This bill strips several century-old federal prohibitions that targeted "indecent," "immoral," and abortion-related materials from key statutes governing the mail, interstate commerce, and importation. It amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 552, 1461, and 1462 and 19 U.S.C. § 1305 to remove language that criminalized distribution or importation of non-obscene indecent material and items or information related to abortion.
Why it matters: by narrowing federal criminal exposure to conduct the statutes still label "obscene," the bill eliminates federal misdemeanor or felony liability for distributing many kinds of non-obscene sexual expression and for sending or importing certain reproductive-health information, devices, or drugs under these specific statutes. The change reallocates enforcement leverage away from these particular federal provisions and raises implementation questions for agencies that enforce customs, postal, and public-health laws.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill deletes the words and provisions that criminalize "indecent" and "immoral" materials and removes references to "means for procuring abortion" from specified federal statutes, leaving the federal prohibitions focused on "obscene" material. It also corrects a cross-reference to section 230 and tightens statutory language about carriage and importation to refer to "material."
Who It Affects
Publishers, mailers, and digital distributors of adult content that is non‑obscene; manufacturers, distributors, and importers of reproductive-health drugs, devices, and related information; U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Postal Inspection Service; and federal prosecutors who relied on these statutes.
Why It Matters
The bill removes longstanding Comstock-era language that federal authorities used to police sexuality and reproductive items, aligning federal criminal exposure more closely with the constitutional obscenity standard. That reduces statutory overlap with other federal regulators (FDA, DEA, etc.) but creates enforcement and statutory-interpretation questions about what authority remains to control imports and mailed goods.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Stop Comstock Act edits four statutory provisions to excise language originating in the 19th-century Comstock laws that made it a federal offense to mail, ship, or import "indecent," "immoral," or abortion-related materials. For the federal postal and commerce offenses in 18 U.S.C. §§ 552, 1461, and 1462 the bill removes references to "indecent" materials and tightens the text so that the statutes speak expressly to "obscene" materials.
In practice, the change narrows federal criminal exposure to materials that meet the legal test for obscenity rather than a broader and more subjective indecency or immorality standard.
The amendment to the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. § 1305) deletes clauses that had treated "immoral" imports and items related to "unlawful abortion" as subject to prohibition or special treatment at the border. That elimination does not repeal other import, health, or drug laws; FDA, DEA, and other statutory regimes remain available to regulate or seize unlawful drugs and devices.
But the specific customs basis tied to the Tariff Act language will no longer exist for those categories.One technical edit replaces an obsolete cross-reference to section 230(e)(2) with section 230(f)(2) in 18 U.S.C. § 1462 and simplifies the statute's phrasing about carriage and importation to refer to "any obscene material." That correction likely clarifies how the mail/import statute interacts with communications-law definitions, though courts will need to interpret the revised interplay. Collectively, these edits pull back a federal statutory floor that previously targeted a broader range of sexual expression and reproductive-related goods, while leaving intact other federal and state regulatory tools.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 552 (18 U.S.C.) loses the term "indecent"—the statute no longer criminalizes mailing items described as "indecent.", Section 1461 (18 U.S.C.) replaces a long original formulation with the concise phrase "All obscene materials are declared," removing statutory treatment of "indecent" and many legacy definitions.
Section 1462 (18 U.S.C.) is narrowed to penalize carriage or importation of "any obscene material," and it updates a cross-reference from section 230(e)(2) to 230(f)(2).
Section 305(a) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. § 1305(a)) has struck language treating "immoral" imports and items for "unlawful abortion" as distinct prohibitions, removing that customs-based bar.
The bill does not add new crimes or penalties; instead it narrows the categories subject to these federal mailing/import offenses, leaving the constitutional Miller obscenity test as the operative limit.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Remove 'indecent' from mail-related offense
This provision deletes the word "indecent" from section 552, which historically criminalized mailing or sending indecent matter. Removing that adjective narrows the statute's reach: federal prosecutors can no longer rely on §552 to charge the transmission of content that is indecent but not legally obscene. Practically, that shifts many cases that once rested on subjective indecency standards out of this statutory box and forces reliance on other federal statutes or state law where applicable.
