Comstock laws

Last updated

Comstock Act of 1873
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAct for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use
NicknamesComstock Act of 1873
Enacted bythe 43rd Congress United States Congress
Effective1873
Citations
Public law 18 U.S.C. Chapter 71, §§ 1460–1470
Legislative history
  • Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on March 3, 1873

The Comstock Act of 1873 and 24 state-level "Little Comstocks" criminalized the use of the United States Postal Service to send obscenity, contraceptives, abortifacients, sex toys, personal letters with any sexual content or information, or any information regarding the above. The Act made it illegal (up to 5 years of hard labor) to sell, lend, or give away any "obscene" publication or article used for contraception or abortion. The Act is codified at 18 U.S.C. Chapter 71, §§ 1460–1470 with the most essential material in §1461 and has been amended five times.

Contents

The 43rd United States Congress passed the Comstock Act[s] on March 2, 1873 as the Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use and President Ulysses S. Grant signed it into law on March 3, 1873. The act is associated with U.S. Postal Inspector and anti-vice activist Anthony Comstock.

In the 21st century, some American judges and lawmakers cite the Comstock Act as a possible justification for criminalizing the mailing of abortion medication while others deny that justification and/or call for the Comstock Act's repeal. [1] [2] In 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that mailing abortion drugs does not violate the Comstock Act. [3] In 2023, a federal judge mentioned the Comstock Act in a ruling about the medication abortion drug mifepristone (Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al, (2023). [4] The United States appealed the case and it is currently being decided by the United States Supreme Court. [5] In 2024, 20 Republican attorneys general relied upon the Comstock Act when they wrote to Walgreens and CVS objecting against the distribution of abortion pills. [6] In 2024, Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) suggested a plan to repeal the Comstock Act. [7]

The Comstock Laws remain in effect but they have been modified over time and portions of the laws have been declared unconstitutional. For example, the restrictions on birth control in the Comstock laws were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) [8] and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). [9]

In 1971, the U.S. Congress removed the restrictions on contraception but let the rest of the Comstock law stand. [10] After the June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization , the enforceability of the Comstock laws became the subject of legal disputes. On April 7, 2023, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, a district court judge in Texas ruled in the case of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the Comstock Act made mailing of abortifacients illegal, [11] conflicting with a ruling by district court judge Thomas O. Rice in Washington who issued an opposite ruling on the very same day. [12] The Supreme Court heard the appeal on March 26, 2024. [13] [14]

The symbol of Comstock's New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. NewYorkSocietyForTheSuppressionOfVice.jpg
The symbol of Comstock's New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.

Historical Background

The Comstock laws are a set of federal acts passed by the United States Congress under the Grant administration along with related state laws. The "parent" act (Sect. 211) was passed on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use. This Act criminalized any use of the U.S. Postal Service to send any of the following items: [15] obscenity, contraceptives, abortifacients, sex toys, personal letters with any sexual content or information, or any information regarding the above items. [14]

A similar federal act (Sect. 245) of 1909 [16] [17] : 8  applied to delivery by interstate "express" or any other common carrier (such as railroad), rather than delivery by the U.S. Post Office. In addition to these federal laws, about half of the states enacted laws related to the federal Comstock laws. These state laws are considered by women's rights activist Mary Dennett [17] : 9  to also be "Comstock laws". The laws were named after their chief proponent, U.S. Postal Inspector and anti-vice activist Anthony Comstock. Comstock received a commission from the Postmaster General to serve as a special agent for the U.S. Post Office Department. [18]

In Washington, D.C., where the federal government had direct jurisdiction, another Comstock act (Sect. 312) also made it illegal (punishable by up to five years at hard labor), to sell, lend, or give away any "obscene" publication, or article used for contraception or abortion. [18] Section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1922 forbade the importation of any contraceptive information or means. [17] : 8 

In a 1919 issue of the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology , Judge J. C. Ruppenthal, after reviewing the various laws (especially state laws) called the set of acts "haphazard and capricious" and lacking "any clear, broad, well-defined principle or purpose". [19]

Text

The original Section 211 of the 1873 Comstock Act (considered to be the "parent" of all the Comstock laws) criminalizes the mailing of two types of material: (1) printed material and physical objects deemed to be "indecent" and "immoral" and (2) printed material, physical objects, substances, medicine) related to birth control, abortion, and reproductive health. The law specifically criminalizes the mailing of speech: communication regarding information about or access to birth control, abortion, and reproductive health.

Text relevant to "decency:

"Every obscene, lewd, or lascivious, and every filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character" and "every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use...

