The Man Who Hated Sex Toys

The Comstock Act was meant to be a relic of the past. It's becoming increasingly evident that the spirit of Anthony Comstock lives on.

In conducting research for my book, I spent some time digging into the strange story of Anthony Comstock, the 19th-century dry goods merchant who dedicated his life to fighting sexual liberties and suppressing reproductive rights.

In his time, Comstock was ridiculed as a geekish prude. Emma Goldman, the Russian-born anarchist writer, referred to him as the leader of America's "moral eunuchs." Indeed, in the cartoon from 1906 above (courtesy Library of Congress), he’s depicted as a monk thwarting shameless displays of excessive flesh, whether that of women, horses, or dogs. But for all the criticism we can level at him, we must also credit him with changing the course of history.

In 1873, the portly man from New Canaan, Connecticut, convinced Congress to pass the Comstock Act which made it illegal and punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both, to send six types of material through the mail: erotica, contraceptive medications or devices, abortifacients (substances that trigger abortions), sexual implements (what we’d today call sex toys), contraceptive information, and advertisements for contraception, abortion, or sexual implements.

As the twentieth century got under way, the Comstock Act gradually lost its teeth, thanks to various pieces of legislation coming into effect (look up Hannah Stone and the United States v. One Package case, for example. And later the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut decision). And then— exactly 100 years after it passed—the Supreme Court in 1973 decided Roe v Wade, guaranteeing a pregnant person’s constitutional right to an abortion. 

The Comstock Act still technically existed but much had changed. It was meant to be a fascinating but outdated relic of the past; something with little, if any, modern relevance. And yet, in recent months as Americans have come to grips with the potential implications of the fall of Roe, it’s become obvious that the spirit of Anthony Comstock lives on. 

Specifically, opponents of abortion rights have started to invoke the Comstock Act as a legal basis for preventing the mailing of abortion medication. 

In April, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk—a Trump judicial appointee— issued a preliminary ruling in a lawsuit relating to the distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. The ruling invalidated the Food and Drug Administration’s 2000 approval of the pill. Judge Kacsmaryk agreed with practically every single one of the plaintiffs’ arguments in the ruling, including the claim that the Comstock Act makes abortion pills “nonmailable.”

Later, an appellate court struck part of Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision, but the court did affirm parts of it, including that the Comstock Act would be violated “merely by knowingly making use of the mail for a prohibited abortion item.” Oral arguments were heard on the case this week. 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on mifepristone. Until then it will remain available. But if the Supreme Court does side with Judge Kacsmaryk, it could well imply that we are returning to an older interpretation of the Comstock Act, one from a bygone era: from the Gilded Age.

And, citing David S. Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University, the New York Times reported that doing this would have repercussions far beyond mifepristone, because the Comstock Act does not only refer to drugs but also to anything used for an abortion; things like surgical gloves and medical devices.

“Everything in a doctor’s office comes from the mail or FedEx or UPS or some version of that,” Professor Cohen told the Times. “So if you can’t mail anything that’s used to induce an abortion, it would end abortion nationwide.”

For a fascinating read on the influence of Comstock and the fight for birth control and abortions in the Gilded Age, look up one of my favorite books out this year: Jennifer Wright’s incredible biography of Madame Restell.

From Fifty to Forty

Elsewhere this week I read a moving essay by Heather Landy, the executive editor of Quartz, on her breast cancer diagnosis. She penned it in the aftermath of an influential panel of experts—the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force—this month revising its guidance on the age at which women should start getting routine mammograms. It now recommends screenings from age 40 rather than age 50.

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer deaths for women in this country, and in its analysis the Task Force concluded that starting routine screenings a decade earlier than previously recommended could result in 19 percent more lives being saved.

The Task Force also acknowledged that Black women are 40 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than White women. It called for more research to be done into the underlying causes for this inequity, and how it can be fixed.

The potential to save lives is, of course, the primary reason why the change in guidelines is excellent news, but there’s a huge economic benefit too. According to the CDC, breast cancer has the highest treatment cost of any cancer, accounting for 14% of all cancer treatment costs. In 2020, the cost for medical services was $26.2 billion and $3.5 billion for prescription drugs. Unsurprisingly, breast cancers diagnosed at an early stage are much less expensive to treat than those diagnosed at a late stage.

‘Changing, Evolving, and Being Fearless’

And finally this week, a moment to honor Martha Stewart who, at 81, has become the oldest person to grace the cover of Sports Illustrated's yearly swimsuit issue.

Everyone seems to have an opinion. Has she broken the internet? Has she gone too far? Has she had loads of botox and a boob job?

Whatever.

Stewart, who gained prominence in the 1980s for her party tips and cookbooks and then built a media empire (before serving time in prison in 2004 for obstructing a federal securities investigation) just seemed really happy about the whole thing.

“My motto has always been: ‘when you’re through changing, you’re through,’ so I thought, why not be up for this opportunity of a lifetime?” she wrote on Instagram. “I hope this cover inspires you to challenge yourself to try new things, no matter what stage of life you are in. Changing, evolving, and being fearless—those are all very good things, indeed.” I wonder what Anthony Comstock would think.

Thanks for reading. As ever, comments, questions and criticism are always welcome. And please feel free to share this newsletter with others who might enjoy it.