[[link removed]]

A NATIONWIDE ABORTION BAN COULD REALLY HAPPEN. YOU CAN THANK ANTHONY
COMSTOCK’S SUITCASE FULL OF DILDOS.  
[[link removed]]


 

Eleanor Cooney
May 21, 2024
Mother Jones
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed].]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The law named for Anthony Comstock drove abortion underground and
banned contraception. Now conservatives are hoping to dust it off to
make abortion pills and even the Pill illegal again. _

, Mother Jones; Tim Mossholder

 

The old days of coat-hanger abortions will never come back, we
reassured ourselves as _Roe_ was repeatedly threatened over the
years. Even once the _Dobbs_ decision handed the power to regulate
abortion to the states, we told ourselves there would be no return to
bleeding out on motel room floors or back alleys, now that most
abortions can happen discreetly and safely at home, thanks to the
abortion pill mifepristone.

But beware: Modern American Puritans who sit on judicial benches and
state legislatures are going after mifepristone and even
contraception. How? By jolting new life into an 1873 federal
anti-obscenity law that has lain dormant for decades—the Comstock
Act. The act criminalized contraceptives, abortifacients, sex toys,
pornography, or sexual content (including medical advice), making it
illegal to send such items via the US mail and eventually any means of
interstate conveyance.

“I knew about Comstock before _Dobbs_, but I wanted to say nothing
about it,” anti-abortion legal mastermind Jonathan Mitchell told
[[link removed]] the _Nation_’s
Amy Littlefield in the spring of 2023. “I really was hoping no one
would say anything about the Comstock laws until _Dobbs _came
out.”  

_Dobbs_ accomplished, Mitchell and the other moral crusaders seized
on Comstock with relish. Mitchell used it to challenge local
“sanctuary” laws protecting abortion rights, and others permitting
teens from getting access to contraception without parental
permission. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas cited the
Comstock Act
[[link removed]] to
challenge the FDA’s 24-year-old approval of mifepristone. That case
is now before the Supreme Court, where Justices Thomas and Alito
brought Comstock up in oral arguments
[[link removed]].
Even if the court does not take this opportunity to resurrect Comstock
(given the vast implications for the entire medical regulatory
landscape), Mitchell and his ilk are launching a volley of cases
citing the act, all but ensuring that the court gets another chance.
“From my standpoint, I want to get Comstock to the Supreme Court as
quickly as possible,” Mitchell told Littlefield.

So what is the Comstock Act? Many of us have heard of it, if only
vaguely. We may also have heard the term “Comstockery,” defined as
the “strict censorship of materials considered obscene” and
“censorious opposition to alleged immorality,” and know that it
was coined by playwright George Bernard Shaw.

The occasion was the removal of Shaw’s _Man and Superman_ from the
shelves of the New York Public Library in 1905. Taking umbrage and
spotting an opportunity, Shaw fired back, announcing his intention to
bring “Mrs. Warren’s Profession”—a play that had been banned
in London for its frank discussion of prostitution—to New York,
telling the city’s papers, “Comstockery is the world’s standing
joke at the expense of the United States. It confirms the deep-seated
conviction of the Old World that America is a provincial place, a
second-rate country-town civilization after all.”

Anthony Comstock, by then America’s leading moralist, hadn’t heard
of Shaw until the playwright’s words were published in the papers.
He did a little quick brushing up and fired back, calling Shaw an
“Irish smut peddler” and alerting the New York police to the
dangerous content of Shaw’s play. He also wrote a huffy letter to
Shaw’s producer Arnold Daly, calling “Mrs Warren’s Profession”
“filthy” and quoting, with an ominous tone of warning, recent
court decisions in obscenity cases. Daly, a savvy publicity man, did
not let the opportunity go by. He sent Comstock’s letter to all the
papers, along with an exquisitely civil response inviting Comstock to
come to a rehearsal. 