Text relevant to birth control, abortion, and reproductive health:

"[E]very 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 preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose...

Text relevant to communication regarding exchanging information about or access to birth control, abortion, and reproductive health:

"[E]very written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information directly or indirectly, where, or how, or of whom, or by what means any of the hereinbefore-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 conception may be prevented or abortion may be produced... whether sealed or unsealed; and every letter, packet, or package, or other mail matter containing"

The Comstock Act replaced sections of statutes related to the Post Office ("An Act to revise, consolidate, and amend the Statutes relating to the Post-office Department"). Congress sought to intensify punishment and specify that punishment included hard labor.

Although the law for the District of Columbia [20] (sect. 312 of the Federal Criminal Code) is similar to the federal Comstock Act (applying to the 50 states), the DC law specified that forbidden items must be only for one's own use (not distributed to others) and those found guilty "shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not those less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court."

Objective of the laws

The Comstock laws targeted pornography, contraceptive equipment, access to abortion, educational materials such as descriptions of contraceptive methods, other reproductive health-related materials, and access to/advertisements of people with information or providing services with regards to birth control, abortion, and other reproductive health-related services. Of particular note were advertisements for abortifacients found in penny papers, which offered pills to women as treatment for "obstruction of their monthly periods." [21] The context for taking of "period pills" or herbal drinks is the wider history of birth control.

Anthony Comstock's ideas of what is "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" were quite broad. During his time of greatest power, some anatomy textbooks were prohibited from being sent to medical students by the United States Postal Service. [22] According to Mary Ware Dennett, Comstock defined "perverts" as those using contraceptives outside of marriage. Thus, the law should not "allow any one at all to secure them or know anything about them." [23] In her 1926 work, Birth Control Laws: Shall We Keep Them, Change Them, or Abolish Them, Dennett claimed that Anthony Comstock had no intention of penalizing birth control information for married cis people. Comstock believed that contraceptives (and information about them) would be used (or misused) by young people for premarital sex. According to Dennet, Comstock's reasoning seems to have been that if one banned all contraceptive information, etc., the morals of youth were less likely to be corrupted. [24]

Yet the federal and state "Comstock" laws significantly penalized birth control information for all uses. In 1965 case, the Supreme Court overturned Connecticut's 1879 "Little Comstock" that forbade the use of contraceptives by cis married couples.

Definition of obscenity

Major parts of the Comstock Acts hinge on definitions, particularly of obscenity. Though the courts originally adopted the British Hicklin test, in 1957 an American test was put into place in Roth v. United States , in which it was determined that obscenity was material whose "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest" to the "average person, applying contemporary community standards," and was, "utterly without redeeming social importance." [25]

Origins

According to Paul R. Abramson, the widespread availability of pornography during the American Civil War (1861–1865) gave rise to an anti-pornography movement, culminating in the passage of the Comstock Act in 1873, [26] but which also dealt with birth control and abortion issues. A major supporter and active persecutor for the moral purposes of the Comstock laws was the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, led by Comstock.

YMCA

In February 1866, the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) of New York's executive committee privately distributed a report that was written by Cephas Brainerd and Robert McBurney entitled, "A Memorandum Respecting New-York as a Field for Moral and Christian Effort Among Young Men." This memorandum linked the main message of the YMCA to facts and figures that were drawn from the census, tax data, and licensing reports. All of this data was used to support the idea that many of the younger, more unsupervised members of the society had more than enough free time in the evenings to spend in billiard saloons, gambling halls, porter houses, and houses of prostitution and assignation.

The 1866 memorandum supported a plan to construct a centrally located building to better serve the younger men of New York. Not only was the building to support the spiritual, mental, and social well-being of the young men, it was also suggested to benefit their physical condition. [18] However, the memorandum was also used as a "call to action" to investigate whether or not a law was in place to reprimand and confiscate "obscene" literature. After conferring with a district attorney, a committee was organized to write up a bill to be pushed through the New York State legislature. In 1868, the bill was passed; however, it was not as strong as the association would have liked it to be. After the passing of the bill, the YMCA appointed a committee to oversee the enforcement of the law. This law included the important power of search and seizure which authorized magistrates to issue warrants that allowed police officers "to search for, seize and take possession of such obscene and indecent books, papers, articles and things" and hand them over to the district attorney. If the indicted party ended up being found guilty, the materials that were confiscated in the raid were destroyed. [18]

Anthony Comstock

Anthony Comstock stated that he was determined to act the part of a good citizen, meaning that he had every intention of upholding the law. He started off by beginning a campaign against the saloons in his New York neighborhood of Brooklyn.

