Thank you for this, I feel exactly the same way.

Here’s the Christian connection to anti-contraception laws.

The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice* (NYSSV or SSV) was founded in 1873 by Anthony Comstock and his supporters in the Young Men’s Christian Association. It was chartered by the New York state legislature. After his death in 1915, Comstock was succeeded by John S. Sumner.[1] In 1947, the organization’s name was changed to the Society to Maintain Public Decency.[2] After Sumner’s retirement in 1950, the organization was dissolved. The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice is not to be confused with its namesake, the earlier, 19th century Society for the Suppression of Vice. The NYSSV was an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Its specific mission was to monitor compliance with state laws and work with the courts and district attorneys in bringing offenders to justice. It and its members also pushed for additional laws against perceived immoral conduct. While the NYSSV is better remembered for its opposition to literary works, it also closely monitored the news-stands, commonly found on city sidewalks and in transportation terminals, which sold the popular magazines of the day.

The Comstock Act, 17 Stat. 598, enacted March 3, 1873, was a United States federal law which amended the Post Office Act[1] and made it illegal to send any “obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious” materials through the mail, including contraceptive devices and information. In addition to banning contraceptives, this act also banned the distribution of information on abortion for educational purposes. Twenty-four states passed similar prohibitions on materials distributed within the states.[2] These state and federal restrictions are collectively known as the Comstock laws.

The law was named after its chief proponent, the anti-obscenity crusader Anthony Comstock. The enforcement of the Act was, in its early days, often conducted by Comstock himself or through his New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.

The text of the federal bill reads:

Be it enacted… That whoever, within the District of Columbia or any of the Territories of the United States…shall sell…or shall offer to sell, or to lend, or to give away, or in any manner to exhibit, or shall otherwise publish or offer to publish in any manner, or shall have in his possession, for any such purpose or purposes, an obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or any cast instrument, or other article 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, or shall write or print, or cause to be written or printed, any card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind, stating when, where, how, or of whom, or by what means, any of the articles in this section…can be purchased or obtained, or shall manufacture, draw, or print, or in any wise make any of such articles, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States…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.

From 1873 the Comstock Act banned contraceptives and information about contraception from distribution. Judge Augustus Hand overturned this on the Federal level in 1934 so long as it was receipted by a physician.

Hand wrote that “we are satisfied that this statute, as well as all the acts we have referred to, embraced only such articles as Congress would have denounced as immoral if it had understood all the conditions under which they were to be used. Its design, in our opinion, was not to prevent the importation, sale, or carriage by mail of things which might intelligently be employed by conscientious and competent physicians for the purpose of saving life or promoting the well being of their patients.”

While I agree with Hand’s ruling, I think that the actions of the chief proponent of the law, Anthony Comstock, speak to actual motivations of his ilk in getting the law passed.

In addition, the Social Purity Movement championed the crusade…[that] was led by “energetic, driven men” backed by the professional organizations of white, middle-class, native-born men and women who assume the role of custodians of the public good. They had the backing of most state and federal officeholders and the result was an enactment of federal and state legislation that among other things criminalized contraception and abortion, both of which had long been legal.

This contravention of liberty, usurped by the states, persisted until 1965 when Griswold v. Connecticut overturned state laws regarding contraception.

Interestingly, the impetus for the finding in Griswold came from a dissenting opinion in a previous case Poe v. Ullman
where Justice John Marshall Harlan II filed one of the most cited dissenting opinions in Supreme Court history. He argued, foremost, that the Supreme Court should have heard the case rather than dismissing it. Thereafter he indicated his support for a broad interpretation of the due process clause. He famously wrote, “the full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.“ On the basis of this interpretation of the due process clause, Harlan concluded that the Connecticut statute violated the Constitution

Griswold finally restored the status quo ante that existed before the Federal and State governments usurped power against individual rights. And the Social Purity Movement along with Comstock’s own “Society for the Suppression of Vice” makes it clear that this was a movement whose supporters were overwhelmingly christian.

*Notice the similarity between Comstock’s organization and this Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia)one.

You became an independent entity, capable of survival outside the womb. There’. I just told you. Happy to clear that up for you.

Although there are all sorts of logical reasons for decriminalization of prostitution, we don’t do logic here in the USA, or at least a good number of us don’t.

Religion should be considered insanity. If you believe you speak with, and receive orders from an invisible super being in the sky, how are you really any different from the person who gets orders to kill from his neighbor’s dog, or voices in his head? There is no proof of the existence of any deity, or that any religion represents the will of such, if it existed. It’s all made up.

But, capitalism likes credulous, obedient slaves, and religion helps train such, so it will continue to receive state support.

As I said in that piece, there are a couple significant differences in the two cases which could provide the courts with an escape clause if they’re not ready to strike down the prostitution laws. But the importance that the judges ascribed to evidence in the Insite ruling definitely gives grounds for optimism.

I’m not saying non-chrostiams or non-evangelicals don’t also oppose some of these things, or that only evangelicals oppose these things. I’m just saying that these are three more things where evangelicals on average are more than happy to use the power of the state to impose their views on me.

I really like the legal precedent set with the InSite case. It boils down to evidence and a charter of rights trumping targeted policy. That will punch holes in many prohibitionist cases, not just prostitution.

One thing not mentioned in any of the articles above is that our current gov’t (which I voted for, I have to admit) is also introducing a crime bill that will increase the penalties for drug possession. I am very hopeful that the rulings in these cases are applied to dismiss the new laws.

Even with the appointed judges we have here in Canada I find they tend to be extremely moderate. I think we can attribute that to most judges being chosen by other judges, rather than by election like in the US. This article gives an overview of the process: (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/08/31/f-judges-how-they-are-chosen.html)

Sexual education? The government has no right to be involved in that. Parents should be free to teach what they wish. Good parents will raise good kids with healthy attitudes. Bad parents will raise kids that have issues the rest of their lives. Government shouldn’t be involved in sorting that.

Contraception? Where, in America – has any Christian Church made that illegal in any state, county, parish, or city?