The result? Ticket sales went through the roof, and the play was sold
out weeks before the curtain went up. The police were called forth on
opening night—not to raid the play, but to dispel the overflow mob
in the streets clamoring to get in. Score one for GBS.

But this was but one defeat in a long career of victories, for by then
Comstock had already enjoyed decades of unimaginable power. His
crusade against “obscenity” had driven abortion underground (which
lasted until _Roe v. Wade_ in 1973), and resulted in a ban on using
or distributing birth control (which lasted until _Griswold v.
Connecticut_ in 1965). But while it had been reined in, the Comstock
Act remained on the books, burrowing underground like a cicada,
awaiting the Puritans of our day to revive it.

[Colorized photo of man with beard and mustache.]

Anthony Comstock, 1913. Gado/Getty

Comstock was born in 1844, in New Canaan, Connecticut, the son of a
well-to-do farmer father and a mother who gave birth to a total of 10
children. The Comstocks were both of unbroken Puritan lineage, and
Anthony and his siblings were reared in the austere tradition of the
Congregational church. Bible stories were the bedtime fare, and
Anthony’s mother, Polly, who died when he was 10 (of complications
from childbirth), tended to choose stories of moral heroism and
beating back Satan, a very real presence who lurked everywhere with
his inventory of earthly temptations.

By the time Comstock was 18, he broke into the establishment of a man
who traded in liquor without a license, and opened faucets and smashed
kegs with an axe. As a finishing touch, he left a note saying that the
guy had better quit his business, because next time the building would
burn.

Not many of us find our footing in life so early, decisively, and
definitively. Decades later, he’d still be known for his physical
courage. Even his bitterest detractors (and he had many) couldn’t
deny that he was fearless, that he was no mere paper-pusher waging
moral war from the safety of an office, pulpit, or armchair. He had a
real taste for conducting raids hands-on and in person when and where
he could, in-your-face and two-fistedly, sometimes in the worst slums
that 19th century New York had to offer, sometimes on Fifth Avenue.
His career was checkered with wild stories of kicking in doors,
brawling, throwing and receiving punches, being pushed down stairs and
slashed with knives.

A couple of years after that first temperance raid, Anthony joined the
Union Army, and was stationed in a relatively quiet corner of Florida
where his unit seems to have sat out the fighting. This gave him
plenty of time to read the Bible and ruminate. Comstock made a show of
pouring his ration of whiskey on the ground instead of giving it to
someone who could use it, and he was oddly unprepared for the
realities of life among big groups of men. Not only were the men
drinking and swearing, but they were passing around a dog-eared copy
of _Fanny Hill:_ _Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure._ Comstock’s
Army diaries are full of anguish over the “low and brutish”
conversation of the soldiers; he refers to the barracks as the “Den
of Cursing and Blasphemy.” One early entry reads: “Have been
twitted several times today about being a Christian. Would that I were
a better one.” He moans constantly about his own tendency to slide
down the slippery slope and onto the Devil’s waiting prongs:
“Again tempted and found wanting. Sin, sin. O, how much peace and
happiness is sacrificed on thy altar….O, I deplore my sinful weak
nature so much…” Sometimes he gives in, though he deprives us of
the details: “This morning were severely tempted by Satan and after
some time in my own weakness I failed…Rather welcome death than
sin.”

The Seventeenth Connecticut Regiment had no chaplain of its own, so
Comstock took it upon himself to find a clergyman. You get the feeling
that the men were less than grateful for his efforts. A subsequent
diary entry records an altercation following a detail to unload a
cargo of “Coffee, Sugar and Whiskey:” “Boys got very drunk, I
did not drink a drop, and yet some were going to whip me. Knocked two
over and kept on at duty. Touch not, taste not. Handle not.” Not
long after, he writes: “Seems to be a feeling of hatred by some of
the boys, constantly falsifying, persecuting and trying to do me
harm.” Then, a few days later, an incident that possibly sealed the
fate of many a Comstock adversary for years to come: “Moved up into
a room alone by myself. After meeting went to go up into room, all
windows were closed tight, room full of smoke. Bunk full of rubbish
and loaded with broken Benches, Chairs, etc. Boys were initiating
me.” It should be noted that the “initiation” at the hands of
the “boys” took place after he’d been in their company for
almost a year.

