Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

melm00se

(5,164 posts)
28. While the Comstock Laws are archaic
Fri Mar 11, 2022, 04:13 PM
Mar 2022

and have taken a Supreme Court hit, they are still on the books.

Section 2 of the Comstock Laws says:



That section one hundred and forty-eight of the act to revise, consolidate, and amend the statutes relating to the Post-office Department, approved June eighth, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, be amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 148. That no obscene, lewd, or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture, paper, print, or other publication of an indecent character, or any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion, nor any article or thing intended or adapted for any indecent or immoral use or nature, nor any written or printed card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or of whom, or by what means either of the things before mentioned may be obtained or made, nor any letter upon the envelope of which, or postal-card upon which indecent or scurrilous epithets may be written or printed, shall be carried in the mail, and any person who shall knowingly deposit, or cause to be deposited, for mailing or delivery, any of the hereinbefore-mentioned articles or things, or any notice, or paper containing any advertisement relating to the aforesaid articles or things, and any person who, in pursuance of any plan or scheme for disposing of any of the hereinbefore-mentioned articles or things, shall take, or cause to be taken, from the mail any such letter or package, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall, for every offense, be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor not less than one year or more than ten years, or both, in the discretion of the judge."


So the laws are on the books and postal inspectors can act upon it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

they spent x amout of years and wasted monies so that women cant get healthcare AllaN01Bear Mar 2022 #1
At least there are pills now I guess. Lucky Luciano Mar 2022 #4
I bet State houses Rebl2 Mar 2022 #8
Except it's illegal to ship the pills within the state of Texas. Lonestarblue Mar 2022 #9
Well, the internet is where women will go to order their meds. CTyankee Mar 2022 #12
I don't know how they could even track such shipments, but it's in the law. Lonestarblue Mar 2022 #18
While the Comstock Laws are archaic melm00se Mar 2022 #28
Thanks for posting. That sheds light on why Republicans think they can make shipping pills illegal. Lonestarblue Mar 2022 #33
Well, people can get oxycodone and cocaine and fentanyl apparently readily jeffreyi Mar 2022 #29
Enforced by private citizens DBoon Mar 2022 #41
Hopefully the Dems can run against this in 2022. Don't let them texasize the nation. - n/t Jim__ Mar 2022 #2
Yes Virgina, THE SUPREME COURT DOES MATTER!!! JohnSJ Mar 2022 #3
must control women no matter what.. mountain grammy Mar 2022 #5
When will TX add the part about not letting women cross the border to get healthcare? CrispyQ Mar 2022 #6
I predict a "brain drain" which will befall the state of Texas. CTyankee Mar 2022 #7
I hope so Rebl2 Mar 2022 #10
Women of Texas... 2naSalit Mar 2022 #11
AGREE!!! bluestarone Mar 2022 #14
True NHvet Mar 2022 #15
This is awful but I don't understand the ruling and how it affects the challenge LymphocyteLover Mar 2022 #13
Here's how the Texas Tribune explained it. Jim__ Mar 2022 #17
Right-- I don't understand how determining that medical licensing officials enforcing the law LymphocyteLover Mar 2022 #20
I believe the key is the "private enforcement mechanism." Jim__ Mar 2022 #34
Yes but I'm not clear on why judges who rule on the abortion lawsuits aren't officials in charge of LymphocyteLover Mar 2022 #44
Is there a possibile way to code women's reproductive rights into... Budi Mar 2022 #16
Good thought... but was VAWA actually reauthorized? LymphocyteLover Mar 2022 #21
Just needs one more hurdle to jump over. Budi Mar 2022 #27
it is so ridiculous but Republithings are gonna be Rethuglicants LymphocyteLover Mar 2022 #43
Texas... BlueIdaho Mar 2022 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author turbinetree Mar 2022 #22
No they didn't FBaggins Mar 2022 #23
What about the legal principle that wnylib Mar 2022 #26
Not an unreasonable argument FBaggins Mar 2022 #32
But aren't judges who rule on the payments from people who sue responsible for enforcing the law??? LymphocyteLover Mar 2022 #24
From Elie Mystal: "...what makes abortion difficult is not some fancy lawyering from the right, ancianita Mar 2022 #25
Good thing Greg locked up all of the rapist? czarjak Mar 2022 #30
To all you MFer's who were SOOO concerned about Hillary's this or that I say Fuck YOU. NoMoreRepugs Mar 2022 #31
It's a step in the wrong direction Farmer-Rick Mar 2022 #35
Well. Gov Newsome used the SAME LAW - just changed abortion to Guns - To control Guns in CA. Tommymac Mar 2022 #36
Yeah, that's messed up too. Farmer-Rick Mar 2022 #39
YAY, TEXAS!! LudwigPastorius Mar 2022 #37
There's essentially no way to stop private bounty hunters from violating the constitution LetMyPeopleVote Mar 2022 #38
Is there a loophole in this? SpankMe Mar 2022 #40
Time to leave Tejas, folks. paleotn Mar 2022 #42
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Texas Supreme Court deals...»Reply #28