There is a lot of cool discussion around this piece, thank you for engaging with it so deeply. I thought I'd send over an extra word of encouragement to look into the hyperlinks from Naomi and Sonia throughout the article. This piece especially has great further reading that goes deeper into its history and politics. I think you'll enjoy it. Thank you!
Hi Jessica. Cut it out! Another collum that really pissed me off.
Actually,
I think you're not being pessimistic enough.
Let's say we win the Comstock battle.
Yea!
But wait. The Federalist Society has been planning and working against abortion for 4 decades. This is far from their only tactic. Look at thalidomide- surely we can't trust the FDA. Why don't we try the tactic that worked with cannabis- it needs to be banned for the good of the public. The supreme court isn't becoming marginally any better either. We need to ban affirmative admissions. Screw the minority's. So what if legacy admissions increase. Who will many of the legacies be? Probably people from the likes of Hillsdale and the Christian home schools .
As Liz Chaney said recently- we're electing Morons.
Sorry, I needed to vent.
In parting, a joke I made up yesterday. Grammatically bad, I know.
Why don't proctologists and goats get along? They both butt heads.
Never Take Your Eye Off The Ball. I grew up in Colorado a long time ago and had the good fortune to be represented by Patricia Schroeder- a forward looking woman if there ever was one. SHE tried to start the conversation to repeal the Comstock Act for just the reason so clearly presented here. She didn't get much traction because nobody thought we would devolve as far as we have. This is going to be a nightmare that could have been avoided. I am sick every day when I read what is happening to women in this country. Thank you for your work but I am very pessimistic that this is going to improve. I am pretty sure access for reproductive care is going to become even more limiting and punishment of pregnant women and health care providers will accelerate in much of this country.
Thank you, once again, for invaluably clear and thorough reporting.
It sounds like abortion rights supporters, and anyone counting on their OB-GYN to have the appropriate tools and medications to treat their reproductive health, need to start a “Repeal Comstock” drive ASAP. Like, yesterday.
Their starting point for reasoning is that their reproductive organs are a divine gift from their big penis god in the sky, while ours are portals to evil in need of punishment and control. I can't imagine they would think there could be anything sinful or smutty about Viagra.
Why do I never hear any discussion re: the separation of Church and State? Why are these religious nuts getting away with murder? Where are the Constitutional lawyers?
The far right has been very careful to pretend that this has nothing to do with religion. It’s all about the fact that by having different DNA from the person carrying it, a fetus is a separate person who has the intrinsic right to life - because killing another human being is murder.
Yes, we all know this is bullshit, but it’s enough to pass muster in our biased courts.
Although killing another human being is perfectly legal under a number of circumstances. Abortion rights can be consistently viewed as a Castle Doctrine for the womb.
If fetuses are people, women are their chattel. That's what this argument is saying. Fetuses have special privileges to other people's bodies that literally no one else has. It violates the 5th, 13th and 14th amendments. I know I keep posting this article but it's so important.
State Abortion Bans: Pregnancy as a New Form of Coverture
I am currently reading “The Woman They Could Not Silence” by Kate Moore. The concept of coverture with regard to marital coverture is very well described and explained in this book in a way that I think makes it quite understandable (and infuriating). It is also terrifyingly clear to draw the connection between the lack of rights of women in the 1860s and now. And the ideas promoted by Comstock, a contemporary of this time in history (mid 19th century), seriously make me ill. The fact that his laws are being championed…ugh.
The problem is that the average voter doesn’t understand coverture as a concept to start with. I shared it elsewhere and asked lawyer friends to weigh in on how this could be used to our advantage, but didn’t get much response.
I think we need to have a few smart, creative lawyers to look into this.
Not since their initial replies. I don't want to pester because I know how much work it takes to do what they're doing. I think mentioning it in the comments as a reminder is a good idea. It's only going to have impact when somebody argues it in court (and ideally a judge somewhere agrees). So mostly I'd like to know how it would be countered, to have an idea of what it's up against.
