Who is Anthony Comstock? And How Is He Fucking Up Your Life

 

Big Brother in the Bedroom: The Comstock Act Returns

 

If you knew how the Comstock Act has been used to police and suppress both freedom of speech and people’s private lives, including their intimate lives, you would be shocked. Read on.

Anthony Comstock was a 19th-century Civil War veteran who became obsessed with sex, pornography, and even his own masturbation habits, which disturbed him, so he went on a crusade to rid the world of these “vices.”

This is the first of many peculiar events you will read about in this article. Much like many individuals we know or have heard of—politicians, business leaders, community leaders, religious figures, and influencers of all kinds—who have their own flaws, but they choose not to get rid of these shortcomings. Instead, they embark on a crusade to eradicate these flaws in others.Comstock believed that illicit sex was destroying the nation. He found wealthy patrons in the YMCA, which was backed by New York millionaires, and set out to transform the meaning of obscenity in New York before taking the crusade nationally. In many ways, we’re still living with the legacy of that crusade today.

One of Comstock’s backers from that time was Samuel Colgate of Colgate toothpaste, who marketed Vaseline as a contraceptive. while funding Comstock’s obscenity campaign. (Note Well, Vaseline is not a contraceptive—do not try it!), There was a lot of hypocrisy among the wealthy involved in this campaign, which is not so unusual in this day and age either.

the 1873 Comstock Act was an anti-vice law that criminalized transmitting any obscene literature and articles of immoral use via U.S. mail, including items designed for the prevention of conception or the procuring of abortion. Due to its very loose wording, It morphed into something a lot more disturbing and intrusive. However, until recently, the law had been relegated to the dustbin of history although not stricken out. But some ultra right-wing lawyers and judges, are now trying to revive it, and their efforts are having some success.

Silencing Speech, Controlling Women’s rights: Comstock in the 21st Century

If you knew how the Comstock Act was used to police and suppress both freedom of speech and people’s private lives, including their intimate lives, you would be shocked. Unfortunately, through Agenda 47, Project 2025, the right-wing faction of the Supreme Court, as well as other lower court judges, lawyers, and ultra-conservative politicians, you may soon have the unwelcome experience of finding out what it was like to live under the Comstock Act yourself. This is especially true if you haven’t already felt its impact through the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the subsequent attack on women’s rights.

Woodhull’s Bold Move: How Exposing Hypocrisy Paved the Way for Comstock’s Revenge

It all started with Victoria Woodhull, a prominent figure in the suffrage movement, and how her objection to the sexual double standards of the day led to the disastrous passage of the Comstock Act, which is still in force today.

Victoria Woodhull, along with her sister Tennessee Claflin, published a newspaper called Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly. This publication, established in 1870, was one of the first newspapers in the United States to be published by women. It covered a range of topics including women’s right to vote, political reform, and social issues.

Woodhull decided to expose the affair of preacher Henry Ward Beecher with one of his parishioners, in her newspaper, showcasing the hypocrisy of devout men.

Comstock seized on this opportunity, prosecuting her under existing obscenity statutes, to gain publicity for himself. However, the case against her newspaper failed because the judge held the law didn’t apply to the press. This win proved to be a double-edged sword, and the loss gave Comstock the momentum to push for a more robust obscenity law, which led to the enactment of the Comstock Act a tougher obscenity law, aptly named after him.

Side Note from the Editor

(If Woodhull thought that sexual double standards, sexual abuse and the hypocrisy of devout men was rife in 1870, she would have a field day in 2024. With so many scandals to write about, her 16-page newspaper would probably be 10 times larger.)

Books on Trial: How the Comstock Act Targeted Literature and Knowledge, Censoring Words, Silencing Minds

Beyond targeting sexual and reproductive content, the Comstock Act was slowly used to police other kinds of speech, books for instance. For example, some of the most famous works of literature such as The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio and The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer were banned under the Comstock Act which aimed to suppress the distribution of “obscene” literature, and these classic works were among those deemed inappropriate and banned from being mailed in the United States.

Medical textbooks were also targeted under the Comstock Act because they often contained information about contraception, abortion, and sexual health which were considered “obscene” under the Act. This included educational content that provided knowledge about reproductive health and as a result, medical textbooks that discussed these topics were banned from being mailed, significantly hindering the dissemination of important medical knowledge

Does this remind you of what’s happening in some states today For example, recently, a variety of books have been banned from school libraries in Florida. These include:

  • Books with LGBTQ+ themes: Titles that explore LGBTQ+ identities and experiences are frequently targeted.
  • Books addressing racial issues: Works that discuss racism, historical injustices, and the experiences of marginalized communities have also been removed.
  • Books with sexual content: Texts that contain sexual education or explicit content have been banned.
  • Books considered politically controversial: Titles that present viewpoints or historical perspectives that are seen as politically contentious have been targeted. For example, the book “Flamer” by Mike Curato was removed from all school libraries.