The biggest contributor to igniting Comstock's mission to rid of any and all obscene material was when one of his dear friends died. Comstock blamed his death on him being "led astray and corrupted and diseased". As for a person to blame, Comstock laid all of it on Charles Conroy, who had sold his friend "erotic materials" from a basement on Warren Street. After this incident, he continued the crusade throughout his neighborhood and while doing so, kept a ledger that had a record of every arrest he had made.

Comstock became linked with the YMCA shortly after writing a financial request for funding of his efforts. When YMCA President Morris Jesup became aware of the request he visited Comstock and granted the requested funds. in addition to providing the money to support his work, Jesup paid Comstock a bonus. Comstock was invited to speak before the YMCA's Committee on Obscene Literature (later renamed the Committee for Suppression of Vice) to present how he used the funds the organization had provided. Comstock was eventually hired by the association to help fight for the suppression of vice.

The motivation for Comstock's support of Federal legislation was "The Beecher-Tilton Scandal Case" and the publicity for the case provided by Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee Claflin; writers for Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly . After Woodhull's acquittal, Comstock began to see weaknesses in the 1872 law. The federal statute did not include newspapers, nor did it specify that birth control information and appliances were "obscene". Comstock made it a goal to include better language in a new law (later known as the Comstock Law).

To do this, Comstock drafted a new federal bill and with the sponsorship of Representative Clinton L. Merriam, he met with members of the House and illustrated his concern by showing them obscene materials, obtained via the gaps in the existing legislation. Comstock used a connection with Justice William Strong to pass the bill on to William Windom, a senator from Minnesota, with the request that he take the bill to the floor of the Senate. While the bill was being revised, a provision with similar effect of the bill was attached in a federal appropriations bill and was authorized by Congress. The legislation enabled a new special agent in the United States Post Office. This agent held the power to confiscate immoral materials sent in the mail and arrest those sending it. [18]

Although Comstock was awarded the position of special agent, the Committee for the Suppression of Vice requested that he not be given a government salary. [27] In the spring of 1873, the committee became separate from the YMCA, as New York gave them a charter as the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. While the Comstock Law originally authorized police assistance to the group in censoring materials and gave half of the fines collected under this law, the rewards were removed a month later. By preventing Comstock from receiving a federal salary, as well as any monetary rewards from the state, the organization's directors attempted to prevent claims of self-interested motives. They also tried to ensure that Comstock was dependent on their donations.

Comstock derived his full-time salary from the vice society. At the same time, he was able to hold a federal commission that allowed him to secure warrants for arrests and take and destroy publications and other materials. Therefore, New York, as well as the federal government, gave him most of the responsibility to implement moral censorship. They entrusted that responsibility to Comstock for forty-two years until his death in 1915. Over that period of time, he filled the two positions, one in the Post Office and the other in the New York vice society.

Extended works of Comstock along the lines of the Comstock laws include a petition from the Committee for the Suppression of Vice to include obscene written works that were enclosed in a sealed envelope, an item that was not covered in the renditions of the Comstock Laws, as an item to convict for a punishable offence. [28] Other works that he tried to enclose under the range of the laws that used his namesake include international art pieces that depicted scantily-clad women, textbooks for medical students, and other items that seem to steer away from the original theme of the laws. These misguided efforts left some of his original supporters to doubt his intentions. Comstock's excision of authoritative power as a special agent Postal Inspector included over 3,600 people prosecuted and the destruction of over 160 tons (150,000 kg) of literature found to be obscene. [29]

Judicial views

Obscenity

In 1957, Samuel Roth, who ran a literary business in New York City, was charged with distributing "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy" materials through the mail, advertising and selling a publication called American Aphrodite ("A Quarterly for the Fancy-Free"). The publication contained literary erotica and nude photography.

The Comstock Law was terminated in 1957, just before the Roth v. United States court case, but it defined obscenity as anything that appealed to the prurient interest of the consumer. In a similar case, Alberts v. California , David Alberts ran a mail-order business from Los Angeles and was convicted under a Californian statute for publishing pictures of "nude and scantily-clad women". The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and affirmed the Roth test.

