A Victorian-era law passed 152 years ago to combat “moral bankruptcy” has emerged as the most potent weapon in the anti-abortion arsenal, threatening to circumvent state protections and create a nationwide abortion ban without a single vote in Congress. The Comstock Act of 1873, long considered a legal relic, is being weaponized by Project 2025 architects and Trump administration officials to criminalize the mailing of anything related to abortion care¹.
President Trump has already begun implementing the strategy outlined in Project 2025, signing executive orders on January 24, 2025, that rescinded Biden-era abortion protections and reinstated the Mexico City Policy². The coordinated approach suggests that Comstock enforcement could be implemented rapidly, potentially making abortion inaccessible nationwide regardless of state laws.
The Victorian Crusader Behind the Law
Anthony Comstock was a 29-year-old Civil War veteran and high school dropout when he convinced Congress to pass what would become one of America’s most enduring restrictions on reproductive rights³. Born in 1844 in New Canaan, Connecticut, Comstock was driven by personal tragedy and religious fervor to wage war against what he deemed “obscene” materials⁴.
The law Comstock championed made it a federal crime to transport “any 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 producing abortion” through the mail or common carriers⁵. Violators faced up to five years in prison with hard labor and fines up to $2,000⁶.
What made Comstock uniquely dangerous was not just his legislative success, but his enforcement power. Congress appointed him as a special agent of the U.S. Post Office Department, giving him unprecedented authority to inspect mail, search homes, and seize materials⁷. At the height of his power, Comstock carried a revolver and took credit for arresting thousands of people, driving at least 15 to suicide through his anti-vice crusades⁸.
Project 2025’s Modern Implementation Strategy
While the term “Comstock” doesn’t appear directly in Project 2025, the strategy is explicitly outlined on page 594, calling for “a Campaign to Enforce the Criminal Prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code §§ 1461 and 1462 Against Providers and Distributors of Abortion Pills That Use the Mail”⁹.
Project 2025 proposes that “the Department of Justice in the next conservative Administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills”⁹. This enforcement strategy would bypass the FDA’s safety determinations and override the democratic process entirely¹⁰.
The Heritage Foundation’s blueprint makes clear that far-right extremists are willing to “override and bypass the democratic norms of checks and balances to achieve their goals”¹⁰. By misapplying Comstock, they could effectuate a backdoor abortion ban while avoiding the unpopular and likely unsuccessful process of passing legislation through Congress¹⁰.
Trump Administration’s Early Actions
Trump has already begun implementing the Project 2025 agenda through executive action. His January 24, 2025 executive order “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment” rescinded two Biden orders that aimed to protect abortion access¹¹. The order claimed the previous administration “embedded forced taxpayer funding of elective abortions in a wide variety of Federal programs”¹¹.
On the same day, Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy, requiring foreign organizations to certify they don’t provide or promote abortion if they receive U.S. federal funds¹². The administration also directed federal prosecutors to scale back enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinical Entrances (FACE) Act, which protects abortion providers and patients from harassment¹³.
These actions signal that Trump’s Justice Department, led by Pam Bondi—an “ardent Project 2025 supporter”¹⁴—is preparing to implement the Comstock strategy outlined by conservative legal architects.
Legal Scope: What Could Be Banned
A literal interpretation of the Comstock Act could criminalize mailing virtually anything used in abortion care. The law prohibits mailing “every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing” intended for abortion¹⁵. Applied broadly, this could include:
Medication abortion drugs: Mifepristone and misoprostol, which account for more than 60% of all abortions in the U.S.¹⁶
Medical equipment: Surgical instruments, aspirators, ultrasound machines, forceps, and speculums¹⁶
Basic medical supplies: Lidocaine for anesthesia, antibiotics, and other medications routinely used in obstetric care¹⁶
Information materials: Any literature describing abortion procedures or medication¹⁷
The Biden Administration’s Department of Justice determined that the Comstock Act only applies when the sender intends for materials to be used for illegal abortion¹⁸. However, this interpretation is not binding on future administrations, and conservative legal scholars reject this “intent” standard entirely¹⁹.
State-Level Enforcement Already Underway
Conservative activists aren’t waiting for federal enforcement. Since November 2022, five cities and three counties have passed ordinances requiring residents to comply with the Comstock Act, criminalizing the shipping and receiving of abortion medications²⁰.
These local ordinances represent a novel legal strategy. Unlike traditional abortion bans that operate within state boundaries, Comstock-based ordinances claim to enforce federal law and therefore take precedence over state protections²⁰. This approach could potentially nullify state constitutional amendments protecting abortion rights that were approved by millions of voters¹⁶.
In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton has already sued a New York doctor for prescribing abortion pills to a Texas woman via telemedicine, testing the boundaries of interstate enforcement²¹. These cases are establishing legal precedents that could support broader Comstock enforcement.
The Prison Penalty Reality
Modern enforcement of the Comstock Act would carry severe criminal penalties. Doctors and providers face up to five years in prison for a first violation and up to 10 years for each subsequent violation²². The law makes no distinction between providing life-saving emergency care and elective procedures.
For context, these penalties exceed those for many violent crimes. A doctor providing abortion pills to save a woman’s life during a medical emergency could face longer prison sentences than someone convicted of assault in many states.
The criminalization would create a chilling effect on medical providers. Hospitals and doctors already reluctant to provide emergency pregnancy care due to state restrictions would face additional federal criminal liability, potentially endangering women with pregnancy complications¹⁶.
