8 things to know about the Comstock Act, impacts on Hawaiʻi
HONOLULU (KHON2) — We've been hearing a lot about the Comstock Act lately, but there hasn't been much discussion on the details and what that will mean for Hawaiʻi.
So, KHON2.com did a bit of digging to find out what exactly the Comstock Act is and how it can impact laws already in place in Hawaʻi things to know about the Comstock Act; How it can impact Hawaiʻi.
The Comstock Act of 1873 played a significant role in restricting women's access to sex-related information and services in the United States. (By sex, we mean female.)
The Act was named after its sponsor, Anthony Comstock. It was a federal law that made it illegal to send or distribute 'obscene' materials via the mail.
This included anything related to contraception, abortion, sexually transmitted infections or sexual education. Anything that dealt with women's health issues were essentially deemed immoral or indecent by the men who ran the United States Congress of that time.
Something you have to remember about this time period. The Civil War had ended less than 10 years earlier. The Southern States were in the midst of a military occupation, and the dead from the conflict was in the millions.
Women had gained a bit of freedom during the war, much like during World War 2 when women were allowed to participate in the workforce; and the population needed to be rebuilt, which cannot be done without women. So, the morality of the day relied heavily on ensuring women provided a population of male workers for the workforce.
Here's how the Comstock Act specifically impacted abortion and reproductive health:
The Comstock Act made it illegal to distribute or even possess materials related to abortion. This meant that books, pamphlets, or any literature that provided information about abortion or how to perform one were forbidden.
Women seeking information or assistance regarding abortion could not access legal or safe resources.The Comstock Act also banned the distribution of information about contraceptive methods, which were seen as linked to the practice of abortion.
By limiting women's access to birth control information, the law indirectly forced women into situations where they might seek abortions to address unwanted pregnancies.
Physicians who performed abortions, even for medical reasons, could face serious legal consequences under the Comstock Act.
The law created a climate where doctors were often reluctant to openly discuss or perform abortion procedures, fearing legal repercussions.
This contributed to a lack of accessible, safe medical care for women who might have needed abortion services.
Since the Comstock Act severely restricted the distribution of abortion-related information, women had limited access to safe and legal abortion procedures.
Many were forced to turn to unsafe, unregulated methods, leading to a rise in botched abortions, which could result in injury or death. It wasn't until the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that women regained legal access to abortion services in many parts of the U.S.
The Comstock Act was a federal law, but states have the power to pass laws that protect or restrict reproductive rights, such as those in Hawaiʻi. Hawaiʻi has rather progressive laws when it comes to the protection of women and women's rights.
If the Comstock Act were revived or enforced more strictly at the federal level, it would not automatically override state laws like those we have in Hawaiʻi.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the concept that states can legislate in ways that protect certain rights. Because, remember, the concept of states' rights was one of the driving factors that led to the Civil War.
Hawaiʻi has strong protections for reproductive rights. The state has laws that protect access to abortion, contraception and education. These include provisions for birth control access, emergency contraception and abortion services.
Hawaiʻi has the legal parameters to use its state laws to protect access to contraception and abortion even if the Comstock Act were reinstituted.
The state would likely challenge the enforcement of any federal law that interferes with its ability to provide reproductive health services.
Like with the Civil War, a conflict could arise if the federal government actively enforced the Comstock Act to restrict access to reproductive healthcare information or services that infringed on the rights of states to determine issues like this for their citizens.
Legal experts predict that states with strong protections, like Hawaiʻi, could push back through litigation or legislative action if the federal government tried to enforce such a law in a way that contradicts the state's laws.
The key concern would be enforcement. The Comstock Act is centered on restricting the mailing and distribution of materials, which could include contraception-related information.
The U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies could be involved in regulating or preventing the distribution of such materials.
However, enforcement at the local level would likely be difficult to fully implement in states like Hawaiʻi, where the local government has made clear its commitment to reproductive rights.
Basically, the Comstock Act was an important tool in the criminalization of abortion and contraception in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Strong feminist movements were created in the aftermath of the Civil War. Women in the North had come to realize the power of their political involvement. Meanwhile, in the South, women came to understand their economic power. Through the 1870s up until the 1920s, women were a political and economic force to be reconned with.
