGA leaders don't like birth control is they oppose the freedom and opportunities that it has afforded women. Kirk barely bothers to hide that this is his real agenda. In the very same talk, he also tries to threaten women who hold out for Mr. Right instead of settling for Mr. Incel: "In their early 30's they get really upset because they say the boys don't want to date me anymore because they're not at their prime," he claims, echoing the unevidenced revenge fantasy that dominates misogynist message boards.

. . .

Which is why it's no surprise that the two most loudly MAGA members of the court, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, started instead to talk up the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-sex law that stopped being enforced decades ago but was never repealed. Talk about reviving this law has grown louder in right-wing circles, mainly because they see it as a way for Donald Trump, if he regains the White House, to unilaterally ban abortion without having to ask congressional Republicans to take an unpopular vote.

For the far-right, the beauty of the Comstock Act is it sidesteps all these pesky questions about health and safety. Instead, the law bans not just abortion, but pretty much anything associated with human sexuality, from contraception to nudes in art. The law forbids shipment of every "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance." It was used to prosecute not just abortion provision, but people who sold "obscene" books and materials, including literary works like "Ulysses" by James Joyce and art like nude paintings of the goddess Venus. All sex education, even for married couples, was outlawed. It also banned not just birth control, but simply sharing information on how to prevent pregnancy, which means it would cover even those "wellness" sites that make misleading claims that period-tracking is effective contraception.

[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]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan Walsh at The Nation:

Roger Severino, a prominent attorney for the Christian right, led the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights during the Trump administration. In 2017, The Atlantic called him “the man behind Trump’s religious-freedom agenda for health care.” The profile contrasted Severino’s sparsely decorated office—adorned with a crucifix and a Clarence Thomas bobblehead—with his elaborate domestic agenda. During Severino’s time there, Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services weakened the Affordable Care Act; strengthened the ability of healthcare providers to claim religious exemptions from providing all kinds of medical care, from abortion to birth control to vasectomies to gender-affirming care; and created a Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in his office. Under Severino’s legal counsel, HHS cut teen-pregnancy prevention programs and prioritized abstinence in its Title X family-planning grants. Backing Severino’s crusade was his boss, HHS secretary and former Eli Lilly president Alex Azar, best known for helping Trump botch his Covid response and presiding over his border policy of separating migrant children from their parents. Azar came to call his department “the Department of Life.”

In his chapter of Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership, Severino promises to make HHS the “Department of Life” again—and to go even farther than Azar did. The plan outlines how HHS would use its power as a federal agency to dramatically curtail access to reproductive health services. Severino pledges that HHS will restrict access to birth control, rescind the FDA’s approval of medication abortion, and abolish what he calls “mail-order abortion”—the latter by using the long-dormant Comstock Act to prosecute anyone who provides such medication by mail. HHS will also focus on weeding out programs geared to the rights of LGBT people, especially anyone who is transgender. It would direct subsidies for childcare facilities to parents themselves—all in a punitive, misguided effort to shore up the nuclear family. This isn’t a public health document; it’s a theocratic manifesto, an attempt at ensuring public health through ultra-orthodox Christianity.

So much for “religious freedom.” Under “the next administration” (read: a Trump administration), Severino recommends that nearly every HHS program or agency—with special emphasis on the Administration for Children and Families, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Office of the Surgeon General—be retooled with the goal of promoting heterosexual marriage and procreation. He argues that the next president should use his powers to “maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family.” Of course, he believes that “families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society.” He claims that “all other family forms” apart from “heterosexual, intact marriage…involve higher levels of instability.”

Severino attacks President Biden for “focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage”—while offering no examples of his policies that did any of the last three things. Severino calls on HHS to repeal antidiscrimination policy statements that identify sex with “gender identity or sexual orientation.” Here’s the crescendo: “Working fathers are essential to the well-being and development of their children, but the United States is experiencing a crisis of fatherlessness that is ruining our children’s futures.”

Thus, HHS policies would “prioritize married father engagement” and stress the importance of heterosexual marriage in all of its health, education, and welfare programs, and it would even enable child-abuse prevention funds to be applied to marriage promotion efforts. The CDC would be directed to “eliminate programs and projects that do not respect human life and conscience rights and that undermine family formation.”

The anti-abortion crusade, too, would continue throughout each of the department’s agencies: “HHS should return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care,” and the secretary should make sure that “all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death.” He or she would see to it that no funding whatsoever goes to abortion—not via Hyde Amendment exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother; not even via private insurance subsidized by the Affordable Care Act. Severino recommends eliminating the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and creating a “pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”

Severino would force the FDA to “reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.” This argument is in front of the Supreme Court right now, and even some of the conservative justices don’t appear to be convinced by it. Severino promises that no Medicaid funding will go to Planned Parenthood. He also proposes reversing a Biden administration regulation that groups receiving Title X funds must be willing to “refer” women to abortion providers even if they don’t provide abortion themselves, thereby allowing “otherwise qualified pro-life grantees” to receive funding.