In fact, a total of 386 books were removed from school libraries in Florida last year.

Prosecuting the Prosecutors: Echoes of Comstock in Trump’s Legal Battles

Here’s another Interesting reminder from the past for those that say, “these things can’t happen”. Sometimes members of vice-suppression societies, who were supposed to enforce these obscenity laws, would get arrested for merely acknowledging these obscene materials existed when writing their fundraising reports. Merely writing about obscene material was deemed to be obscene itself. The enforcement of the law became chaotic and far-reaching.

This reminds me of Trumps threat to prosecute every lawyer who prosecuted him under State and Federal laws if he becomes President again and the move by Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss Trumps classified documents case on the basis that the office of Special Counsel is unconstitutional although the role of special counsel in the U.S. has a long history, dating back to the 1800s.

It should be noted, Anthony Comstock did acknowledge a health exemption was inferred in the Comstock Act in 1915, shortly before he died. He said he didn’t want to target doctors protecting patients’ lives, only “quacks.” However, today’s anti-choice movement has interpreted the Act much more literally, resisting even life and health exemptions.

Corruption in the Enforcement of Comstock

What is of most interest to us these days, is to see how in the US, an extreme, loosely defined law could be sold to the people and legislators as an anti-vice law, but once enacted lead to something completely contrary to what main stream society thought it meant.

It got worse because the enforcement of Comstock became corrupted, particularly in the role of anti-vice societies that sprung up in the aftermath of the enactment of the Comstock Act . You could say, a strange public-private partnership evolved with extremist supporters of the act and others who could see financial benefit in supporting it, came into play.

The societies for the suppression of vice were private citizens who worked with people like Anthony Comstock to bait and entrap suspects by posing as family members or even as women seeking contraception or abortion. If the suspect fell for the ploy and agreed to help them, they would arrest them and claim the financial reward being offered. Comstock and others were incentivized to make these arrests because they received a percentage of the fines imposed.

Comstock has figured prominently in the mifepristone litigation, a case concerning medication abortion where one of the arguments was that sending abortion pills through the mail violated the law.

Comstock has been a focus of Project 2025, which has urged enforcement of the law under a potential future Trump administration. While reviving this “zombie” law already seems dystopian, it becomes much worse when you look at its history and how it was enforced.

Resistance to the Comstock Act

However, Comstock was not without its detractors, especially from suffragists and early feminists. Their resistance began almost immediately, and as Comstock prosecutions became more extreme, it provoked mockery and protest.

In 1905, George Bernard Shaw, the renowned playwright, played a major role in moving public opinion against Comstock when he coined the mocking term, Comstockery, to expose its excesses. Shaw created this ridiculing nickname to describe the prudish and censorious attitudes of Anthony Comstock, in response to Comstock’s prudish objection to his play, Mrs. Warren’s Profession.

Comstockery became the battle cry of suffragists and civil libertarians who increasingly argued that the law wasn’t just suppressing sexual freedom, but also political speech, and they used civil disobedience to make their voices heard.

Comstock’s Legacy and the Modern-Day Implications

Taking all the above into account, we have to ask the question, what does the history of Comstockery tell us about the revival of Comstock in today’s legal battles, particularly in the context of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization?

Professor Reva Siegel

Here I can do no better than to quote Professor Reva Siegel the Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Her work primarily focuses on constitutional law, legal history, and issues of law and inequality. She explores how courts interact with representative government and popular movements in interpreting the Constitution.

She said, in a recent podcast called Strict ScrutinyIt is outrageous to read the narrow focus on statutes in the Dobbs decision which rely on a narrow focus of old statutes that were enacted at a time when women and people of color couldn’t participate in the electoral process. This exclusionary narrative ignores the voices of those who were denied participation in shaping our history. The revival of Comstock, which failed to stop progress even in its own time, feels deeply misaligned with the broader history of our constitutional democracy.”

I agree and I hasten to point out that many decisions that have been handed down in the last hundred years that do not support undemocratic processes, or which supported women’s rights to choose the best health care options in their situation were ignored.

I hope this article about a law that should have been stricken out and forgotten long ago but is still on the books has awakened you to the danger that could be revived and given a new life in a future administration that uses Project 2025 as it’s guidebook.