Under the Comstock laws, postal inspectors can bar "obscene" content from the mails at any time, [30] thus having a huge impact on publishers of magazines. [31] In One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958), as a follow-on to Roth, the Supreme Court granted free press rights around homosexuality. [32]

The Comstock laws banned distribution of sex education information, based on the premise that it was obscene and led to promiscuous behavior [33] Mary Ware Dennett was fined $300 in 1928, for distributing a pamphlet containing sex education material. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), led by Morris Ernst, appealed her conviction and won a reversal, in which judge Learned Hand ruled that the pamphlet's main purpose was to "promote understanding". [33]

Contraception

Margaret Sanger was charged in 1915 for her work The Woman Rebel. Sanger circulated this work through the U.S. postal service, effectively violating the Comstock Law. On appeal, her conviction was reversed on the grounds that contraceptive devices could legally be promoted for the cure and prevention of disease. [34] Her husband, the architect William Sanger, was similarly charged earlier in the year under the New York law against disseminating contraceptive information. [35]

The prohibition of devices advertised for the explicit purpose of birth control was not overturned for another eighteen years. During World War I, U.S. servicemen were the only members of the Allied forces sent overseas without condoms. [36]

In 1932, Sanger arranged for a shipment of diaphragms to be mailed from Japan to a sympathetic doctor in New York City. When U.S. customs confiscated the package as illegal contraceptive devices, Sanger helped file a lawsuit. In 1936, a federal appeals court ruled in United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients. [34]

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) struck down one of the remaining contraception Comstock laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts. However, Griswold only applied to marital relationships. [37] Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried persons as well. [38]

In favor of the laws

Obscenity arguments

As the chief proponent of the law, many of Comstock's justifications revolved around the effects that all of the obscene literature would have on children. He argued that the corruption in the schools and in the home were because of all of the obscene literature that the youth had easy access to. He also argued that the vast amounts of "obscenity" would cause for the sanctity of marriage to be corrupted along with the power of the church. Comstock mainly focused on voicing his concerns to families of privilege; this is how he gained a majority of his support. [39]

Clinton L. Merrian, who introduced the bill to the House of Representatives, played on the idea that obscenity was a direct threat to manhood and that in order to protect the children, obscene materials needed to be confiscated. [39]

Contraception arguments

The Comstock laws, in an alleged "haphazard and capricious" [19] : 50  manner, restricted contraception. It was argued that this would help prevent "illicit" sexual relations between unmarried persons since without contraception, the unmarried would be deterred from having sex due to the possibility of undesired pregnancy. When the Birth Control Movement in the mid-1920s was attempting to get Congress to eliminate birth control restrictions from the federal Comstock laws, Mary Dennett (the author of "Birth Control Laws") [17] interviewed a (non-typical) congressman who strongly supported retention of the birth control restrictions in the Comstock laws. He put it this way (avoiding any use of the words "sex" or "pregnancy"): [17] : 182–83  "Think how it would be that night, when the young girl goes out with the boy, and she can't help thinking, what difference will it make if nothing ever shows? And then she will forget all about character, and will let herself go, whereas if she was afraid of the practical results, she wouldn't. Yes, there are thousands of girls that are held back just that way."

To this, Mary Dennett asked if he did not know that there was such a lot of contraceptive knowledge in circulation—and that most of it was bad knowledge too—that the number of girls that could be protected by their ignorance was diminishing every hour, and that there was absolutely no effort at enforcement of the laws? He said people argued that way about enforcing the prohibition laws, but he thought it (Comstock laws re contraception) ought to be enforced and could be.

Regarding older, never-married women having sex with contraception, the same congressman talking about a group of women clerks, whose housing was visible through his office window: "a lot of them are confirmed old maids too, but I wouldn't trust what would happen to them, if they all knew they could do what they pleased and no one would be the wiser." He was thus implying that the Comstock laws were good because they not only deterred young girls from having premarital sex but also deterred "old maids" (derogatory term for older, never-married women) from sexual relations.

Father Charles Coughlin, a famous "radio priest", [40] argued before a congressional committee in 1934 that even use of contraception by a married couple was wrong. He characterized such non-productive sex as "legalized prostitution." There was heckling from the audience, and one woman called out to Coughlin, "You're ridiculous."

Opposition to the laws

1878 repeal attempt

Three years after the enactment of the federal law, a petition was circulated by the National Liberal League for its repeal in 1876, garnering between 40,000 and 70,000 signatures. [17] : 63–65  Although the press of the country favored repeal, their efforts were impeded when Comstock showed samples of pornographic material to congressmen who were serving on the same committee which the repeal act had been referred to. Comstock claimed that the pamphlets he had shared, a "collection of smutty circulars describing sex depravity", [17] : 65  had been distributed by mail to youths and other persons.

