Comstock Lives!

[Loulit01]

Opinion | The Hideous Resurrection of the Comstock Act

How the right is using a 150-year-old law to try to ban abortion pills.

www.nytimes.com

Comstock died in 1915, and the Comstock Act, the notorious anti-obscenity law used to indict the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, ban books by D.H. Lawrence and arrest people by the thousands, turned 150 last month. Had this anniversary fallen five or 10 years ago, it barely would have been worth noting, except perhaps to marvel at how far we’d come from an era when a fanatical censor like Comstock wielded national political power.

And now, thanks to a rogue judge in Texas, the Comstock Act itself could be partly reimposed on America. Though the act had been dormant for decades and Congress did away with its prohibitions on birth control in 1971, it was never fully repealed. And with Roe v. Wade gone, the Christian right has sought to make use of it. The Comstock Act was central to the case brought by a coalition of anti-abortion groups in Texas seeking to have Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone, part of the regimen used in medication abortion, invalidated. And it is central to the anti-abortion screed of an opinion by Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, the judge, appointed by Donald Trump, who on Friday ruled in their favor.

Werbel described Comstock as representing “antiquated Christian nationalism.” She added, “He just doesn’t change over time. And the world around him does.” Ultimately, she argued, the cruelty of Comstock’s crusade helped spark the creation of the modern civil liberties movement, and she hoped that once again, Americans would rebel against religious authoritarianism. Indeed, the nationwide backlash against abortion bans suggests they already are rebelling. But a lot of people had to suffer before the first iteration of Comstockery subsided, and a lot of people are going to suffer from its rebirth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Comstock and Will H. Hays ran roughshod over the 1st Amendment for decades. I thought we were done with that nonsense forever but I underestimated the buffoonery of the republican party.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

I was just reading that.

 

[weaver2]

Opinion | The Hideous Resurrection of the Comstock Act

How the right is using a 150-year-old law to try to ban abortion pills.

www.nytimes.com

Comstock died in 1915, and the Comstock Act, the notorious anti-obscenity law used to indict the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, ban books by D.H. Lawrence and arrest people by the thousands, turned 150 last month. Had this anniversary fallen five or 10 years ago, it barely would have been worth noting, except perhaps to marvel at how far we’d come from an era when a fanatical censor like Comstock wielded national political power.

And now, thanks to a rogue judge in Texas, the Comstock Act itself could be partly reimposed on America. Though the act had been dormant for decades and Congress did away with its prohibitions on birth control in 1971, it was never fully repealed. And with Roe v. Wade gone, the Christian right has sought to make use of it. The Comstock Act was central to the case brought by a coalition of anti-abortion groups in Texas seeking to have Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone, part of the regimen used in medication abortion, invalidated. And it is central to the anti-abortion screed of an opinion by Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, the judge, appointed by Donald Trump, who on Friday ruled in their favor.

Werbel described Comstock as representing “antiquated Christian nationalism.” She added, “He just doesn’t change over time. And the world around him does.” Ultimately, she argued, the cruelty of Comstock’s crusade helped spark the creation of the modern civil liberties movement, and she hoped that once again, Americans would rebel against religious authoritarianism. Indeed, the nationwide backlash against abortion bans suggests they already are rebelling. But a lot of people had to suffer before the first iteration of Comstockery subsided, and a lot of people are going to suffer from its rebirth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Comstock and Will H. Hays ran roughshod over the 1st Amendment for decades. I thought we were done with that nonsense forever but I underestimated the buffoonery of the republican party.

Now taking bets on when the Supreme Court will rule that states can use the Comstock Act to ban abortion pills and contraceptives they deem to be abortifacients because the act is still valid.

 

[Glitch]

Now taking bets on when the Supreme Court will rule that states can use the Comstock Act to ban abortion pills and contraceptives they deem to be abortifacients because the act is still valid.

The Supreme Court has already ruled, and held various State laws with regard to prohibiting contraception unconstitutional in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) - with regard to married couples - and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) - with regard to unmarried couples.

This is a big fat nothing burger by leftist morons who don't have the first clue what they are talking about.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Opinion | The Hideous Resurrection of the Comstock Act

How the right is using a 150-year-old law to try to ban abortion pills.

www.nytimes.com

Comstock died in 1915, and the Comstock Act, the notorious anti-obscenity law used to indict the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, ban books by D.H. Lawrence and arrest people by the thousands, turned 150 last month. Had this anniversary fallen five or 10 years ago, it barely would have been worth noting, except perhaps to marvel at how far we’d come from an era when a fanatical censor like Comstock wielded national political power.

And now, thanks to a rogue judge in Texas, the Comstock Act itself could be partly reimposed on America. Though the act had been dormant for decades and Congress did away with its prohibitions on birth control in 1971, it was never fully repealed. And with Roe v. Wade gone, the Christian right has sought to make use of it. The Comstock Act was central to the case brought by a coalition of anti-abortion groups in Texas seeking to have Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone, part of the regimen used in medication abortion, invalidated. And it is central to the anti-abortion screed of an opinion by Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, the judge, appointed by Donald Trump, who on Friday ruled in their favor.

Werbel described Comstock as representing “antiquated Christian nationalism.” She added, “He just doesn’t change over time. And the world around him does.” Ultimately, she argued, the cruelty of Comstock’s crusade helped spark the creation of the modern civil liberties movement, and she hoped that once again, Americans would rebel against religious authoritarianism. Indeed, the nationwide backlash against abortion bans suggests they already are rebelling. But a lot of people had to suffer before the first iteration of Comstockery subsided, and a lot of people are going to suffer from its rebirth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Comstock and Will H. Hays ran roughshod over the 1st Amendment for decades. I thought we were done with that nonsense forever but I underestimated the buffoonery of the republican party.

Great news!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Supreme Court has already ruled, and held various State laws with regard to prohibiting contraception unconstitutional in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) - with regard to married couples - and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) - with regard to unmarried couples.

This is a big fat nothing burger by leftist morons who don't have the first clue what they are talking about.

Griswold was a bad ruling that should be repealed however. That ruling was made solely to provide a precedent to mandate abortion later and since the Roe issue has been settled there’s no reason for Griswold to live either

 

[Glitch]

Griswold was a bad ruling that should be repealed however. That ruling was made solely to provide a precedent to mandate abortion later and since the Roe issue has been settled there’s no reason for Griswold to live either

I tend to agree. There is no enumerated "right to privacy" in the US Constitution. The Griswold decision derives the "right to privacy" from the implications inferred by several other enumerated rights, using the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and of course, the Ninth Amendments.

Alaska's State Constitution (Article I, Section 22) has a Right to Privacy specifically listed, but the US Constitution does not have any such right explicitly enumerated. The Griswold decision was the first time the Supreme Court ever used the term "right to privacy." Like the bogus Roe decision they would make just seven years later, they appear to have manufactured a new constitutionally protected right out of whole cloth.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court Griswold and Eisenstadt decisions still stands and has not been overturned - yet.