I will give the last word to the Co-host of Strict Security who said “: The current efforts to revive Comstock and apply it to police intimate lives are fundamentally at odds with modern constitutional interpretations, especially regarding free speech and reproductive rights. This history shows just how dangerous it would be to return to the world these revivalists envision”.

Caught on Camera: A Blatant Admission of Election Interference

 In what seems like an explosive confession in a recent TV interview, Donald Trump said: “Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it? You get indicted and your poll numbers go up. When people get indicted, your poll numbers go down.”

That’s what Donald Trump just said in a public interview. So, the question on most people’s mind now is, what is Jack Smith’s response going to be hearing Donald Trump confess out loud that he did indeed interfere in the election?

Glenn Kirschner, a retired federal prosecutor, said in an interview with Brian Taylor Cohen, “From a prosecutor’s perspective, Donald Trump’s mouth is the gift that keeps on giving. Everything that tumbles out of his mouth is what’s called a statement of a party opponent.”

What does that mean? It means it can all be introduced as evidence against him at trial. When he says, “I interfered in the election, and I got indicted and my poll numbers went up,” that is an admission that he interfered in an election.

Trump’s Self-Incrimination: How the Rules of Evidence Leave Him Exposed

The Rules of Evidence: When Jack Smith goes to trial against Donald Trump, he is going to be able to choose from everything Donald Trump has ever said that he did, and he’s going to be able to introduce statements of a party opponent—Donald Trump for instance, on camera saying he interfered in an election.

Another interesting fact about the Rules of Evidence is that Donald Trump’s lawyers can’t put witnesses on the stand to explain away his comments by saying, “Wait a minute, what Donald Trump meant by that was…” That would be hearsay.

The only person who will have a right to take the stand and explain what he meant when he told an interviewer he interfered in an election is Donald Trump himself. If he does that, he will be cross-examined thoroughly by Jack Smith’s prosecutors.

We all know Donald Trump cannot take the stand in his own defense because he is his own worst enemy on the stand. This gives Jack Smith a buffet of incriminating statements that Donald Trump has been saying for years to present to a jury and convict him.

Trump’s Legal Checkmate: Damned if He Talks, Damned if He Doesn’t

Kirschner also said, “The only impediment to getting Donald Trump convicted for his felony crimes of trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is getting the damn case into trial. The proof, the evidence, is going to be overwhelming.” Kirschner, is referring here to Trump’s so far mainly successful tactic of getting his trials postponed by making many, often frivolous, appeals to State and Federal appeals courts.

To answer the question, has Trump screwed himself? The answer is the only way he would be able to defend his comments is if he himself took the stand. If he does that, he opens himself up to a bloodbath at the hands of prosecutors who would finally be able to question him in a venue where he wouldn’t be allowed to lie as he freely does in the public arena, such as at his rallies and in interviews. So, in short, yes, he has put himself in legal jeopardy. He is damned if he takes the stand and lies and damned if he doesn’t.

Trump’s Greatest Enemy in Court? His Own Statements

That’s what the Rules of Evidence provide, and that’s what Donald Trump never considers. He is forever trying his case in the court of public opinion, where there are no rules of evidence, no rules of law, and the Constitution doesn’t control what people say. But once the case moves into court, Jack Smith can call a witness or just press play on a videotape where Donald Trump says, “Yeah, I interfered in an election, and my poll numbers went up.” At its core, that is an incriminating statement because he admitted he interfered in an election.

Donald Trump’s defense attorneys might argue that on another occasion, Trump gave an interview where he said he didn’t interfere in an election and request to play that tape for the jury. However, the judge would deny that request because a defendant can’t play his own out-of-court statements for the jury—only the prosecution can do that since it’s a statement of a party opponent.

This forces Trump to take the stand if he wants to try to explain it away.

Packing Up Trouble: Trump’s Document Confession Becomes Key Evidence

Kirschner highlighted another circumstance where Donald Trump is the best witness for the prosecution.

Trump took a whole bunch of documents when he left the White House. We don’t know who packed those boxes, but it is unlikely Trump did and carried them himself. So, Jack Smith would have had a massive task to prove Trump knew or authorized each document to be taken. That would have been a challenging proposition for Smith to prove. But once Trump started publicly admitting it, with words to the effect “You’re darn right I took those documents, I had every right to do that,” he removed the need to call numerous witnesses. Trump admitted it, making him his own worst enemy and the most compelling incriminating witness against himself at trial.