Illustration by L.M. Glackens depicts the “St. Anthony Comstock, the
Village Nuisance” from Puck, 1906. The cartoon depicts Comstock as a
monk thwarting shameless displays of excessive flesh, whether that of
women, horses, or dogs, with a “Jane Doe Warrant.”   Library of
Congress

New York after the Civil War was a seething place. Wars tend to have
a steroid-like effect on the winning society, and this war was no
exception—the north had retooled itself and kicked into high-gear
productivity to feed the war machine. When the war ended, the
machinery stayed in motion, and things got crazily productive and
dizzyingly prosperous. Railroads got built. Fortunes got made and lost
in a sort of mad frenzy. And people, in a giddy fit of joie de vivre,
did what people usually do after a war: They drank, they danced, they
fornicated.

Art, music, theatre, and literature were thriving in a new age of
frankness and sophistication. Women were starting to talk about being
allowed to vote. Free Love was in the air, with high-minded
proponents, of both genders, many of them fresh from the abolitionist
movement, writing and speaking about it in public. There were
educated, articulate women like Victoria Woodhull who were talking
both politics (she declared herself a presidential candidate in 1870)
and the radical notion of the right of women to enjoy sex without the
constraints of marriage and without the consequence of pregnancy if
they didn’t want it. Scientists, doctors, and “reform
physiologists” were beginning to study sex and to talk and write
candidly about it, to publish “marriage instruction” manuals and
such, and to invent and promulgate devices for the prevention of
conception. Newspapers and catalogues carried advertisements for such
items as “French Protectors” and “womb veils,” as well as
various “menses restoratives.” Abortionists abounded, operating
out of everything from rundown boarding houses to opulent mansions,
and with a full range of patrons, from the highest to the lowest ranks
of society.

Street life was robust and rowdy. Hard liquor flowed, and there were
prostitutes, brothels, pool halls, and “pretty waiter-girl”
saloons. Pornographers aplenty were churning out erotic pamphlets,
books, pictures, and postcards—and hordes of young men, migrating to
the city, living unsupervised in boarding houses and hotels, partaking
of it all.

Such copious, society-permeating upheaval meant, inevitably, a
backlash, a revival of old-time Puritanism. By 1866, the YMCA had
circulated a manifesto of sorts, with this catchy title: “A
Memorandum Respecting New York as a Field for Moral and Christian
Effort Among Young Men; Its Present Neglected Condition; And the
Fitness of the New York Young Men’s Christian Association as a
Principal Agency for Its Due Cultivation.”

H.L. Mencken would write later that “the new Puritanism is not
ascetic, but militant. Its aim is not to lift up saints, but to knock
down sinners.” New York, with its richly variegated society of sin,
and its would-be reformers of sinners, was like a stage set waiting
for its star performer to stride forth. Enter Anthony Comstock, who
moved there to work as a dry-goods salesman. If he thought life in an
Army barracks was low and brutish, just wait until he saw what awaited
him in New York.

The youth who’d smashed whiskey barrels and knocked drunken soldiers
off their feet soon found that being a dry-goods clerk did not quench
the fire in his belly. He struggled to stay motivated in his work. He
did well in spite of himself, though, was rapidly promoted, and got
married to a woman 10 years older than he, but something was lacking.

There were already anti-obscenity laws in place in New York, as in
most of the northeastern states. Statutes against “obscene
daguerreotypes and ballads” went back to English common law in the
colonies, and in 1815 a landmark case in Pennsylvania indicted
“evil-disposed yeomen” for exhibiting a “lewd, wicked,
scandalous, infamous and obscene painting” in a private house. By
1865 it was illegal to import “indecent” pictures and articles
into the United States or to send them through the mail.