Get news on the go with KHON 2GO, KHON's morning podcast, every morning at 8
So, the Comstock Act greatly restricted women's ability to access information and effectively worked to isolate them from essential knowledge about reproductive health and rights.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
New Nimbus COVID-19 variant — What you need to know
SALT LAKE CITY () — With reports of a new variant of COVID-19 out there, it's important to remain informed and prepare. Public health experts are saying that the new Nimbus variant is more contagious, and they're recommending COVID boosters. The official name of the new variant is NB.1.8.1, but it has been nicknamed Nimbus. spoke with Dr. Kelly Oakeson, Chief Scientist for Next Generation Sequencing and Bioinformatics at the Utah Public Health Lab with the Utah Department of Health about what you need to know about this new COVID-19 variant. According to Dr. Oakeson, the CDC is predicting that the Nimbus variant makes up anywhere from 38-50% of the current COVID cases in the United States. He also said that we've seen it in Utah, through a handful of clinical cases, and it's been detected in wastewater. As we have seen with previous variants, new mutations have made the virus more transmissible. 'It's better at attaching to our cells and infecting our cells and making us sick, but it also has mutations as well that help us avoid our immune response, right?' Dr. Oakeson explained. 'It has ways of avoiding our antibodies that we have built up against COVID, either from vaccination or from infection.' Symptoms are similar to current COVID symptoms: cough, fatigue, fever, loss of taste and smell, etc., he said. Four measles cases now reported in Arizona, first of this year What can you do to protect yourself? Dr. Oakeson recommended the same measures people have been taking all along to protect themselves against COVID. 'If you're not feeling well, stay in bed, rest up. If you have to go out and you're going to be in large places, put a mask on,' Dr Oakeson said. 'We know these N95, these surgical masks do a good job at helping prevent spread of respiratory viruses.' She also recommended getting a COVID booster if you haven't yet. 'If you got one last fall, and depending on your health status, you're probably okay. There are recommendations for people that are immunosuppressed or immunocompromised to get boosters more often,' he explained. If you haven't gotten a booster in the past year, Dr. Oakeson said that it's probably time to go out and get one. The formulation of the newest booster will provide some protection against the new variant, he said. From a public health perspective, Dr. Oakeson said that the biggest concern is a summer surge, where large groups of people would be infected, putting pressure on hospital systems. 'We tend to see COVID come in waves, you know, in the summer and then again in the winter, so we're keeping an eye out to see how that wave crests here as cases start increasing,' he said. New Nimbus COVID-19 variant — What you need to know Wildfire burns 1500 acres in France Canyon in Garfield County, not contained Judge blocks Trump's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles Rubio: US 'not involved' in Israel's strike inside Iran Highland man threatened to kill his wife and himself with rifle over financial dispute, charges say Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Breakthrough procedure helps prevent amputations for Sacramento area patients
( — A breakthrough surgery helping save limbs and lives took place in Sacramento on Wednesday morning. The procedure aims to treat people suffering from Peripheral Artery Disease. PAD is a serious and rarely-treated circulatory condition that restricts blood flow to the limbs due to narrowed blood vessels. It kills more people than breast, colon, and prostate cancer combined. 'Plaque that builds up in these arteries causes not only hardening of the arteries but also plaque in these blood vessels,' said Dr. Inder Singh, an interventional cardiovascular specialist at TLC Vascular. When blood can't flow properly, minor wounds can become dangerous. They can lead to infection and, in some cases, amputation. Michaels Distributing Center in San Joaquin County set to close, affecting over 200 jobs 'If they get an injury or they get a wound or they get a scratch, those will not heal because they don't have enough, adequate perfusion to heal those wounds,' Dr. Singh said. Helping to change patient outcomes, Dr. Singh is now performing a first-of-its-kind procedure using a newly FDA-cleared removable stent called SPUR. 'The idea with it is that basically that kind of treatment that deep penetrates into the tissue and treats it, it will prevent future closure or at least prolong the time from when the blood vessels close,' said Dr. Singh. 'Enabling the patients to be able to heal their wounds, which is really the main outcome we're looking for.' is the first in the Sacramento area to use SPUR, designed specifically for the small, fragile arteries below the knee. Unlike a traditional stent, the spur temporarily holds the vessel open and then is removed, leaving nothing behind. Charges filed against former Cal Fire employee in child pornography case 'We can see somebody on an outpatient basis one day and actually fix a problem rather than put a band-aid on, you know, the incorrect problem,' said Shelby Adney, a nurse practitioner at TLC Vascular. It's an innovative procedure now preventing amputations, healing wounds, and maintaining patients' normal lives. 'Once you can preserve that and heal their wounds… they get their life back,' Dr. Singh said. 'They're ambulatory. They can spend time with their family. You can do a lot of things that most people expect to do.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple.