In March 1879, the National Defense Association submitted a letter of affidavits to Samuel Sullivan Cox, a Democratic New York State Representative, for review with the Committee on Post Office and Post Roads. [41] The National Defense Association had been established shortly after the Comstock Laws were enacted in order to combat the resulting loss of civil liberties and restrictions on freedom of the press, and to preserve access to works of art or literature which were deemed obscene under the Comstock Act.

The letter of affidavits had been sent in support of the petition from the National Liberal League. Comstock dismissed the petition, alleging that the list was made up of forged signatures and false names. He also complained that "the public press throughout the country" had supported the petitioners and their movement. [17] : 65 

Birth control movement failures

After this failure to repeal, there was no concerted effort to change the laws until the start of the birth control movement in the United States in 1914 led by Margaret Sanger. [17] : 66  Between 1917 and 1925 Bills were introduced in California (1917), [17] : 83, 287  New York (1917, 1921,3,4,5), [17] : 73–82, 282–84  Connecticut (1923, 1925), [17] : 82, 285  and New Jersey (1925) [17] : 82, 286  to make the anti-birth control parts of the state laws less restrictive. In both California and Connecticut, the anti-birth control part of the law would be simply eliminated which in Connecticut would mean that its outlawing of contraception would be revoked. All these state attempts at change failed to come to a vote so no change happened.

There were also failed attempts to eliminate the restrictions on birth control from the federal laws, the first starting in 1919 where the bill's supposed sponsor failed to introduce the bill. In 1923 a bill was sent to the Judiciary Committee (of Congress). While it was thought that the majority of this committee favored the bill, they evaded voting on it. [17] : 98–98  There were also more attempts at change in the 1920s.

Eugenics argument

In response to the argument that facilitating contraception would encourage promiscuity, a rebuttal was that if such persons used contraception, there would tend to be fewer people like them since fewer people would inherit inclinations towards promiscuity. [17] : 186 

Free Love

The Free Love Movement in Victorian America was one group that made sustained attempts to repeal the Comstock Laws and discredit anything related to the anti-vice movement. This movement despised the law because they believed it embodied the sexual oppression of women. The free-lovers argued that neither the church nor the state had the right to regulate an individual's sexual relations and that women were sexually enslaved by the institution of marriage. This made the free-lovers the number one target of Comstock and his crusade against obscenity. [39]