But the laws were about as effective as a Band-Aid on a hemorrhage.
Comstock, whose work put him in close association with a lot of other
young men, was disturbed by their appetite for erotic books and
pictures and by how plentiful and easily available the stuff was. By
1868, he’d had a couple of dealers of such material arrested,
pulling a sting operation in at least one case (he would later develop
the sting into a fine art and use it over and over)—posing as a
consumer, buying an erotic pamphlet, and then turning the purveyor in
to the authorities. A few years later, in 1871, outraged over the
violation of a law requiring saloons to shut down on Sunday, he called
the cops in on the offending proprietors. One of the officers Comstock
accosted on the street was less than cooperative at first, but changed
his mind after Comstock threatened to report him.

Comstock’s diary records deep satisfaction: “I am determined to
act the part of the Good Citizen and wherever a man breaks the law I
will make him satisfy the laws’ demands if in my power.” He
laments the corruption of those who should be enforcing the law, and
declares that he lives in a “murderous” age, that crime
“stalketh abroad by daylight” and “Public officers wink at
it.” “Money can buy our judges and corrupt our juries,” he
writes. “But God helping me, it shall never buy or sell me. I
believe Jesus would never wink at any wrong nor would he countenance
it.”

Comstock the street fighter is born, and his confrontations with
saloon-keepers get up-close and personal. One guy’s establishment,
which enjoys police protection, was just a block or two from
Comstock’s house in Brooklyn. The battle is on: Comstock persists in
his righteous harassments, calling on the chief of police and the
mayor of New York. The saloon-keeper stalks Comstock and issues death
threats. Comstock buys a gun. He brandishes it and scares off the
saloon-keeper temporarily, then goes to court and gets warrants for
his arrest. Comstock hauls witnesses into court, endures delays, spies
on the saloon, questions patrons on the street, petitions the judge,
is threatened by “drunk and Boisterous” men holding rocks in their
hands as Comstock passes by the saloon on his way to church with his
wife, but he will not be intimidated or deterred, and in the end,
drives the offending saloon-keepers out of business.

Advertisement for the Barker Vibrator by James Barker in Philadelphia,
1906   Jay Paul/Getty

[Black and white photo of a woman in a robe using a large electric
vibrator on her calf.]

Woman using the Sanax-Vibrator, circa 1925   FPG/Getty

Invigorated, Comstock turns his full attention to “vile weekly
newspapers” and “illustrated licentious books” that “flaunt
temptation” in the faces of young men. He began a series of raids on
stores where obscene literature was sold. Knowing he’d find himself
up against police protectionism, he invited a reporter from
the _Herald Tribune_ to accompany him. The result was a series of
sympathetic articles, the arrest of scores of purveyors, and the
arrival in the popular consciousness of the name Anthony Comstock.
Flushed with success and unsatisfied with merely shutting down
stationery stores and newsstands, Comstock wanted to go to the source,
and root out the actual publishers of these works.

Comstock’s fame and infamy ratcheted up in 1872 when he tangled
publicly with Woodhull and her sister, Tennessee Claflin. The sisters,
in addition to delivering fiery speeches on women’s rights and Free
Love, defied convention by running a brokerage office and were already
famous as the “Fascinating Financiers.” They published a
“radical reformatory paper” called _Woodhull and Claflin’s
Weekly, _full of impassioned writing, mostly their views on the
societal limitations imposed upon women.

Comstock had them arrested when they published an article about the
sexual indiscretions of the hugely popular Reverend Henry Ward Beecher
of Boston. Their purpose was to expose hypocrisy and double standards,
but Comstock knew smut when he saw it. And here was his chance to go
after the sisters on a technicality: to Comstock and his ilk, talk of
women’s rights was clearly a grave threat to morality and decency,
with the same potential for damage as dirty pictures and
stories—another form of obscenity, really, but unless they uttered
certain words, his hands were tied. The Beecher piece gave him the
warrant he needed to swoop down for the kill.