Jack Smith has been active in the grand jury recently, returning new indictments against Trump, including superseding or subsequent indictments. Kirschner suggested that prosecutors often continue to present evidence of a defendant’s admissions of guilt, leading to further indictments as additional crimes and codefendants emerge.

Trump’s High-Stakes Strategy: Admitting Crimes to Win Votes, Lose in Court

Donald Trump’s strategy appears to be admitting crimes publicly to make them seem less criminal. He hopes that if he admits things in broad daylight, it will seem less serious because it’s hard to believe someone would openly admit to a crime. He plays to the court of public opinion, hoping to sway enough people to vote for him, possibly allowing him to avoid legal consequences if re-elected. However, this strategy doesn’t account for how these statements will play in a court of law, which is ultimately the arena that matters.

Elections Under Attack

Elections Under Attack

MAGA’s Tactics to Sabotage Democracy in Battleground States

The steps that Donald Trump and MAGA will take to suppress the vote and disenfranchise people in battleground states to try and steal the election, know no boundaries. Here are just two examples of MAGA’s tactics. No wonder Trump regularly says, he doesn’t need people to vote for him.

Arizona’s New Barriers to Voting: Citizenship Proofs and Legal Hurdles

Recently, the Republican National Committee, on behalf of Donald Trump, obtained an order from the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, impacting Arizona’s registered voters and those who need to register by the October 7th deadline. Despite publicly claiming support for counting every vote, privately, they are working to disenfranchise voters, especially in states like Arizona, where Joe Biden won by only 10,000 votes and where Senator Mark Kelly (D) is ahead by a narrow margin.

The new Supreme Court decision affects how voters prove citizenship before they can vote. Previously, individuals could register by signing an oath, acknowledging the legal consequences of fraudulent voting. However, after losing in 2020, Arizona’s Republican legislature introduced stricter requirements, making the registration process more cumbersome. They increased the hurdles by requiring voters to present additional documentation, such as a passport or birth certificate, and mandated that election clerks verify citizenship through databases, creating significant barriers.

Locked Out: The New Barriers Targeting First-Time Voters in Arizona

This new ruling particularly impacts new voters who register before the October 7th deadline. Democrats, who are leading the voter registration drives, must now ensure that voters gather the necessary documents. Although Democrats support election integrity, the changes are seen as voter suppression rather than a measure against meaningful fraud, as investigations, including those paid for by Trump, found no significant voter fraud in Arizona.

The court’s 5-4 decision reflects the current conservative majority, with Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Roberts supporting the law, and Justices Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting. The decision underscores the Supreme Court’s ongoing shift in crucial areas, such as voting rights, separation of church and state, and women’s rights.

The upcoming election is critical, with the potential to recalibrate the court’s balance through future appointments. Meanwhile, Arizona voters, particularly those newly registering, must navigate these new hurdles, and Democrats are urged to continue their efforts to mobilize voters and push back against these suppressive measures. This battle over voting rights is seen as a vital component of the broader struggle to restore a functioning two-party system in the United States.

Georgia’s Election Board Takeover: MAGA’s New Power Play

A new major lawsuit has been filed in Fulton County, Georgia, which could impact the outcome of the election. This lawsuit, brought by the Democratic Party of Georgia and the national Democratic Party, targets the state election board in Georgia, which has recently been taken over by MAGA Trump supporters. With a 3-2 majority, the board now has control, and Donald Trump has praised them, calling them “pit bulls for victory” at a recent rally.

These new, partisan board members have passed a series of rules designed to create confusion and cast doubt on the election results in Georgia.

Even Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, criticized these new rules, saying that they undermine voter confidence, delay results, and disrupt the election process. Raffensperger expressed concern about the state election board’s misguided attempts, which he believes will burden election workers and disrupt the established procedures for ensuring election integrity.

Legal Battles in Georgia: Fighting Against Last-Minute Changes

The lawsuit, filed as a verified petition for declaratory judgment, challenges these new rules, arguing that they are an attempt to disenfranchise voters and undermine the certification process. The lawsuit alleges that the new rules give board members and local officials aligned with Trump the power to delay certification, question the validity of the vote, and create unnecessary barriers for voters. It emphasizes that every state has a deadline for certifying election results, and any irregularities should be handled through the established court process, not through last-minute changes to election procedures.

Courtroom Clash: Democrats Fight MAGA’s New Rules to Delay Election Results

The Democratic Party’s legal action aims to prevent the board from using its new rules to interfere with the election outcome. The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the certification process is mandatory and must be completed by a specific deadline. It argues that the election board cannot create new rules that grant the election superintendent the discretion to delay or refuse certification without a judicial order, and it seeks a court ruling to reinforce the validity of the election process.