Comstock actively targeted individuals associated with the Free Love Movement, particularly those involved in advocating for birth control and the rejection of traditional marriage. [42] He used the Comstock Act of 1873, which criminalized the distribution of obscene materials through the mail, as a tool to prosecute and censor those he deemed promoting immoral or indecent ideas. [43] One of Comstock's notable targets was Victoria Woodhull, a prominent figure in the Free Love Movement and an advocate for women's rights. Woodhull and her sister, Tennessee Claflin, published a newspaper called "Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly" that promoted radical ideas about sexuality and challenged traditional norms. [44] Comstock had Woodhull arrested and charged with obscenity for publishing information about contraception. [42]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Lerer, Lisa; Dias, Elizabeth (February 17, 2024). "Trump Allies Plan New Sweeping Abortion Restrictions". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 14, 2024.
  2. ↑ Bazelon, Emily (May 16, 2023). "How a 150-Year-Old Law Against Lewdness Became a Key to the Abortion Fight". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 14, 2024.
  3. ↑ "Office of Legal Counsel | Application of the Comstock Act to the Mailing of Prescription Drugs That Can Be Used for Abortions | United States Department of Justice". www.justice.gov. January 3, 2023. Retrieved May 14, 2024.
  4. ↑ "Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al, No. 2:2022cv00223 - Document 137 (N.D. Tex. 2023)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 14, 2024.
  5. ↑ "Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine". Oyez. Retrieved May 14, 2024.
  6. ↑ "20 attorneys general warn Walgreens, CVS over abortion pills". AP News. February 1, 2023. Retrieved May 14, 2024.
  7. ↑ Smith, Tina (April 2, 2024). "Opinion | I Hope to Repeal an Arcane Law That Could Be Misused to Ban Abortion Nationwide". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 15, 2024.
  8. ↑ Reardon, Andi (May 28, 1989). "Griswold v. Connecticut: Landmark Case Remembered". The New York Times .
  9. ↑ Hevesi, Dennis (October 20, 2007). "Catherine Roraback, 87, Influential Lawyer, Dies". The New York Times .
  10. ↑ Schroeder, Pat (September 24, 1996). "Comstock Act Still On The Books". Although its reach has been somewhat curtailed by the courts based upon first amendment principles, the Comstock Act remains on our books today. In 1971, Congress deleted the prohibition on birth control; but the prohibition on information about abortion remains, and the maximum fine was increased in 1994 from $5,000 to $250,000 for a first offense.
  11. ↑ Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (April 7, 2023). "Memorandum Opinion and Order in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration" (PDF).
  12. ↑ State of Washington v. United States Food and Drug Administration, No. 1:2023cv03026 – Document 80 (E.D. Wash. 2023), April 7, 2023, Order Granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
  13. ↑ Groppe, Maureen (March 25, 2024). "Abortion pill challenge gives Supreme Court chance to move toward national abortion ban". USA Today.
  14. 1 2 Smith, Tina (April 2, 2024). "I Hope to Repeal an Arcane Law That Could Be Misused to Ban Abortion Nationwide". The New York Times . Archived from the original on April 2, 2024. Retrieved April 2, 2024.
  15. ↑ Note that the following four items are modern-day terminology which are equivalent (or almost equivalent) to what the laws actually say. "Obscene" may be also called in the law texts as "vulgar", "indecent", "filthy" (Ruppenthal p. 48). "contraceptive" is an article for "preventing conception" (Ruppenthal, most all pages). "Abortifacient" may be "medicine or means for producing or facilitating miscarriage or abortion" (Ruppenthal p. 52). "Sex-toy" might be "instrument or article of indecent or immoral use" (Ruppenthal pp. 35, 49, etc.) or "instrument or article for self-pollution" (Ruppenthal p. 35)
  16. ↑ Stopes, Marie; Contraception …, London, John Bale, sons & Danielsson, Ltd., 1924, p. 353
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Dennett, Mary Ware (1926). Birth Control Laws. New York: The Grafton Press.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz. Rereading Sex: Battles Over Sexual Knowledge and Suppression in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Random House, 2002.
  19. 1 2 Ruppenthal, J.C. (1919). "Criminal Statutes on Birth Control". J. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology. 10 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 22, 2017.
  20. ↑ The Comstock Act 17 Stat. 598
  21. ↑ "Mrs. Bird, female physician To the Ladies – Madame Costello". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on May 20, 2015. Retrieved June 9, 2015.
  22. ↑ Buchanan, Paul D. The American Women's Rights Movement. p. 75.
  23. ↑ "Birth Control Laws: Shall We Keep Them, Change Them or Abolish Them". Journal of the American Medical Association. 107 (22): 1835. November 28, 1936. doi:10.1001/jama.1936.02770480067035. ISSN   0002-9955.
  24. ↑ Dennett, Mary Ware (1926). Birth Control Laws. New York: The Grafton Press.
  25. ↑ Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
  26. ↑ Abramson, Paul R. (2002). With Pleasure: Thoughts on the Nature of Human Sexuality. Oxford University Press US. p. 180. ISBN   0-19-514609-3.
  27. ↑ Starr, Paul (2004). The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications . New York City: Basic Books. pp.  243–244. ISBN   978-0-465-08194-3.
  28. ↑ "Petition for Stricter Obscenity Laws, 1887 | Records of Rights". recordsofrights.org. Archived from the original on July 25, 2015. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
  29. ↑ "Kate Chopin – Anthony Comstock". people.loyno.edu. Archived from the original on October 17, 2019. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
  30. ↑ Paul, James C.N. and Murray L. Schwartz (December 1957). "Obscenity in the Mails: A Comment on Some Problems of Federal Censorship". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 106 (2): 214–253. doi:10.2307/3310237. JSTOR   3310237.
  31. ↑ Murdoch, Joyce; Price, Deb (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court . New York: Basic Books. p.  47. ISBN   978-0-456-01513-1.
  32. ↑ One, Inc. v. Olesen , 355 U.S. 371 (1958).
  33. 1 2 Walker, Samuel (1990). In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU . Oxford University Press. p.  85. ISBN   0-19-504539-4.
  34. 1 2 "Biographical Note". The Margaret Sanger Papers. Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1995. Archived from the original on September 12, 2006. Retrieved October 21, 2006.
  35. ↑ Staff Reporters (September 11, 1915). "Disorder in Court as Sanger is Fined: Justices Order Room Cleared When Socialists and Anarchists Hoot Verdict" (PDF). The New York Times : 7.
  36. ↑ Kirsch, D.R.; Ogas, O. (2016). The Drug Hunters: The Improbable Quest to Discover New Medicines. Arcade Publishing. p. 131. ISBN   978-1-62872-719-7 . Retrieved May 9, 2017.
  37. ↑ Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
  38. ↑ Eisenstadt v. Baird , 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
  39. 1 2 3 Beisel, Nicola Kay (1997). Imperiled Innocents: Anthony Comstock and Family Reproduction in Victorian America . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-02779-1 . Retrieved April 9, 2023.
  40. ↑ Englemam, Peter C., History of the birth control movement in America. pp. 163–164. Prager 2011
  41. ↑ "Letter against the Comstock Act | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2018. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
  42. 1 2 "Four. Anthony Comstock versus Free Love: Religion, Marriage, and the Victorian Family", Imperiled Innocents, Princeton University Press, July 27, 1998, pp. 76–103, doi:10.1515/9781400822089.76, ISBN   978-1-4008-2208-9 , retrieved November 19, 2023
  43. ↑ Brooks, Carol Flora (1966). "The Early History of the Anti-Contraceptive Laws in Massachusetts and Connecticut". American Quarterly. 18 (1): 3–23. doi:10.2307/2711107. ISSN   0003-0678. JSTOR   2711107.
  44. ↑ "Woodhull and Claflin's weekly | Digital Collections". litsdigital.hamilton.edu. Retrieved November 21, 2023.