Constitutional and Legal Challenges Ahead
The revival of Comstock faces significant constitutional obstacles, but the current Supreme Court’s composition makes enforcement more legally tenable than ever before. Justices Thomas and Alito have already signaled support for Comstock enforcement during oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine²³.
However, legal experts argue that the anti-abortion interpretation of Comstock is legally flawed. Federal appellate courts reached consensus in the early 20th century that the Act only criminalizes materials sent for unlawful abortion and contraception²⁴. These decisions were made well before Roe v. Wade, meaning they don’t depend on constitutional abortion rights²⁴.
Congress has repeatedly reenacted the Comstock Act’s provisions without modifying the language in response to court decisions limiting its scope²⁴. This suggests Congressional acceptance of the narrow interpretation that only applies to illegal abortions.
International Context and Implications
If enforced as Project 2025 envisions, the United States would join a small group of nations with severe criminal penalties for abortion providers. The U.S. already has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations, and restricting access to emergency obstetric care could exacerbate this crisis¹⁶.
The global implications extend beyond domestic policy. Trump’s reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy affects international family planning programs in dozens of countries²⁵. The combination of domestic Comstock enforcement and international funding restrictions could position the U.S. as a global leader in restricting reproductive rights.
The Path Forward
Congressional Democrats have introduced the Stop Comstock Act to repeal the abortion-related provisions of the 1873 law²⁶. However, with Republican control of both chambers, legislative solutions appear unlikely in the near term.
The most immediate legal challenges will likely focus on prosecutorial discretion and constitutional due process arguments. Courts may also examine whether the law’s vague language violates modern constitutional standards for criminal statutes.
State governments in protective states are exploring their own enforcement mechanisms, potentially setting up conflicts between state and federal law enforcement that could require Supreme Court resolution.
What This Means for Americans
The Comstock Act represents the most serious threat to abortion access since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Unlike state-by-state restrictions, federal enforcement would affect every state simultaneously, potentially making abortion inaccessible even in states with strong protective laws.
The strategy’s appeal to anti-abortion activists lies in its simplicity: no new legislation required, no messy congressional debates, just enforcement of existing law. For reproductive rights advocates, this represents the fulfillment of their worst fears about the post-Roe landscape.
As one legal expert noted, the Comstock Act revival demonstrates that “when the first woman ran for president so many years ago, the opponents of social change launched a full-throttle attack on reproductive autonomy and free speech. And thanks to Project 2025, a remnant of that history remains with us today”²⁷.
The coming months will determine whether a law crafted by a 19th-century moral crusader will reshape 21st-century reproductive rights, potentially making abortion as inaccessible today as it was in Anthony Comstock’s Victorian America.
References
- Center for American Progress: “Project 2025’s Distortion of a Reconstruction-Era Law Could Enact a National Abortion Ban” (July 18, 2024)
- The White House: “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Enforces Overwhelmingly Popular Demand to Stop Taxpayer Funding of Abortion” (January 28, 2025)
- Smithsonian Magazine: “How the 150-Year-Old Comstock Act Could Transform the Abortion Debate” (June 15, 2023)
- Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression: “Why the 1873 Comstock Act still matters today” (October 2, 2024)
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: “How the Comstock Act Threatens Abortion Rights” (July 8, 2024)
- Britannica: “Comstock Act” (April 26, 1999)
- NPR: “How Anti-Vice Crusader Anthony Comstock Sabotaged The Birth Control Movement” (July 7, 2021)
- American Civil Liberties Union: “Anti-Abortion Extremists Want to Use the 150-Year-Old Comstock Act to Ban Abortion Nationwide” (May 30, 2024)
- Center for American Progress: “The Sweeping Consequences of the Far Right’s Plan To Effectuate a Backdoor National Abortion Ban in Project 2025” (July 18, 2024)
- Center for American Progress: “The Sweeping Consequences of the Far Right’s Plan To Effectuate a Backdoor National Abortion Ban in Project 2025” (July 18, 2024)
- The White House: “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment” (January 28, 2025)
- Reuters: “Trump uses executive power to reinstate anti-abortion pacts” (January 25, 2025)
- Maynard Nexsen: “President Trump’s Latest Executive Orders Impacting Health Care” (2025)
- American Civil Liberties Union: “Project 2025, Explained” (February 20, 2025)
- Wikipedia: “Comstock Act of 1873” (2025)
- Center for Reproductive Rights: “What is the Comstock Act?” (February 12, 2025)
- KFF: “The Comstock Act: Implications for Abortion Care Nationwide” (April 15, 2024)
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: “How the Comstock Act Threatens Abortion Rights” (July 8, 2024)
- Slate: “Project 2025 Comstock Act: Trump’s new abortion comment exposed” (August 22, 2024)
- KFF: “The Comstock Act: Implications for Abortion Care Nationwide” (April 15, 2024)
- NPR: “How the Comstock Act could be used to ban abortion nationwide” (April 10, 2024)
- Center for Reproductive Rights: “What is the Comstock Act?” (February 12, 2025)
- KFF: “The Comstock Act: Implications for Abortion Care Nationwide” (April 15, 2024)
- American Civil Liberties Union: “Anti-Abortion Extremists Want to Use the 150-Year-Old Comstock Act to Ban Abortion Nationwide” (May 30, 2024)
- Center for Reproductive Rights: “Trump Administration Reinstates Policy to Restrict Abortion Worldwide” (January 25, 2025)
- Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: “Sherrill Backs Legislation to Protect Abortion Access, Repeal Comstock” (June 20, 2024)
- TIME: “The Comstock Act’s Threat to Abortion Rights If Harris Loses” (September 12, 2024)