The Bigger Picture: MAGA’s National Strategy to Control Elections

This lawsuit addresses a broader strategy by MAGA supporters to place pro-Trump individuals on election boards across the country, particularly in battleground states, to interfere with the democratic process. Democrats have recognized this tactic and are fighting back with legal challenges to protect election integrity. The case is expected to move quickly, with a judge likely to hold a fast-track hearing, given the approaching election deadlines.

The lawsuit highlights the importance of maintaining confidence in the electoral process and ensuring that all votes are counted fairly. It aims to prevent last-minute rule changes designed to undermine voter trust and sow chaos, emphasizing that existing laws and procedures are sufficient to address any genuine concerns about fraud or irregularities. The Democratic Party’s swift legal response underscores its commitment to defending the integrity of elections and opposing efforts to manipulate the process for partisan gain.

Democracy in Danger: How MAGA’s Tactics Undermine Fair Elections

The actions in Arizona and Georgia reveal a clear pattern: MAGA and Trump are willing to bend, manipulate, and even break the rules to secure electoral victories, regardless of the legal or moral implications. From imposing new, burdensome requirements on first-time voters in Arizona to seizing control of election boards in Georgia, these tactics are designed to confuse, delay, and ultimately disenfranchise voters who are unlikely to support them.

These efforts are not about protecting the integrity of the vote, as investigations have repeatedly found no significant voter fraud; instead, they are calculated moves to tilt the playing field in their favor. 

Relentless, coordinated attacks on the electoral process show that Trump and his allies are not bound by the principles of democracy. They are actively rewriting the rules to undermine the fundamental right to vote, hoping to gain an advantage not at the ballot box, but in the courts and through bureaucratic maneuvers.

The fight against these tactics is more than a legal battle—it’s a battle for the soul of American democracy. As these lawsuits unfold, it becomes clearer than ever that defending the integrity of elections is not just about protecting individual votes, but about safeguarding the very foundation of a fair and functioning democratic system.

Guide to the RNC 2024 Policy Platform

Guide to the RNC 2024 Policy Platform

What You Need to Know (Even if you can’t vote yet).

Why Should You Care about politics if You Are Under 18?

Even if you’re too young to vote, the issues we are discussing below will affect your future. The decisions made in the next election could change things like: 

How your school is run

How laws are enforced

How the government works

What rights you and your family have

It’s important to stay informed about these issues. So let’s begin:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has just released its new platform for the 2024 election, and it’s causing a lot of concern among progressives.

This platform is like a roadmap that tells us what the party wants to do if they win the election. Let’s break down what’s in it and why young people should be worried.

What’s in the New Platform?

The first thing of note is, the new Republican platform is a collection of catchy slogans and big promises like you hear at a Trump rally. It is not a comprehensive policy document that lists specific plans and then details how the Republicans will implement them, if elected.

The big problem with that is many people aren’t interested in politics and therefore don’t delve into the nitty gritty behind the catch phrases before they vote for them. That can result in a big surprise when they see how the policies are implemented.

Often, when a vague policy statement with a misleading, harmless looking title and a catchy slogan becomes law, it turns out to be completely different from what the catchy slogan suggested, but by then, it’s too late to change your vote.

Some of the main promises in the platform and what they mean in practice include:

 1. Eliminate the Department of Education and significantly reduce federal involvement in education.

  • That would shift more control to state and local governments and lead to a greater disparity in the quality of education in poorer districts and between states.
  • Restructure the Department of justice

2. Expanding presidential power:

  • The platform suggests giving the president more control over various aspects of government.
  • This would alter the balance of power between the three core parts of the government, Legislative, Executive and Judicial and make it easier for extreme policies to be implemented, with minimal oversight.

3. Supporting Donald Trump’s ideas:

  • The platform appears to align closely with many of Trump’s policies and rhetoric.
  • This includes themes often heard at Trump rallies and in his speeches.

4. Alignment with Project 2025:

  • Many proposals echo those found in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint for a new Republican government.
  • This includes potential changes to how federal agencies operate. Essentially, eradicating their ability to regulate industries for the benefit of the public and transferring their current powers to the Supreme Court.