Recast the mailing prohibition to focus on 'obscene' materials
The bill rewrites the opening of §1461 from a lengthy proscription about "obscene, lewd, lascivious...or indecent" materials to the shorter statement "All obscene materials are declared." It removes accompanying text that defined or treated "indecent" matter and deletes cross-references to other statutes. The mechanical effect is to collapse multiple categories into a single statutory focus on "obscene" items, which courts will read against established obscenity jurisprudence (Miller). That reduction simplifies the statutory language but will require courts and prosecutors to clarify whether any historic enforcement practices depended on the excised language.
Narrow carriage/import prohibition and fix a cross‑reference
Section 1462 is edited in two ways: first, the statute's text about carriage and importation is tightened to criminalize carriage or importation of "any obscene material" in interstate commerce, removing broader phrasing that had been used to sweep in a wider range of materials; second, the bill corrects a textual cross‑reference from section 230(e)(2) to 230(f)(2). The combination reduces statutory breadth and resolves an apparent drafting mismatch with the Communications Decency Act's structuring of definitions, though the practical legal consequences of the 230 cross‑reference change will be a matter for future litigation.
Remove customs prohibition on 'immoral' imports and abortion‑related phrasing
This amendment deletes language in the Tariff Act that treated "immoral" imports and items connected to "unlawful abortion" as covered by the statute's prohibitions or special provisos. Removing that language eliminates a customs-based textual ground to bar those imports under §1305(a). Importantly, the change does not repeal other federal laws that might prohibit or regulate specific drugs or devices (for example, FDA or controlled-substance statutes), but it removes this particular 19th/20th-century statutory instrument from the toolset used at the border.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Publishers and distributors of sexual content that does not meet the constitutional test for obscenity — they lose a federal statutory basis for prosecution under these mailing and carriage provisions.
- Reproductive-health providers and telemedicine/mail-order medication services — the removal of abortion‑related wording from the Tariff Act and mailing statutes reduces one federal textual obstacle to shipping information, devices, or drugs tied to abortion, though other federal requirements (FDA approvals, prescription rules) remain.
- Importers and legitimate retailers of reproductive drugs and devices — Customs will no longer be able to rely on the excised Tariff Act language to seize goods as "immoral" or specifically as abortion‑related under §1305(a).
- Online platforms and intermediary service providers — narrowing §1462 and cleaning the section‑230 cross-reference reduces an avenue for arguing postal/import statutes apply to digital distribution of non‑obscene content.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal prosecutors and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service — they lose statutory tools for pursuing indecency and certain abortion‑related distribution cases and may need to redirect enforcement resources to other statutes.
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection — the agency will need to rely on alternative statutory bases (FDA, Controlled Substances Act, general trade laws) rather than the specific Tariff Act language that is struck.
- Advocacy groups and states that used these federal provisions as leverage to restrict sexual or reproductive items — they will face reduced federal support and may press state legislatures or civil remedies instead.
- Smaller importers and mail-order businesses — while they benefit from reduced risk under these statutes, they may still face compliance costs as carriers and agencies develop new guidance and screening criteria to replace the dropped provisions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves one historical overbreadth problem—removing vague Comstock‑era categories—by leaning on the higher constitutional threshold of obscenity, but that choice trades a national uniform restriction for narrower federal reach. The central dilemma is whether narrowing federal criminal law in favor of free expression and access to reproductive‑health goods better protects liberties, or whether it erodes a tool federal authorities used to address harms (such as protecting minors or stopping illicit drugs), forcing contentious regulatory disputes to the states and agencies.
The bill narrows federal offenses to "obscene" material, but it does not repeal other federal regulatory regimes that can restrict distribution of goods or drugs. FDA, DEA, customs statutes unrelated to §1305, and state criminal and regulatory law remain in force; that means the practical change may be narrower than headline descriptions suggest.
A critical unanswered question is how often federal enforcement relied on the excised language versus other statutes; agencies will need to inventory pending practices to see which cases are affected.
The deletion of abortion‑related language from the Tariff Act removes one clear customs basis for seizure, but it also risks creating ambiguity at the border where agents previously had an express textual hook. Unless agencies issue new implementing guidance, border officers may either over‑rely on other statutory authorities (with attendant legal risks) or under‑enforce while courts sort out the new statutory landscape.
The corrected cross‑reference to section 230 may reduce confusion but could produce litigation about how communications‑law protections interact with carriage/import prohibitions under the revised text. Finally, removing a federal floor for "indecent" material shifts the policy battleground: states may feel pressure to fill gaps, leading to a patchwork of rules and potential interstate commerce or First Amendment litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.