He lobbied for an 1873 federal law that makes it a felony to mail any “article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion,” or even any advice on how or where to get an abortion or contraception. Later judicial interpretation prompted removal of the Comstock Act’s prohibition on mailing contraception, but its purported ban on abortion-related supplies is still on the books. Americans were reminded of this astonishing — and troubling — fact at Tuesday’s Supreme Court oral argument over efforts by antiabortion doctors to rescind Food and Drug Administration rules allowing the distribution of mifepristone, used for medical abortions.
During the hearing, Erin Hawley, counsel for the antiabortion doctors, claimed the FDA had ignored the “plain text” of the Comstock Act when it permanently removed a requirement women get mifepristone pills in-person last year. Ms. Hawley got apparent support in this contention from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It’s not some obscure subsection of a complicated, obscure law,” said Justice Alito. Justice Thomas told the attorney for the medication’s manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, that the “fairly broad” statute “specifically covers drugs such as yours.”
Though the justices seemed likely to back the FDA for other reasons, the emergence of the Comstock Act from legal dormancy could foreshadow more conservative attempts to use it against reproductive freedom — in a post-Roe world where nearly two-thirds of all abortions are now carried out by medication. It should never come to that: Congress needs to repeal the law.
Democrats should lead that effort while they still control the Senate and the White House. And they should do so despite understandable fears that trying, and failing, to repeal the law could paradoxically reinforce its validity. It’s a fight worth having. Let House Republicans refuse to consider a bill, or the Senate GOP filibuster one, and explain to voters why they oppose eliminating even the theoretical chance people could get up to five years in prison (the maximum penalty for a first offense) for shipping mifepristone. (The law also applies to express common carriers, such as FedEx and UPS.)
In fact, a number of groups and individuals on the right are trying to revive the Comstock Act. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a policy blueprint for a second Donald Trump term to which more than 100 conservative groups contributed, says a Trump Justice Department should “announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such [abortion] pills.” Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who devised that state’s law encouraging civil lawsuits against abortion providers, has said: “We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock.”
Last month, 26 Republican senators and 199 GOP members of the House signed a friend of the court brief in the mifepristone case accusing the FDA of “blatant disregard” for the Comstock Act. “These provisions have been federal policy for more than a century,” they wrote. Nine GOP senators signed letters last year to CVS and Walgreens as the pharmacy chains prepared to sell mifepristone, warning that the Comstock Act has a five-year statute of limitations — so nothing would stop the next president’s Justice Department from charging companies or individuals with distributing abortion pills.
Companies and individuals are probably safe for now because a Biden appointee at the department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion in December 2022 construing the Comstock Act to allow mailing mifepristone if the sender “lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully.” But a Justice Department under Mr. Trump could easily issue new guidance.
Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court picks were instrumental in the court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, a fact for which the presumptive GOP nominee and his party are paying a political price. For the time being, Mr. Trump is trying to take credit with the GOP’s pro-life wing, while ducking the issue otherwise. A high-profile effort to repeal the Comstock Act could force him to say clearly where he stands. One way or the other, this obsolete, misogynist law needs to be wiped off the statute books.
Credit: Source link