Senate Democrats proposed legislation on June 20 that would repeal an 1800s-era law they say could be used to restrict abortion and its pill form.
Senate Democrats proposed legislation on June 20 that would repeal an 1800s-era law they say could be used to restrict abortion and its pill form.
The law, known as the Comstock Act, prohibits the mailing of various items—including those intended to induce an abortion.
Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.), who co-sponsored the repeal bill, said “women didn’t have the right to vote or even open their own bank accounts” when Comstock was written.
“If given the power, anti-choice Republicans have made it clear that they will use this 150-year-old law to enact a national abortion ban without Congress or the American people’s approval,” she said in a press release.
Her office pointed to Project 2025, a conservative roadmap organized by the Heritage Foundation to promote policies former President Donald Trump might pursue if he retakes the White House.
The project consists of a “broad coalition of conservative organizations that have come together to ensure a successful administration begins in January 2025,” according to the group’s website.
Part of Project 2025 cites provisions (18 U.S.C. 1461 and 18 U.S.C. 1462) of the Comstock Act in calling on the Food and Drug Administration to “[s]top promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
Former President Trump, meanwhile, has generally advanced the idea that individual states should make decisions about abortion.
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) and her colleagues also introduced a companion bill to repeal Comstock in the House. The repeal will likely have a steeper hill to climb in the Republican-controlled House.
Legal Status of Abortion Pill
The abortion pill has become increasingly important to the debate over abortion access since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. In doing so, it allowed states to create a patchwork of access across the country—making it harder for some women to reach clinics for in-person procedures.
By Sam Dorman