Related Research Articles

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Augustus Noble Hand</span> American judge (1869–1954)

Augustus Noble Hand was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. His most notable rulings restricted the reach of obscenity statutes in the areas of literature and contraceptives. He was the older first cousin of famed judge Learned Hand, who served on both courts with his cousin during most of Augustus Hand's tenure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anthony Comstock</span> American anti-vice activist (1844–1915)

Anthony Comstock was an American anti-vice activist, United States Postal Inspector, and secretary of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice (NYSSV), who was dedicated to upholding Christian morality. He opposed obscene literature, abortion, contraception, masturbation, gambling, prostitution, and patent medicine. The terms comstockery and comstockism refer to his extensive censorship campaign of materials that he considered obscene, including birth control advertised or sent by mail. He used his positions in the U.S. Postal Service and the NYSSV to make numerous arrests for obscenity and gambling. Besides these pursuits, he was also involved in efforts to suppress fraudulent banking schemes, mail swindles, and medical quackery.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mary Dennett</span> American pacifist and womens rights advocate (1872–1947)

Mary Coffin Ware Dennett was an American women's rights activist, pacifist, homeopathic advocate, and pioneer in the areas of birth control, sex education, and women's suffrage. She co-founded the National Birth Control League in 1915 together with Jessie Ashley and Clara Gruening Stillman. She founded the Voluntary Parenthood League, served in the National American Women's Suffrage Association, co-founded the Twilight Sleep Association, and wrote a famous pamphlet on sex education and birth control. A famous legal case against her eventually became the catalyst for overturning the Comstock laws.

The Hicklin test is a legal test for obscenity established by the English case R. v Hicklin (1868). At issue was the statutory interpretation of the word "obscene" in the Obscene Publications Act 1857, which authorized the destruction of obscene books. The court held that all material tending "to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was obscene, regardless of its artistic or literary merit.

<i>United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries</i> American birth control legal case in 1936

United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, 86 F.2d 737, was an in rem United States Court of Appeals case in the Second Circuit involving birth control.

This is a timeline of reproductive rights legislation, a chronological list of laws and legal decisions affecting human reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are a sub-set of human rights pertaining to issues of reproduction and reproductive health. These rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to birth control, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence. Reproductive rights may also include the right to receive education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization, abortion, and contraception, and protection from practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM).

The history of condoms goes back at least several centuries, and perhaps beyond. For most of their history, condoms have been used both as a method of birth control, and as a protective measure against sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis B and more recently HIV/AIDS. Condoms have been made from a variety of materials; prior to the 19th century, chemically treated linen and animal tissue are the best documented varieties. Rubber condoms gained popularity in the mid-19th century, and in the early 20th century major advances were made in manufacturing techniques. Prior to the introduction of the combined oral contraceptive pill, condoms were the most popular birth control method in the Western world. In the second half of the 20th century, the low cost of condoms contributed to their importance in family planning programs throughout the developing world. Condoms have also become increasingly important in efforts to fight the AIDS pandemic.

"Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress" is a letter by Benjamin Franklin dated June 25, 1745, in which Franklin counsels a young man about channeling sexual urges. Due to its licentious nature the letter was not published in collections of Franklin's papers in the United States during the 19th century. Federal court decisions from the mid- to late- 20th century cited the document as a reason for overturning obscenity laws.