Almost three years after the fall of Roe v. Wade made way for near-total abortion bans, state lawmakers are weighing whether to offer more specific guidance about when doctors can perform abortions in a medical crisis. Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee all passed laws this year ostensibly clarifying the scope of its abortion bans, a reaction to climbing sepsis rates and harrowing stories of patients who have suffered or died preventable deaths. Since June 2022, lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced such bills. But doctors, attorneys and policy experts say that the laws being enacted will not solve the problems health providers have been forced to navigate since the end of Roe: The risk of being punished has deterred physicians, hospitals and health systems from providing consistent care, even when it is needed. 'The problem with these clarifying laws is they don't expand access under the law, they don't change the definitions, and they don't remove the legislative interference in the practice of medicine,' said Molly Meegan, chief legal officer and general counsel to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In Texas, a bill that awaits Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's signature ostensibly clarifies when the state's near-total abortion ban allows for the procedure, saying explicitly that physicians do not need to wait until a patient is in imminent danger of dying to perform an abortion. The bill also requires training for doctors and lawyers on the state's abortion law. But lawmakers have made clear that the bill, crafted in consultation with Texas-based health professionals and abortion opponents, does not introduce new exceptions; Texas' ban does not allow for abortions in cases of rape, incest or fatal fetal anomaly. And if enacted, it would codify a Texas Supreme Court decision that found that the state's ban still applied even in cases with complications that could threaten a pregnant person's health.. Such was the case for Dallas woman Kate Cox, who experienced amniotic fluid leaking and cramping — which create the risk of bacterial infection — after discovering a likely-fatal fetal anomaly in her pregnancy. Some former abortion patients whose lives were endangered because of delayed or denied care, including several who challenged the Texas abortion ban, said they fear Senate Bill 31 may not address situations like theirs. Amanda Zurawski, who sued the state after being denied an abortion when experiencing a life-threatening condition called preterm premature rupture of membrane, said at a legislative hearing on the bill that it likely doesn't provide the clarity she would have needed. 'It is unclear whether SB 31 would have prevented my trauma and preserved my fertility had it existed in 2022, and I find that problematic,' Zurawski said. She only received care after she developed sepsis. Clarification bills can have mixed support in legislatures. Local physicians might back tweaks to exemption language if they see it as potentially lifesaving for their patients. Some anti-abortion advocates might also favor changes if the legislation can address certain medical emergencies that they believe fall outside of a state's ban, such as ectopic pregnancies or preterm premature rupture of membranes. But not all anti-abortion advocates or Republican lawmakers within these statehouses support even a small clarification. 'I think in all these cases, lawmakers are being pulled in different directions by these different constituencies,' said Mary Ziegler, an abortion law historian at the University of California, Davis. 'The bills themselves are kind of muddy, because they're trying to be different things to different people.' The end result are clarification laws that remain unclear to physicians and their employing hospitals and health systems, who can still face high penalties for violating an abortion ban. 'When the law isn't clear, physicians don't intervene,' Ziegler said. 'You're not going to be willing to gamble your liberty and your medical license on an uncertain interpretation of the law.' In Kentucky, doctors vocally opposed a Republican-backed bill that supporters said would help health professionals understand when they can provide abortions. Like in Texas, the state's ban only allows abortion when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life. The clarification bill listed specific conditions that would qualify for an exception to the ban — such as sepsis, hemorrhage or ectopic pregnancy — despite concern from doctors that a delineated list wouldn't be able to predict every possible situation where an abortion might save someone's life. Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the bill in March, calling gaps in the law 'literally a matter of life and death.' The state's legislature, where the GOP holds a supermajority, voted days later to override him. 'It's hard to create this laundry list of, 'This is OK, this is not OK,' because unfortunately, medicine is something with a bunch of gray areas,' said Dr. Caitlin Thomas, an OB-GYN in Louisville. In Georgia — where pregnant, brain-dead woman Adriana Smith remains on life-support until she can give birth later this summer, and where the death of Amber Thurman was attributed to the confusion created by the state's abortion ban — some lawmakers have asked physicians whether a clarification might allow doctors to provide abortions when the pregnancy threatens a patient's life, possibly by listing specific conditions that qualify for an exception. 'We encouraged them not to, and said that would not be helpful,' said Dr. Neesha Verma, an Atlanta-based OB-GYN. 'The more and more prescriptive you make these laws, the less space there is for clinical judgment.' Following a case filed by seven Tennessee patients who had been denied abortions under the state's ban, lawmakers in that state passed a law this year meant to clarify that, under the state's ban, abortions could be performed in cases of preterm prelabor rupture of membrane or severe preeclampsia, but that the exception did not include mental health emergencies. Mental health conditions including substance use disorder, depression and confirmed or probably suicide are the largest single cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the state, according to a 2022 report. The interest in clarifying bans — including from some lawmakers who oppose abortion — 'is a response to where we know the public is and the fact that we know the public is generally supportive of abortion access and also has been presented with these terrible preventable cases since Dobbs,' said Kimya Forouzan, who tracks state policy for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit abortion research organization. That ambiguity was on display in a Texas case last year. A state judge held that the state's abortion law exception permitted Cox to have an abortion when her doctors discovered the anomaly in her pregnancy. But the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, swiftly intervened, threatening legal action against any health care provider that performed an abortion on Cox. Cox ultimately left the state to terminate her pregnancy. Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine and author of 'Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood,' said state officials can do more to ensure health providers know their legal rights. 'It would be credible for states' attorneys generals and the prosecutors who are conservative to immediately issue statements of clarity, saying that they are opposed to these kinds of conditions, that they will not prosecute,' she said. The post New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple. appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
