COMSTOCK AND THE ABORTION PILL: America's top prig wins a victory from the grave

A long-comatose 1873 "anti-vice" law inspired by the nation's notorious morals crusader, Anthony Comstock, is now the basis of a federal court ruling potentially cutting off access to mail-order mifepristone. That's the pill that can be accessed by mail and is used in more than half of the nation's abortions — including in states where abortion is now banned.

Who was Anthony Comstock? He gained initial fame as the founder of the influential New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.  The goal of Comstock’s chief crusade was blocking access to information about birth control and abortion. But he also campaigned to stamp out “obscene” books, “dirty” pictures, birth control devices, sex toys, and anything else he thought might excite the nation's genitalia.

Comstock kicked off his anti-vice crusade by conducting vigilante raids on retailers. He and his followers raided stores and brazenly "confiscated" and handed over to police: “bad books” and “articles made of rubber for immoral purposes and used by both sexes.” Then, emboldened by the success of this extra-legal campaign, Comstock launched a national political movement to criminalize sex education of any kind, plus sex toys, racy illustrations and “bad books.”

His efforts were highly successful. Sensing electoral opportunity, politicians quickly became enthusiastic about banning "smut." Subsequently, in 1873, and largely in response to Comstoack's crusade, Congress passed, without debate, the "Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use." This "Comstock Act" defined all forms of sex education, particularly as it pertains to preventing or interrupting conception, as "obscene. " 

Here is an excerpt from that statute: "Whoever … shall sell, or lend, or give away, or in any manner exhibit … or shall otherwise publish … or shall have in his possession, any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, … or instrument … of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, … shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court." (That's not less than $2,200 and not more than $58,000 in today's dollars.)

This federal law, largely ignored for the past century, also specifies that it is a crime to send any "obscene" materials through the mail. That provision created an official government job for Comstock. He was appointed a "special agent" of the US Post Office with exclusive enforcement powers. He held this position — in essence, America’s sexual morality czar — for the next 42 years! 

In this capacity Comstock was empowered to prosecute anyone sending information about birth control, or committing any other "sexual offenses,” via the mail. Were many actually prosecuted? Upon retirement Comstock boasted that he had victoriously brought charges against more than 3,600 defendants and destroyed 160 tons of "sexual materials." And those materials included tons of  information about birth control.     

A crusading Comstock even provoked at least one rather well known suicide. Feminist Ida Craddock killed herself rather than be imprisoned for sending sex education information via the mail. Her suicide note reads, in part, “I am taking my life because a judge, at the instigation of Anthony Comstock, has declared me guilty of a crime I did not commit -- the circulation of obscene literature. Perhaps it may be that in my death, more than in my life, the American people may be shocked into investigating the dreadful state of affairs which permits that unctuous sexual hypocrite Anthony Comstock to wax fat and arrogant and to trample upon the liberties of the people, invading, in my own case, both my right to freedom of religion and to freedom of the press." 

In consequence of Comstock's puritanism, hundreds found themselves in federal prison. Now the Taliban style "Comstock Act" is the very law the Texas federal court raised, zombi-like, from the dead in order to ban prescription mail order mifepristone despite the Food and Drug Administration determination that this form of dispensation is safe.

.

 To further examine these and similar issues, see dozens of articles at www.newfoundations.com

 

TEACHING CRITICAL THINKING: some very big problems

There are more than 16,000 school districts in the United States and nearly all of them claim they teach ‘critical thinking.’ In fact if you Google search “critical thinking” + “school mission statement” you will get 175,000+ matches.  

School mission statements typically make claims such as this: “We believe in the development of critical thinking skills.” (Lordstown School District, Ohio.) But what does critical thinking amount to? Wikipedia says it involves: "the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical and unbiased analyses and evaluation." 

This procedure, when applied to things that really matter, reveals deep assumptions that socialization conditions us to take for granted. So successfully teaching students to think critically often runs afoul of that very socialization — one of schooling's primary, though generally unreflective, functions. 

What is socialization? "Making someone behave in a way that is acceptable to their society." (Oxford Dictionary of English.) For instance, making them conform to gender norms, avoid cultural taboos and engage in 'appropriate' manners. Such things define a society and play a major role in glueing it together. 

Take the common belief of many Americans that the United States is the best country in the world. That conviction is a result of socialization. Generally it is unreflective. Most who firmly believe this lack an adequate basis for comparison. For instance, most have never lived anywhere else. But critical thinking threatens this perception, It requires weighing the assertion and investigating whether or not there are other countries that might be as good or better.  