He hadn’t counted on the fighting spirit of his feminine
adversaries, though, who purposely forewent bail and spent a highly
publicized month in jail and who were eventually cleared of the
obscenity charges, on grounds that vividly underscored for Comstock
one of the many inherent weaknesses of the existing federal
anti-obscenity law: The judge ruled that _Woodhull and Claflin’s
Weekly_ was a newspaper, and the law, in an egregious oversight, did
not include newspapers. It’s easy to imagine the steam coming out of
Comstock’s ears.

The press and the satirical cartoonists, meantime, went over the top
with glee. It was a delectable circus with a colorful cast of
characters—the beautiful scandalous sisters and their supporters in
the “Free Lust” (as Comstock called it) movement, their various
husbands and lovers, the Rev. Beecher and his supporters and
detractors, and Anthony the grim Puritan, among many others.
Comstock’s name and lampooned image were now household words. He was
loved, he was hated—and he was _famous_.

By 1872, the YMCA’s Committee for the Suppression of Vice began
discreetly funding him after he showed them engraved plates, used in
the production of obscene books, which he had bought from the widow of
a well-known publisher. These good gentlemen were all for Comstock’s
work, but they, prissily, did not want to be publicly associated with
his flagrant, aggressive brand of vice-hunting. So they funded him,
under the table, and sent him forth.

He was fearless, going deep into the mean streets in pursuit of his
quarry. He employed espionage—disguising himself, posing as a
customer or pretending to be a helpless staggering drunk. He nabbed a
half-dozen publishers this way, destroyed their plates, and had them
arrested. And he wasn’t limiting himself to printed matter, plates,
woodcuts, French playing cards, and books. Soon Comstock’s net,
hauled up and flung open, revealed a new kind of loathsomeness
writhing on the deck. The words are his: _Indecent rubber articles_
[[link removed]]_._

To fully grasp Comstock and his enduring influence, it’s vital to
understand that for him—and other neopuritans of the era—the
various vices did not exist separately. No sin is an island. The
“bleared eye, the bloated face, and the reeling step” of the
drunkard are bad, but that’s just the gateway transgression. Drink
weakens the will. Next thing you know you’re looking at dirty
pictures or reading vile newspapers and engaging in “solitary
meditations.” It’s just a short step to the brothel. The ripple
effect of unclean thought and behavior, radiating its society-rotting
ruin outward to affect innocent bystanders, especially women and
children, exactly like putting concentrated poison into the reservoir.
The poison, ladies and gentlemen, is lust.

Comstock the moral epidemiologist takes it very, very seriously, and
he knows where the trouble begins—with the “cursed business of
obscene literature.” It “breeds lust,” and lust, in turn,
“defiles the body and debauches the imagination, corrupts the mind,
deadens the will, destroys the memory, sears the conscience, hardens
the heart and damns the soul.” Eventually it “plunges the victim
into practices that he loathes.”  Ultimately, “the family is
polluted, home desecrated, and each generation born into the world is
more and more cursed by the inherited weakness, this harvest of the
seed-sowing of the Evil one.”

To Comstock, therefore, the panacea for all societal rot is the
eradication of obscenity. This is the literal way to beat back the
Devil, to pull him up by his roots, like the heroes of the biblical
stories of his childhood. But what, exactly, constitutes obscenity?
The courts had by then pretty much defined it as anything suggesting
impure and libidinous thoughts, even if that was not the specific
intent. A Pennsylvania statute, for example, forbade advertising of
remedies for “women’s intimate disorders,” sex-related or not,
because such ads would cause images to form in the mind of the
beholder, images which would, in turn, lead to those impure and
libidinous thoughts.

And this brings us back to those rubber things. You’re probably
thinking that he’s referring to sex toys and such. He is, most
assuredly. But that’s not all.

Here’s an excerpt from a letter Comstock wrote to his ally
Congressman Clinton Merriam of New York when he was trying to drum up
support for a stronger anti-obscenity bill. He’s talking about
obscene books, and says that wherever you find them, you will “ever
find, as almost indispensable, a complete list of indecent rubber
articles for masturbation or for the professed prevention of
conception.”