An obscenity is any utterance or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time. It is derived from the Latin obscēnus, obscaenus, "boding ill; disgusting; indecent", of uncertain etymology. Generally, the term can be used to indicate strong moral repugnance and outrage in expressions such as "obscene profits" and "the obscenity of war". As a legal term, it usually refers to descriptions and depictions of people engaged in sexual and excretory activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Womb veil</span>

The womb veil was a 19th-century American form of barrier contraception consisting of an occlusive pessary, i.e. a device inserted into the vagina to block access of the sperm into the uterus. Made of rubber, it was a forerunner to the modern diaphragm and cervical cap. The name was first used by Edward Bliss Foote in 1863 for the device he designed and marketed. "Womb veil" became the most common 19th-century American term for similar devices, and continued to be used into the early 20th century. Womb veils were among a "range of contraceptive technology of questionable efficacy" available to American women of the 19th century, forms of which began to be advertised in the 1830s and 1840s. They could be bought widely through mail-order catalogues; when induced abortion was criminalized during the 1870s, reliance on birth control increased. Womb veils were touted as a discreet form of contraception, with one catalogue of erotic products from the 1860s promising that they could be "used by the female without danger of detection by the male."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birth control movement in the United States</span> Social reform campaign beginning in 1914

The birth control movement in the United States was a social reform campaign beginning in 1914 that aimed to increase the availability of contraception in the U.S. through education and legalization. The movement began in 1914 when a group of political radicals in New York City, led by Emma Goldman, Mary Dennett, and Margaret Sanger, became concerned about the hardships that childbirth and self-induced abortions brought to low-income women. Since contraception was considered to be obscene at the time, the activists targeted the Comstock laws, which prohibited distribution of any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail. Hoping to provoke a favorable legal decision, Sanger deliberately broke the law by distributing The Woman Rebel, a newsletter containing a discussion of contraception. In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, but the clinic was immediately shut down by police, and Sanger was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birth control in the United States</span> History of birth control in the United States

Birth control in the United States is available in many forms. Some of the forms available at drugstores and some retail stores are male condoms, female condoms, sponges, spermicides, and over-the-counter emergency contraception. Forms available at pharmacies with a doctor's prescription or at doctor's offices are oral contraceptive pills, patches, vaginal rings, diaphragms, shots/injections, cervical caps, implantable rods, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Sterilization procedures, including tubal ligations and vasectomies, are also performed.

The Free Speech League was a progressive organization in the United States that fought to support freedom of speech in the early 20th century. The League focused on combating government censorship, particularly relating to political speech and sexual material. It was a predecessor of the American Civil Liberties Union.

United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity and therefore not protected speech or expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the United States, discussion of obscenity typically relates to defining what pornography is obscene, as well as to issues of freedom of speech and of the press, otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and there are differences among such laws. Federal statutes ban obscenity and child pornography produced with real children. Federal law also bans broadcasting of "indecent" material during specified hours.

The obscenity trial over the publication of James Joyce's Ulysses in The Little Review, an American literary magazine, occurred in 1921 and effectively banned publication of Joyce's novel in the United States. After The Little Review published the "Nausicaa" episode of Ulysses in the April 1920 issue of the magazine, the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice instigated obscenity charges against Little Review editors Margaret Caroline Anderson and Jane Heap. The editors were found guilty under laws associated with the Comstock Act of 1873, which made it illegal to send materials deemed obscene through the U.S. Mail. Anderson and Heap incurred a $100 fine, and were forced to cease publishing Ulysses in The Little Review.

Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313 (1972), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of obscenity laws and criminal procedure to the states. On 29 August 1968, William Rabe, the manager of a drive-in movie theater in Richland, Washington, was arrested on obscenity charges for showing the film Carmen, Baby. Due to First Amendment concerns, the local court convicted Rabe not on the basis that the film as a whole was obscene, but that exhibiting it in a drive-in theater was. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that the citizens of Washington had no notice under the Sixth Amendment that the place where a film was shown was an element of the offense.

Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the First Amendment to Federal obscenity laws. One of a trio of cases, Ginzburg was part of the Supreme Court's attempt to refine the definitions of obscenity after the landmark 1957 case Roth v. United States.

Family Limitation is a pamphlet written by American family planning activist, educator, writer, and nurse Margaret Sanger that was published in 1914. It was one of the first guides to birth control published in the United States. The 16-page pamphlet details information on, and ingredients for, various contraceptive methods and included illustrations and instructions for use. After the pamphlet was released, Sanger was forced to flee the United States to Britain to avoid prosecution under federal anti-obscenity laws, the Comstock Act, which prohibited disseminating information about contraception.

References

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.