I know, it feels hopeless sometimes and it hurts. Two hopeful stories: 1. In Georgia there’s a lovely grassroots group called Regulate Guns Not Women. They wave signs outside the governors mansion for an hour every week, rain or shine, and SO MANY cars and trucks give approving honks and thumbs-up. 2. I’ve been ordering pregnancy test strips in bulk (super cheap) and leaving them in a public womens restroom with info cards (why test early, numbers for contraception & abortion clinics, etc). People will take the tests & info - and sometimes people will leave other things, like menstrual supplies and Plan B packs!
I think people do care, but many are just busy & overwhelmed and don’t think they have the power to make things better. But as long as I see these little acts of resistance and solidarity, I feel hope.
That is a very good idea. It needs to become a national trend. We know that the women who are already most disadvantaged are having the most trouble accessing care, and often at least part of the hurdle is just knowing where to go, who to call, who can help.
It is frustrating. Back when most people still thought abortion rights were secure, I attended rallies, helped organize marches, and marched for abortion rights in DC. But over the years, I think the constant threat of public mass shootings has put a damper on demonstrations, marches, and protests of all kinds. And this implicit threat has effectively put a damper on the public's right to peacefully assemble. It is entirely by design.
The thing is if our side's two strategies are 1) trying to win elections in a system biased towards them (Democrats probably have to win nationally by 7-8 points to have a shot at the trifecta in 2025, and perhaps not that much less in subsequent elections) and 2) trying to convince a judiciary that's biased towards them, then I don't think we're using all of our resources and all of our power. At the very very least there ought to be boycotts and other economic forms of protest.
Decide which businesses and corporations are helping our side, and which ones are not. Walgreens was one example of the latter. Doesn't have to be completely "fair". The point is to have an impact on the money men. Strikes, walkouts, etc. are other options, but need to be coordinated so we don't leave people hanging. Lots of other civil disobedience possibilities. Idk I just think we should be throwing everything at it. They would. (And arguably did and that's why we're here.)
This all comes down to raw power. Our side tends to believe first in rule of law and a democratic system of government. We have to justify use of power; it has to fit into our understanding of those concepts. If it does not, or if we're not sure, we ask the question and carefully consider and analyze and so forth. So for example something like a court ruling would be of great importance to us.
The other side does not bother with such things. They understand that power is just about whether you can, and the justifications are always only ever a pretense. This gives them an advantage in war, because they will use whatever means they have to get whatever outcome they want, while we are still trying to make sure that what we do is right.
It is very possible that they will ultimately force us to think and behave like them, and that that is the only way forward in the current situation in our country.
They can *try* to force us to behave like them, but they’ll never force us to think that way.
Prior to Roe, women like those in the Jane Collective learned how to perform vacuum aspiration abortions. They aren’t hard, and the equipment required is both minimal, and widely available (much if it can be purchased at an aquarium store). I have zero doubt that, should this become necessary due to a federal ban, women will do the same again. If I didn’t have tremors owing to MS, I’d be first in line to learn.
Women have *always* tried to control their reproductive lives. I think it’s something almost inherent in being pregnancy capable. Hell, Greek and Roman women used silphium so freely as a contraceptive that this use contributed greatly to the extinction of the plant (sadly for us today).
All the prochoice people I know who have given birth have become even more adamantly prochoice once they had a child. When you have the visceral experience of going through pregnancy, giving birth, and raising a child, it’s almost impossible to conclude that this is something that should be mandatory/enforced.
Yes, women performing vacuum aspiration abortions themselves would be an example of what I'm talking about, using power because you can, not because you're 'allowed' to or because we've agreed upon it as a society. Caring about playing by the rules of the system doesn't work when the other side doesn't (and the rules of the system favor them anyway). If we approached the concept of power that way, the way they do, it would be a different fight. They have more privately held guns, but other than that (and granted that's a big other than), I'm not convinced they have more power. Maybe this can still be solved within the old rules of engagement, with elections upcoming; maybe we don't have to be that ruthless. But they're not worried about the process, about right or wrong; they only care about the outcome. And that's why they have the advantage now, why they're winning. At what point do we see that they're intent on destroying us, no matter what, and respond accordingly?