Side Note from the Editor

The Supreme Court already moved in this direction in a June 2023, ruling, which significantly reduced the power of government agencies who employ experts to interpret and implement laws regarding the environment, health, securities and investments and many more. The ruling transferred the final decision on their interpretation to itself. That means, judges who have no expertise in environmental protection, health or the functions of many other agencies, will in future make these decisions based on politics rather than facts

5. Potential changes to the Justice Department:

  • There are suggestions of using the DOJ to investigate political opponents.
  • This raises concerns about the politicization of the justice system.

6. Immigration policies:

  • The platform likely includes stricter immigration policies, possibly including mass deportation plans that could split families apart and deport people who are working, paying taxes, serving in the armed forces and generally contributing to the community and economy.

7. Absence of certain topics:

  • The platform notably omits explicit mentions of abortion and marriage, which were contentious issues in previous platforms and still are.

    8. Economic policies:

    • While not explicitly mentioned in the excerpt, Republican platforms typically include positions on taxes that lead to wealthy people paying less tax and reduce government spending on services that help the less well off.

    It’s important to note that this information is based on initial reports and analyses. The full details of the platform may include additional points or nuances not captured in this summary.

    Many of these ideas come from “Project 2025,” which is a plan created by a group called the Heritage Foundation. This project is like a blueprint for what they want the government to look like if a Republican becomes president in 2024.

    Why Are People Concerned?

    Some people are worried because these plans could change a lot about how America works. Here are a few reasons why:

    1. More Presidential Power: The platform suggests giving the president much more control over the government. This would upset the current balance of power between the three co-equal branches of the government, Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
    2. Changes to the Justice System: Some supporters of these ideas have talked about using the Department of Justice to investigate or punish political opponents. This isn’t how the justice system is supposed to work.
    3. Removing Government Departments: Project 2025 recommends terminating or drastically reducing the following departments and agencies:
    1. Department of Education
    2. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    3. Department of Energy
    4. Department of Commerce
    5. Department of Labor

    Additionally, Project 2025 proposes major restructuring or reductions in other areas of government, including:

    1. Department of Justice
    2. Department of State
    3. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
    4. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

      Women’s Rights: The United States Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion. However, in 2022, the majority right wing U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established the framework for legal abortions across the United States.

      In effect the Court took away a constitutional protection for women and since then, several states have tightened abortion restrictions to the point that residents cannot access abortion services. A number of states have commenced the process to outlaw abortion altogether.

      The effect of Donald Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court is that the constitutional right for a woman to choose to have an abortion no longer exists.

      If Project 2025 is implemented by a Trump administration, there is a genuine concern that it could take away more rights that women currently have.

      Project 2025 Rebranded? Inside Trump’s Hidden Playbook for America

      Interestingly, while Donald Trump praised the new Republican platform before there was a rise in criticism of it, now he and his supporters are distancing themselves from Project 2025.

      They say they don’t know much about it or aren’t involved with it. However, many of the people who co-authored Project 2025 worked for Trump when he was president and are currently working on his re-election campaign, so it is hard to believe that they haven’t discussed it in detail.

      This has led to accusations of “gaslighting” – a term used when someone tries to make you question what you know or can see to be true. Critics say Trump and his allies are pretending not to know about plans they actually support.

      Why Does This Matter?

      These plans could have a big impact on everyone in the country, including young people who cannot vote yet. Here’s why it’s important:

      1. Education: If the Department of Education is removed, it would change how schools work across the country. Control would shift to state and local governments and lead to a greater disparity in the quality of education in poorer districts and some states.
      2. Democracy: These plans could weaken the democratic system by giving too much power to one person, effectively making them a monarch that might not be subject to the law and may not be voted out of office.
      3. Rights: Some people, especially women, might lose rights they currently have if a future, more authoritarian Congress, decided it was to their advantage. It is important to remember that women have not always had the right vote in America. The 19th amendment which granted women the right to vote was only passed by Congress on June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920.
      4. Justice: Changes to how the justice system works could weaponize it against critics and opponents of the government or enable states to pass legislation that disadvantages voting rights for minorities. Proposed changes could affect how laws are enforced and who gets investigated or punished.

      What The Critics Are Saying

      Many people are speaking out against these plans. Here is a small selection of some of the things they say:

      1. It’s dangerous to give so much power to the president.
      2. The plans go against American values of democracy and fairness.
      3. I’m worried about losing the progress we’ve made on issues like women’s rights.
      4. The justice system shouldn’t be used as a political tool.

      Some critics are forming groups to fight against these ideas. For example, the Seneca Project  was created to inform women about what’s at stake in the upcoming election.

       

      What’s Next?

      The Republican National Committee’s Executive Committee voted on July 8, 2024, to adopt the new party platform. Party delegates officially adopted the platform at the 2024 Republican National Convention on July 15, 2024.