That investigating also requires deciding what criteria to apply. Suppose, for example, students test this claim by applying the criteria of life expectancy. Here the United States' ranks a dismal 40th. (World Population Review). The U.S. also ranks a discouraging 23rd in citizen happiness. (Oxford's World Happiness Report, 2024) Students might also discover that among developed countries, the U.S. has one of the world's highest income inequalities. (Wikipedia) Or that the Cato Institute ranks their "the land of the free" a dismal 23rd in human rights. (Switzerland is number 1.) In fact the United States has the sixth highest incarceration rate per thousand on the planet. While the United States contains just 4.2% of the world's population, it incarcerates 20% of the world's prisoners. (Wikipedia) 

On the other hand, they might also discover that the U.S. ranks number 1 in disposable income per person. The income an individual has left after subtracting payments for income taxes. [Investopedia]) Similarly, they could learn that while the United States has only 4.2% of the world's population, it accounts for 25% of the global economy and 30% of global wealth. They might also learn that the U.S. is first in Gross Domestic Product, 1st in innovation, 1st in higher education, 2nd in economic competitiveness, and a credible 5th in productivity,. (These rankings are from a variety of authoritative sources, principally Wikipedia.)

Let's imagine a high schooler critically considering such facts, going home and announcing that they don't think the U.S. is the greatest country on earth. Might that raise parental concerns? Especially if their youngster came to this conclusion based on what they learned in their tax-supported public school. Do you think the local school board might hear complaints about this sort of learning? Should the teacher expect kudos? Should the superintendent and principal batten down the hatches for a blow? 

Critical thinking would also involve seriously examining documents that most in the U.S. consider to be authoritative. The Constitution and the Bible come to mind. And remember, that examination requires the thinker to also take a close look at the authorities that interpret these complicated documents for us. How seriously should students take famed evangelist Joel Osteen' s interpretation of the Bible, for instance? Why him? Because Osteen offers Biblical interpretations that a whole lot of folks take seriously? He has written ten books, some of which were NY Times Best Sellers. His church claims 40,000 members and hundreds of thousands more follow him on mass media. Yet he's had no formal training in religion. He dropped out of college and never earned ordination. He inherited his pulpit from his father. Nevertheless, challenges to Osteen's authority will not be welcomed by those who admire him. Especially if they were spawned in the very schools they help pay for and now "infect" their child. 

The same applies to the Constitution and the interpretations of it by legal authorities such as the Supreme Court. Let's just consider Justice Clarence Thomas' interpretations. He's supposed to apply only his legal knowledge to help define the Constitution for the rest of us. Yet students engaged in thinking critically about it would quickly learn that he reluctantly admits accepting lavish trips, luxury vacations, cruises on opulent yachts and junkets on private jets from a conservative billionaire. Might the kids conclude that these gifts influence his opinions and undermine the quality of his decisions? Critical thinking certainly requires them to ponder that. But what about "right to life" parents who regard Clarence Thomas as uncommonly authoritative? Will they be happy when they learn their son or daughter are questioning his judgement,  indeed  questioning his very integrity, and that they learned to do that in public school?

Some argue it isn't necessary in teaching critical thinking to tackle controversial things like this head on. That by being taught generic methods of 'thinking critically,' learners will eventually bring these tools to bear on those deep assumptions and interpretive authorities that direct their lives. But many variables interfere with such transfer of learning. If we want young people to actually learn to think critically, teachers must provide them with direct and well-focused opportunities to examine issues that really matter. But if teachers do that, they better be prepared to look for another job. 

The stark fact is that it's impossible to foster critical thinking about anything of consequence without upsetting a whole lot of people. Critical thought is disturbing by its very nature. 

Worse still, encouraging student's to think critically about anything significant can, and asuredly will, be significantly misinterpreted. Moreover. misinterpretation will often be used for personal advantage by unprincipled opportunists. For instance, demagogic politicians who seek reelection at all costs or greedy televangelists who scare their followers in to buying them a personal jet. 

In the final analysis the emotional discomfort provoked by critical inquiry is the price of growing up. So if educators avoid fostering critical thinking, they are encouraging students to remain childlike intellectually and emotionally. This is particularly harmful in a democracy. Yet, ironically, it is precisely this sort of childishness that reinforces the socialization that is vital to societal survival.

Perhaps educators should encourage just enough critical thinking to allow societal adaptation to a changing world, but not enough to inadvertently provoke social disintegration. But where is this middle ground? And should we expect educators, school board members, politicians, and the public to stick their neck out searching for it? Besides, most of the above couldn't do it if they wanted too. Critical thinking is a rare commodity and well beyond most of them. Worse still, this middle ground is especially elusive in a society lacking consensus and riven with controversy. 

Then there is this. If teachers did succeed in surpassing their own limitations and actually get students to employ critical thinking, what would happen when these empowered youngsters focus on their own schooling? 

Imagine them critically examining how, what and why they are being compelled to learn — or at least pretend to. Picture them using all the available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments, then forming a judgement about their schooling based on the application of rational, skeptical and unbiased analyses and evaluation? What decisions might they reach? What actions might they take? What are the chances schooling would remain unchanged? Would any teacher. principal, superintendent or school board member feel more secure? Would parents be happy with the results? You decide.

-- GKC