The information on what equipment you need, etc. is freely available on the web. All we need is a tiny handful of providers willing to teach the first group of women. Then we teach each other. I’m from the same generation as you, I’m 64, and have the same memories around this.
Also, there’s something called “menstrual extraction” that’s even easier to learn. It’s used early, and without a pregnancy test. It removes the expected period all in one go. There is no dilation of the cervix required.
The Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. 1461, 1462) prohibits the importation or mailing of abortion-related materials. This is located within a portion of the code governing obscenity. Reform of the obscenity rules may make sense, but raises issues going beyond abortion. Abortion is not obscene, and hence references to abortion should be taken out of the Comstock Act. Barney Frank introduced such legislation in 1999, the Comstock Cleanup Act of 1999, but it never went anywhere. The wording of this bill seems fine; it should be reintroduced. People should contact their legislators with this request.
There is a lot of cool discussion around this piece, thank you for engaging with it so deeply. I thought I'd send over an extra word of encouragement to look into the hyperlinks from Naomi and Sonia throughout the article. This piece especially has great further reading that goes deeper into its history and politics. I think you'll enjoy it. Thank you!
This article was so scary I couldn’t finish it.
And I’m sure “they” will find a way of exempting Viagra…..
Thanks so much for this!
Hi Jessica. Cut it out! Another collum that really pissed me off.
Actually,
I think you're not being pessimistic enough.
Let's say we win the Comstock battle.
Yea!
But wait. The Federalist Society has been planning and working against abortion for 4 decades. This is far from their only tactic. Look at thalidomide- surely we can't trust the FDA. Why don't we try the tactic that worked with cannabis- it needs to be banned for the good of the public. The supreme court isn't becoming marginally any better either. We need to ban affirmative admissions. Screw the minority's. So what if legacy admissions increase. Who will many of the legacies be? Probably people from the likes of Hillsdale and the Christian home schools .
As Liz Chaney said recently- we're electing Morons.
Sorry, I needed to vent.
In parting, a joke I made up yesterday. Grammatically bad, I know.
Why don't proctologists and goats get along? They both butt heads.
I’m not ready to accept that.
As always, I appreciate this thorough explanation of a preposterous law.
Never Take Your Eye Off The Ball. I grew up in Colorado a long time ago and had the good fortune to be represented by Patricia Schroeder- a forward looking woman if there ever was one. SHE tried to start the conversation to repeal the Comstock Act for just the reason so clearly presented here. She didn't get much traction because nobody thought we would devolve as far as we have. This is going to be a nightmare that could have been avoided. I am sick every day when I read what is happening to women in this country. Thank you for your work but I am very pessimistic that this is going to improve. I am pretty sure access for reproductive care is going to become even more limiting and punishment of pregnant women and health care providers will accelerate in much of this country.
Thank you, once again, for invaluably clear and thorough reporting.
It sounds like abortion rights supporters, and anyone counting on their OB-GYN to have the appropriate tools and medications to treat their reproductive health, need to start a “Repeal Comstock” drive ASAP. Like, yesterday.
Wouldn’t mail-order Viagra and its generics, as offered by companies such as Roman, also be covered under the Comstock Act?
My first thought. The good ol’ boys would not care for that.
Their starting point for reasoning is that their reproductive organs are a divine gift from their big penis god in the sky, while ours are portals to evil in need of punishment and control. I can't imagine they would think there could be anything sinful or smutty about Viagra.
Why do I never hear any discussion re: the separation of Church and State? Why are these religious nuts getting away with murder? Where are the Constitutional lawyers?
The far right has been very careful to pretend that this has nothing to do with religion. It’s all about the fact that by having different DNA from the person carrying it, a fetus is a separate person who has the intrinsic right to life - because killing another human being is murder.
