As the landscape of reproductive health continues to shift in the United States, there is a growing concern among legal professionals and advocates alike with regards to the Comstock Act. A dormant but persisting piece of legislation from the late 19th century, the Comstock Act, notably makes the mailing, possession, or sale of “obscene materials” illegal, a definition broad enough to encompass medicine or instruments used in abortions. The dormant nature of the law may soon change, with clear indications from a recent hearing in the Supreme Court case, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
Insights from the oral arguments in the case hint at a complex legal future. According to reports, the safety of mifepristone, an abortion drug, seems assured for now. However, it has also become apparent that some of the justices may be open to banning the drug under the Comstock Act. The question now looms: who will be the first congressperson brave enough to propose a repeal of the Comstock Act before it can be used in this way? While no firm answers have been presented yet, it’s clear that a dialogue is starting with potential legislative implications.
This legal, ethical, and political conundrum serves as a reminder of how legacy laws can still pose significant challenges. Even those like the Comstock Act, essentially dormant for decades, have the potential to rise again, invoking significant consequences for reproductive rights access. While repealing a dormant law may be an uphill battle, as it is deeply intertwined with the social and cultural fabric of a society, it is a fight that may be inevitable in order to protect modern freedoms and rights.
Read the full discussion over at Above the Law.