There you have it. Dirty books, naughty pictures, dildos, ticklers,
and other “masturbatory appliances,” vaginal syringes,
“intermediate tegumentary coverings,” abortifacients and “womb
veils”—to him, and others of like mind, they were all the same,
interlocked gears in the infernal machinery of damnation: Obscene
literature and pictures led to immoral behavior, which led to
contraception and abortion; the existence of contraception and
abortion led to immoral behavior and an escalating appetite for
obscene literature. Thus the Devil drags you under. That small string
of linked words in Comstock’s letter to the congressman, this utter
nondistinction between salacious playthings and birth control devices,
sweeping them into one big pile of facilitators of lewd and lascivious
thought and behavior, would affect, devastatingly, women’s lives,
health and freedom for almost the next 100 years.

[One woman sitting, another standing in an old doctor's office.]

Birth conrol activist Margaret Sanger with Fania Mindell inside
Brownsville clinic, probably taken 1916. The clinic was closed nine
days after its opening. Sanger was jailed for violating the Comstock
obscenity laws.  George Grantham Bain Collection/Library of Congress

Comstock traveled to Washington under the auspices of the Committee
for the Suppression of Vice and lobbied intensively to put sharp new
teeth into the existing federal anti-obscenity law. The law already
forbade the use of the US mail to transport obscene materials. But
where it fell grievously short in Comstock’s eyes and in the eyes of
his YMCA sponsors was in the definition of what constituted obscenity.
Sure, it covered books, pamphlets, and pictures of “a vulgar and
indecent” character, but it didn’t include material printed in
newspapers, nor did it include those “rubber articles” or
advertisements about them, nor did it include ads and info about
abortionists and abortifacients. And, unlike an anti-obscenity statute
in England, the American federal statute did not allow for search and
seizure. Some state and local laws did, but that left huge gaps.
Comstock to the rescue. Still smarting, no doubt, from the Woodhull
and Claflin affair only a month or so before, he set out for the
Capitol in February of 1873.

He carried a sample case with him, the items within surely
hand-selected for maximum effect. You can envision him moving around
congressional offices, snapping the case open and shut, making his
appeal in rapid and practiced tones, black-coated murmuring groups of
men closing ranks around him. Yes, you read that right: he brought a
case of dildos to Congress. Imagine it: whitish rubber dildos against
dark velvet, the pale faces of the congressmen pinkening at the sight,
steeling their resolve.

Comstock’s diary shows him praying in his hotel room in an agony of
suspense and a desire to submit to the will of God while the bill was
being considered. February was almost over, and Congress would soon
adjourn. There were possible amendments and delays, and there was a
fair amount of opposition—not to mention other hugely important
issues before Congress, including a railroad-financing scandal within
their own ranks.

But pass it did, at three o’clock in the morning of March 2, 1873.
Congressman Merriam took to the House floor and spoke of the “best
interests of morality and humanity.” In passing Comstock’s bill,
they would be shielding, he told his fellow congressmen, the “beauty
and purity of womanhood.”  

It sailed through the Senate and was signed into law by President
Ulysses S. Grant on March 3 and named after the crusader himself. The
Comstock Act had the clout to knock down sinners wherever they
scuttled and hid. It contained all the expected language forbidding
transport via the mails of books, pamphlets, pictures, etc., along
with “any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention
of conception or the procuring of abortion” and “any book,
pamphlet, advertisement or notice of any kind giving information,
directly or indirectly, where, or how, or of whom, or by what means
either of the things before mentioned may be obtained or made.”

Since 1860 there had been a steady state-by-state spread of
antiabortion legislation. By the time the bill was signed into law,
abortion was mostly illegal in the United States, but women’s demand
for it remained unchecked, enforcement was spotty and sporadic, and
abortionists and purveyors of “remedies” abounded, advertised
openly, wriggled in and out of loopholes and sent information through
the US mail.