Yes, we all know this is bullshit, but it’s enough to pass muster in our biased courts.
Although killing another human being is perfectly legal under a number of circumstances. Abortion rights can be consistently viewed as a Castle Doctrine for the womb.
If fetuses are people, women are their chattel. That's what this argument is saying. Fetuses have special privileges to other people's bodies that literally no one else has. It violates the 5th, 13th and 14th amendments. I know I keep posting this article but it's so important.
State Abortion Bans: Pregnancy as a New Form of Coverture
https://virginialawreview.org/articles/state-abortion-bans-pregnancy-as-a-new-form-of-coverture/
Thank you for the citation. This is a brilliant article - so clear and plain-speaking.
I am currently reading “The Woman They Could Not Silence” by Kate Moore. The concept of coverture with regard to marital coverture is very well described and explained in this book in a way that I think makes it quite understandable (and infuriating). It is also terrifyingly clear to draw the connection between the lack of rights of women in the 1860s and now. And the ideas promoted by Comstock, a contemporary of this time in history (mid 19th century), seriously make me ill. The fact that his laws are being championed…ugh.
That’s one of my favorite pieces on the issue.
The problem is that the average voter doesn’t understand coverture as a concept to start with. I shared it elsewhere and asked lawyer friends to weigh in on how this could be used to our advantage, but didn’t get much response.
I think we need to have a few smart, creative lawyers to look into this.
Surprised to but see any in the comments since I've been here. Zach and I were hoping Grace or Jessica would ask the ones in the article about it.
Hope Jessica and Grace have time to follow up with their sources on this 🤞
Guess we could try emailing them again. Have you heard back from the last time?
Not since their initial replies. I don't want to pester because I know how much work it takes to do what they're doing. I think mentioning it in the comments as a reminder is a good idea. It's only going to have impact when somebody argues it in court (and ideally a judge somewhere agrees). So mostly I'd like to know how it would be countered, to have an idea of what it's up against.
I hardly see them in the comments though. Hopefully we'll see them today.
The lack of pushback is breathtaking. The silence is heartbreaking. It’s as if it’s already a fait accompli that women are doomed.
I know, it feels hopeless sometimes and it hurts. Two hopeful stories: 1. In Georgia there’s a lovely grassroots group called Regulate Guns Not Women. They wave signs outside the governors mansion for an hour every week, rain or shine, and SO MANY cars and trucks give approving honks and thumbs-up. 2. I’ve been ordering pregnancy test strips in bulk (super cheap) and leaving them in a public womens restroom with info cards (why test early, numbers for contraception & abortion clinics, etc). People will take the tests & info - and sometimes people will leave other things, like menstrual supplies and Plan B packs!
I think people do care, but many are just busy & overwhelmed and don’t think they have the power to make things better. But as long as I see these little acts of resistance and solidarity, I feel hope.
That is a very good idea. It needs to become a national trend. We know that the women who are already most disadvantaged are having the most trouble accessing care, and often at least part of the hurdle is just knowing where to go, who to call, who can help.
Unfortunately there's not much people can do until election season
It is frustrating. Back when most people still thought abortion rights were secure, I attended rallies, helped organize marches, and marched for abortion rights in DC. But over the years, I think the constant threat of public mass shootings has put a damper on demonstrations, marches, and protests of all kinds. And this implicit threat has effectively put a damper on the public's right to peacefully assemble. It is entirely by design.
I hadn't thought of it that way but yes that's a very very good point. It's one of the big reasons they defend their guns so much.
The thing is if our side's two strategies are 1) trying to win elections in a system biased towards them (Democrats probably have to win nationally by 7-8 points to have a shot at the trifecta in 2025, and perhaps not that much less in subsequent elections) and 2) trying to convince a judiciary that's biased towards them, then I don't think we're using all of our resources and all of our power. At the very very least there ought to be boycotts and other economic forms of protest.
Boycott what though? Seems like the Church pews are already emptying at a rapid clip but don't know what else people could boycott.
