[…]
The Comstock Act is an 1873 law that, if enforced, would outlaw all abortions in America by banning the shipping via mail, UPS, FedEx, etc., of any device, drug, or instrument that can be used to produce an abortion. It would even shut down hospital abortions.
It could also be used to empower new state or even federal police agencies specifically overseeing women violating its provisions. Like the menstrual police, which a Trump senior advisor just said was a very real possibility.
[…]
It’s the opinion of the Biden Administration that the Comstock Act — which is still on the books — is no longer enforceable, and the Biden DOJ (along with those of every president since Richard Nixon) refuses to enforce it.
Senator JD Vance disagrees.
He (and a few other Republican senators) sent a letter to Merrick Garland demanding that the Comstock Act be enforced by the FBI and DOJ now. He wrote:
“It is disappointing, yet not surprising, that the Biden administration’s DOJ has not only abdicated its Constitutional responsibility to enforce the law, but also has once again twisted the plain meaning of the law in an effort to promote the taking of unborn life.”
[…]
The authors of Project 2025 agree as well, saying that the next Republican president should immediately restore enforcement of the law to end all abortion in America. They propose the next Republican president should launch:
“[A] campaign to enforce the criminal prohibitions” of the Comstock Act, including “against providers and distributors of abortion pills.”
[…]
Former NY Postmaster and anti-pornography crusader Anthony Comstock lobbied for and shepherded through Congress his law; it passed on March 3, 1873 and was titled “An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, obscene Literature and Articles of immoral Use.” Today we refer to it as the Comstock Act.
Its language with regard to abortion is not at all ambiguous:
“Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance … designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and “Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and “Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and “Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and “Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing— “Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier."
The penalty is also not ambiguous. Persons mailing information about abortion, or drugs or devices to produce an abortion:
“[S]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.”
It’s true, and they will.
Idaho criminalized abortion while Dems were in power, and the Democrats did nothing to stop it. That means 2/3 of the states, which are controlled by Republicans, will follow suit.
If I were a woman I’d get my tubes tied before that becomes illegal.
This is straight up misinformation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Legislature
The Idaho Legislature is controlled by Republicans via a super majority.
The United States Legislature is half controlled by Republicans.
Who was in control of Congress when Roe was repealed?
Which Democratic president had a supermajority, promised to codify Roe, and later said publicly it wasn’t a priority?
I don’t think excuses are acceptable at this point. It’s a matter of historical record that Democrats, when given the choice to codify privacy rights and bodily autonomy into law, instead elected not to do so. (I think, because it makes them a lot of money in donations.)
No democratic president has had a super majority in decades. If you think they have, you’re sorely mistaken.
Manchin and Sennima (a flimsy senate majority of 1) were not going to get it done.
It’s not excuses, it’s reality and you should pay more attention to it before spreading propaganda.
You’re right. I’m convinced.
It’s just too hard, and therefore, perfectly acceptable that Democrats do nothing except make promises, even when we hand them the power to make change.
Here’s the problem, WE DIDN’T.
You don’t have power to make change unless you have a super majority or you can caucus with people across the aisle. If I put YOU in the Senate right now instead of Sherrod Brown it won’t help. It might help if I put you in instead of J.D. Vance, but only if we don’t lose Sherrod Brown.
This isn’t just some “you work really hard at it and you can get anything done” situation. You need the votes, Democrats as a party agree on what the vote should be, but there are not enough representatives from the Democratic party that agree with the party platform to take the vote.
It’s not some conspiracy, it’s just how it works. It sucks, but the only way to fix it is to get more people to vote and just keep voting. Vote in primaries for people you think can win. Vote for ranked choice initiatives that might allow us to get away from two party voting. Vote for Democrats that agree the filibuster should be done away with.
Do not just go around making up stories about how the Democrats have super powers they don’t have though. It’s simply false information that ultimately hurts Democrats.
deleted by creator
Friend, we’ve seen plenty of examples of laws that were passed with simple majorities. (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act comes to mind.) The Democrats had that under Biden and Obama. Obama had a supermajority for seven months during his presidency. And yes, Obama himself said that Roe wasn’t a priority: https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/us/obama-says-abortion-rights-law-not-a-top-priority-idUSN29466420/
We’ve seen several examples of presidents actually willing to fight for what they believe in, and the presidency grants powers that can be used toward that end, like forcing Congress to stay in session for example. It was used to try and pass the National Civil Rights Act and emergency aid for Hurricane Katrina.
What we lack is Democrats who are actually willing to wield power, and because of that, we’re forced to confront the reality of fascism in the US.
It’s not me hurting the Dems by levying rightful criticism. It’s Democrats caring only about war and their own stock portfolios that have hurt themselves.
Yeah in 2009 when Roe was assumed to be the forever law of the land and things were fine…? Why would he make that a priority?
Go read a promised land and see how much of a majority he actually had. We’re lucky we got the ACA in the end.
Which was a bipartisan bill OPPOSED by some democrats:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1151/vote_115_1_00303.htm
Which would do nothing to solve the issue of abortion.
Which both had bi partisan support and were passed in less heated times.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182