      In the meantime, there’s a lot of debate happening. Supporters say these plans will “Make America Great Again” (a slogan used by Donald Trump). Critics say the plans are extreme and could harm democracy in the US.

      It’s important to stay informed about these issues. You can do this by:

      1. Reading news from reliable sources
      2. Talking to your parents, teachers, or other trusted adults about what’s happening
      3. Thinking critically about what you hear and read
      4. Encouraging the adults in your life to vote and be involved in the political process

      Remember, in a democracy, every voice matters – including yours! Even if you can’t vote yet, you can still learn about the issues and share your thoughts with others.

      The more that people understand what the real issues are, what the policy differences are, and how those policies will affect their family and the country, the better prepared they will be to make an informed decision when it comes time to vote.

      As America gets closer to the 2024 election, don’t be afraid to form your own opinions. After all, it’s your future that’s being decided!

      2024: The Year Women Decide America’s Fate

      2024: The Year Women Decide America’s Fate

      GOP 2024: The Agenda That Could Change America Forever

      The Republican National Committee (RNC) unveiled its new agenda for the 2024 elections at the recent Republican Convention, which caused significant concern for women, federal employees, teachers, Democrats and many Independent voters.

      This new Republican agenda provides very little in terms of policy detail but strongly reflects former President Donald Trump’ s campaign style of making grandiose claims with no substantiating backup. Many commentators have described the agenda as less of a traditional policy proposal and more like the content of a Trump rally, indicating a strong alignment with Trump’s vision and priorities.

      Unpacking the Risks to Federal Employees and Women’s Rights

      The 2024 Republican platform proposes several drastic changes, including the abolition of the Department of Education and mass replacement of federal employees with candidates that pledge allegiance to Trump. This proposal aligns with ideas from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a conservative plan for future governance. You can download a copy of Project 2025 by clicking this link.

      While Trump has publicly distanced himself from Project 2025, probably because he knows many, if not all, of its proposals are unpopular with a large section of the community. However, there is clear evidence that Trump knows a lot more than he is saying and privately supports the project as it is very beneficial to him. Another giveaway is that many of its contributors have ties to his previous administration and are working with him to help get him elected again, so it is hard to imagine they have not discussed the Project 2025 proposals with him. Finally, Trump has praised the Heritage Foundation and the Project 2025 authors.

      Expanding Presidential Power

      A major theme of the new platform is a significant expansion of presidential power. This has raised alarms among legal experts and former Justice Department officials, especially considering the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. Critics argue that this could lead to the “weaponization” of the Justice Department under a future Trump administration, allowing the president to investigate and prosecute political opponents.

      Reactions from Experts

      Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney and legal analyst, and Tara Setmayer, a senior advisor to the Lincoln Project, have voiced their concerns about the new GOP platform. They highlight the potential threats to democracy and the rule of law. Vance points out that proposals to use the Justice Department for political purposes are contrary to the principles of justice in the United States, where decisions should be based on law and facts, not political motivations.

      Women’s Rights at Risk

      Tara Setmayer emphasizes the impact of these proposals on women’s rights. She co-founded the Seneca Project to raise awareness among right-of-center women about the stakes of the upcoming election. The new platform includes alarming ideas such as restricting women’s healthcare rights and even eliminating no-fault divorce, which could significantly roll back women’s rights and freedoms.

      Project 2025 and Agenda 47

      Project 2025 and Agenda 47 are central to the new Republican agenda. These plans, associated with Trump’s vision for his potential second term, aim to restructure the federal government and concentrate more power in the presidency. Despite attempts by Trump and his allies to distance themselves from these plans, the connections are evident. Many contributors to Project 2025 previously served in the Trump administration.

      Trump’s 2024 GOP: The Roadmap to a Controversial Future

      The proposed changes could lead to an erosion of democratic norms and institutions. Legal experts warn that the rule of law, which ensures that laws are applied equally to all citizens, could be undermined. The plans also suggest a shift towards authoritarianism, with increased presidential control over federal agencies and the judicial system.

      A Critical Analysis of Its Impact on American Values

      The new GOP platform has been met with strong reactions from both supporters and critics. Supporters, including many MAGA (Make America Great Again) figures, embrace the platform as a continuation of Trump’s policies. Critics, however, see it as a dangerous move towards authoritarianism and a threat to American democracy.