Severino also aims to restrict access to birth control, which many of us said would be the right’s next priority after banning abortion wherever possible. He announces that HHS must promote “public messaging about the unsurpassed effectiveness [fact check: This is widely disputed] of modern fertility awareness–based methods (FABMs) of family planning…. CDC should fund studies exploring the evidence-based methods used in cutting-edge fertility awareness.” Severino calls for HHS to prohibit women’s health facilities that receive Title X funding from distributing condoms. And by declaring that life begins at conception, his manifesto appears to commit HHS to finding ways to outlaw IVF, which relies on generating multiple embryos, most of which are not implanted. It could also eliminate birth control methods like the IUD and even some forms of the pill.

Severino reserves special vitriol for the CDC, which he derides as “perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government.” He wants to strip the CDC of its capacity to issue any kind of public health advice, because issuing such guidance is “an inescapably political function…. For example, never again should CDC officials be allowed to say in their official capacity that school children ‘should be’ masked or vaccinated (through a schedule or otherwise) or prohibited from learning in a school building,” his edict declaims. Instead, “a separate agency should be responsible for public health with a severely confined ability to make policy recommendations.” Severino’s critique of the CDC also shouts Christian fundamentalism, as he complains about the agency ���shutting down churches on the holiest day of the Christian calendar and far beyond as happened in 2020.” Yes, that was Easter 2020. “What is the proper balance of lives saved versus souls saved?” he asks. Severino wants to use the CDC’s data collection capacity to police abortion, especially those obtained by women forced to travel because of restrictions in their home state. “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method.”

[...] So that’s what HHS will do under Trump: Ban abortion. Police marriage. Force women to give birth, even if they don’t want to. Force women to marry men, and vice versa, even if they don’t want to. Privatize Medicare. Tighten restrictions on Medicaid. And if you feel like you’d rather not live this way? Severino wants to criminalize “euthanasia,” too.

Joan Walsh writes for The Nation that Project 2025 will turn the HHS into a tool for the far-right anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ agenda.

See Also:

The Nation: June 2024 Issue

[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

[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!

[meret118]

Anti-abortion activists took that argument to the Supreme Court last month to drastically restrict access to mifepristone, one of the two pills used in medication abortion, which research has shown has continued to grow in popularity since the FDA allowed them to be prescribed virtually and sent by mail starting in December 2021.

Project 2025, an initiative led by dozens of conservative groups and spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, repeatedly cited the Comstock Act—by its statute numbers, not by name—throughout “Mandate for Leadership,” its blueprint for Trump’s next term. Given Comstock, it stated, “the Department of Justice in the next conservative administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of [abortion] pills.”

Jonathan Mitchell, the conservative lawyer behind the Texas abortion ban, told the New York Times in February, “We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” cautioning Trump and anti-abortion groups to keep quiet about the Comstock Act until after the election.

-----

It could do a whole lot more than ban abortion. Comstock doesn't just apply to actions. It applies to everything, including information. It can be used to make sex education, queer subjects, porn of any kind (including fan fiction), feminism, contraception, premarital sex, being transgender, same sex acts, books, art, movies, divorce, etc all illegal.

Basically it could be used to make anything they don't like illegal. All they have to do is call something immoral. The law is already in existence. It's never been specifically repealed. It's an enormous landmine that the GOP can't wait to trigger.

[drst]

Trump won't be president for long though. Vance is going to invoke the 25th amendment to oust him based on his obvious dementia, become president, give Trump a full pardon and send him back to Florida to play golf for whatever remains of his vile existence. Then Vance and Peter Theil will be running the country. And if you don't know who Curtis Yarvin is, you better learn quick.

Also they don't need to pass an actual abortion ban in Congress. They're just going to invoke the Comstock laws, which have never been repealed, to ban sending abortion or birth control meds across state lines (likely also hormones trans folks need). Since the vast majority of abortions are medication and not surgical, you get a de facto national ban.

I'm not trying to be a doomer here, but people need to have a realistic grasp of what's about to happen.

If it makes any of you feel better, Donald Trump will have an uphill battle to change the constitution. He will need:

-2/3 of Senators (60)

-2/3 of the House of Representatives (290)

-3/4 of the states (38)

In 2026, 33 senate seats will be up for grabs, and we’ll be able to vote for people who are against Trump and his ideals.

Breathe and remain hopeful because it’s not over. We can still fight and make Trump’s last four years hell.

[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