The Comstock Act finally and decisively drove abortion underground,
where it stayed for a century. That the vehicle carrying abortion and
contraception down into the dark underside of society was
anti-obscenity legislation meant that the taint of prurience would
cling, and clings to this day.

Not only did Comstock get his federal law, and not only did it bear
his name, but he was made a special agent of the US Post Office, with
a badge and a free ticket on any rail line to anywhere in the United
States and the power to arrest anyone, at any time, who, in his
entirely arbitrary opinion, was trafficking in obscenity, and
confiscate the “goods.” It should be remembered that Comstock was,
at this historic moment, only 29 years old.

And he and his anti-obscenity laws would score many “victories”
for the rest of his respectably long life and beyond. Toward the end
of his career, he liked to enumerate and inventory his
accomplishments, claiming, for instance, to have destroyed 130,000
pounds of books, 60,300 articles “made of rubber for immoral
purposes,” 3,150 boxes of “pills and powders used by
abortionists,” 20,000 letters from “various parts of the United
States ordering improper articles,” and on and on and on.

In 1878, he used his talents as a sting artist against one of New
York’s most notorious abortion and contraception providers,
“Madame Restell” (real name Ann Summers). Posing as a man seeking
birth control for his wife, he went to Madame Restell’s
establishment. She gave him pills; he came back the next day with the
cops and hauled her in. She committed suicide rather than face a
trial.

She was not the only woman driven to self-destruction by Comstock: Ida
Craddock, “spiritualist” and advocate of free speech and women’s
rights, who also wrote about female sexuality, killed herself in 1902
when faced with further legal troubles after she had already served
prison time after being convicted of obscenity. Her crime? Sending a
“marriage manual” through the US mail. Her public suicide note
specifically condemned Comstock, who had been hounding her for years
and who testified against her in Federal Court.

He would later brag that he had driven fifteen people to suicide.

Comstock and the birth-control crusader Margaret Sanger were natural
enemies. Working as a visiting nurse in the slums of New York in 1911,
she was appalled by the condition of women worn out and torn up from
serial childbirth and injured by self-induced abortions. In 1914, she
launched a monthly newsletter called _The Woman Rebel_, which
promoted contraception vigorously and sent it via the US mail. She
wanted to provoke Comstock. He obliged; she was indicted for violating
postal obscenity laws, but avoided trial by fleeing to England. So he
had her husband arrested. Comstock died in September of 1915, missing
Sanger’s return to New York and the grand opening of her birth
control clinic in Brooklyn. He also missed out on the 1916 arrest of
feminist and civil rights advocate Emma Goldman while she was giving a
lecture in New York on family planning. She, too, had deliberate
provocation in mind. Of the Comstock legacy, she said, “When a law
has outgrown time and necessity, it must go, and the only way to get
rid of the law is to awaken the public to the fact that it has
outlived its purpose. And that is precisely what I have been doing and
mean to do in the future.”

Gradually, Supreme Court decisions and state laws eroded the power of
the Comstock Act. But _Dobbs_ has changed everything. If
resurrected, the Comstock Act could trump any state law meant to
oppose it, and bar access to mifepristone. And not just mifepristone,
but any abortion-related device sent through the mail. And it isn’t
just abortion that’s on the line. A rejuvenated Comstock Act could
be put to work curtailing contraception and LGBTQ literature and
anything else you can think of that might rub the dour moralizers the
wrong way.

The Comstock Act appeals to them for the same reason it appealed to
its namesake. Sweeping and arbitrary power, moral castigation, and
most of all, cruelty. Punishment is the point. Deprive women of
chemical abortion, and it will be an inevitable return to hands-on
illegal abortion, which is crude, barbaric, sexualized, woman-specific
vigilante punishment. And that suits the Puritans just fine.

_Fight disinformation: Sign up
[[link removed]] for
the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that
matters._

* Comstock Act
[[link removed]]
* abortion bans
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed].]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]