Decide which businesses and corporations are helping our side, and which ones are not. Walgreens was one example of the latter. Doesn't have to be completely "fair". The point is to have an impact on the money men. Strikes, walkouts, etc. are other options, but need to be coordinated so we don't leave people hanging. Lots of other civil disobedience possibilities. Idk I just think we should be throwing everything at it. They would. (And arguably did and that's why we're here.)
The Comstock Act was the first thing I thought of when this all started, and I knew it was only a matter of time.
Terrible that the anti choice people want to force their puritan ways down everyone's throats.
My god this is so bleak. So much misery and suffering, just to force people to give birth.
This all comes down to raw power. Our side tends to believe first in rule of law and a democratic system of government. We have to justify use of power; it has to fit into our understanding of those concepts. If it does not, or if we're not sure, we ask the question and carefully consider and analyze and so forth. So for example something like a court ruling would be of great importance to us.
The other side does not bother with such things. They understand that power is just about whether you can, and the justifications are always only ever a pretense. This gives them an advantage in war, because they will use whatever means they have to get whatever outcome they want, while we are still trying to make sure that what we do is right.
It is very possible that they will ultimately force us to think and behave like them, and that that is the only way forward in the current situation in our country.
They can *try* to force us to behave like them, but they’ll never force us to think that way.
Prior to Roe, women like those in the Jane Collective learned how to perform vacuum aspiration abortions. They aren’t hard, and the equipment required is both minimal, and widely available (much if it can be purchased at an aquarium store). I have zero doubt that, should this become necessary due to a federal ban, women will do the same again. If I didn’t have tremors owing to MS, I’d be first in line to learn.
Women have *always* tried to control their reproductive lives. I think it’s something almost inherent in being pregnancy capable. Hell, Greek and Roman women used silphium so freely as a contraceptive that this use contributed greatly to the extinction of the plant (sadly for us today).
All the prochoice people I know who have given birth have become even more adamantly prochoice once they had a child. When you have the visceral experience of going through pregnancy, giving birth, and raising a child, it’s almost impossible to conclude that this is something that should be mandatory/enforced.
"All the prochoice people I know who have given birth have become even more adamantly prochoice once they had a child." - Yes!!!
Yes, women performing vacuum aspiration abortions themselves would be an example of what I'm talking about, using power because you can, not because you're 'allowed' to or because we've agreed upon it as a society. Caring about playing by the rules of the system doesn't work when the other side doesn't (and the rules of the system favor them anyway). If we approached the concept of power that way, the way they do, it would be a different fight. They have more privately held guns, but other than that (and granted that's a big other than), I'm not convinced they have more power. Maybe this can still be solved within the old rules of engagement, with elections upcoming; maybe we don't have to be that ruthless. But they're not worried about the process, about right or wrong; they only care about the outcome. And that's why they have the advantage now, why they're winning. At what point do we see that they're intent on destroying us, no matter what, and respond accordingly?
The information on what equipment you need, etc. is freely available on the web. All we need is a tiny handful of providers willing to teach the first group of women. Then we teach each other. I’m from the same generation as you, I’m 64, and have the same memories around this.
Also, there’s something called “menstrual extraction” that’s even easier to learn. It’s used early, and without a pregnancy test. It removes the expected period all in one go. There is no dilation of the cervix required.
https://www.womenshealthspecialists.org/self-help/menstrual-extraction/
These people are unbelievably disingenuous. There's something about sanctimony that allows people to act in the worst of bad faith.
The Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. 1461, 1462) prohibits the importation or mailing of abortion-related materials. This is located within a portion of the code governing obscenity. Reform of the obscenity rules may make sense, but raises issues going beyond abortion. Abortion is not obscene, and hence references to abortion should be taken out of the Comstock Act. Barney Frank introduced such legislation in 1999, the Comstock Cleanup Act of 1999, but it never went anywhere. The wording of this bill seems fine; it should be reintroduced. People should contact their legislators with this request.