      The Importance of an Informed Electorate

      Setmayer stresses the importance of making the public aware of the intent behind these proposals which is not always clear from the purposefully vague policy statements. An example of this is that there was absolutely no mention of a woman’s right to have an abortion, or not, while the aim of Republicans is to abolish a women’s right to free choice, including making it illegal to travel interstate to have an abortion, if it is available in another state.

      She argues that an informed electorate is crucial to preventing the manipulation of political language and ensuring that democratic values are upheld. Groups like the Lincoln Project and the Seneca Project are working to inform voters about the implications of the new GOP platform and the risks it poses.

      2024: The Year Women Decide America’s Fate

      The women’s vote has become a major voting bloc in America and as such can play a crucial role in determining the future political landscape of the country. That is especially critical in the coming election. Their current rights, which have already been reduced by the majority right wing Supreme Court, would be dramatically further reduced if the Republican agenda is adopted, and this will certainly happen with the help of the Supreme Court. Engagement by women of all political persuasions is seen as vital to defending democracy. Setmayer believes that by galvanizing women, especially those who are right-of-center, it is possible to resist the proposed rollback of rights and maintain democratic freedoms.

      The GOP’s 2024 Agenda: A Critical Analysis of Its Potential Impact on American Values

      The new GOP 2024 agenda represents a significant shift in Republican policies, closely aligning with Donald Trump’s vision for America. This agenda, unveiled at the recent Republican National Convention, has garnered substantial support from Trump’s base. However, it has also sparked widespread concern among a broad spectrum of Americans, including legal experts, women’s rights advocates, and defenders of democratic institutions.

      Impact on Democracy and the Rule of Law

      One of the most alarming aspects of the GOP’s 2024 platform is its potential to undermine democratic norms and the rule of law. The agenda includes proposals that would significantly expand presidential power, a move that critics argue could erode the checks and balances that are foundational to American democracy. Legal scholars have warned that the proposed changes could lead to the “weaponization” of the Justice Department, turning it into a tool for political retribution under a Trump administration. This shift towards authoritarianism is further evidenced by the GOP’s support for Project 2025, a plan that seeks to restructure the federal government to concentrate more power in the presidency.

      Loyalty Over Merit: The Politicization of Federal Employment

      The platform’s emphasis on loyalty to Trump, particularly in the context of federal employment, raises further concerns. The proposal to replace federal employees with those who pledge allegiance to Trump suggests a dangerous politicization of the civil service, which could compromise the impartiality and effectiveness of federal agencies. This, combined with the recent Supreme Court rulings that expand presidential immunity, paints a picture of a future where the executive branch operates with little accountability.

      Threats to Women’s Rights

      The implications of the GOP’s 2024 agenda for women’s rights are particularly concerning. The platform proposes measures that would roll back hard-won rights and freedoms, including access to healthcare and reproductive rights. The GOP’s stance on issues such as abortion, no-fault divorce, and women’s healthcare is seen by many as a direct attack on the progress that has been made over the past several decades.

      The potential rollback of women’s rights is not just theoretical. The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court has already shown a willingness to overturn longstanding precedents, as evidenced by the recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. This decision has emboldened conservative lawmakers to pursue even more restrictive measures at the state level, and the GOP’s 2024 agenda suggests that similar efforts could be pursued at the federal level if the party gains control of Congress and the White House.

      The Role of Women in Defending Democracy

      In this context, the role of women in the upcoming election is more crucial than ever. The women’s vote has become a major voting bloc in America, capable of swinging elections and shaping the future political landscape of the country. The 2024 election could be a turning point, with the potential to either safeguard or dismantle the rights and freedoms that women have fought for over the years.

      Women’s engagement in the political process is seen as vital to defending democracy and resisting the proposed rollback of rights. This is especially true for right-of-center women, who may feel conflicted about their traditional party alignment and the radical shift in GOP policies. Organizations like the Seneca Project and the Lincoln Project are working to raise awareness among women about the stakes of the upcoming election, encouraging them to vote in defense of their rights and democratic values.

      Voter Awareness and Participation

      As the debate over the GOP’s 2024 agenda intensifies, voter awareness and participation will be critical. The vague and often misleading language used in the platform’s policy proposals makes it all the more important for voters to be informed about what is at stake. The agenda’s implications extend beyond partisan politics; they touch on the very principles that underpin American society, including the rule of law, individual freedoms, and the integrity of democratic institutions.

      In summary, the GOP’s 2024 agenda is not just a political platform—it is a blueprint for a future America that could look very different from the one we know today. As the election approaches, it will be up to the electorate, and particularly women, to decide whether to embrace this vision or to stand up in defense of the values that have long defined the nation.