Understanding RICO + Comstock Acts
The Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn ordinance in Amarillo has drawn national attention not only for its stance against reproductive rights but also for its unprecedented use of federal laws like the RICO Act and the Comstock Act. The ordinance encourages private citizens to sue those who distribute abortion pills, citing these federal statutes as a basis for legal action. However, this use of federal laws represents a significant overreach of government power, infringing upon both state and federal authority. In this post, we'll break down what the RICO and Comstock Acts are, how they are being misused, and why it's crucial to oppose this ordinance to protect our community from such legal overreach.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO, was enacted in 1970 as a powerful tool for prosecuting organized crime. Initially designed to combat the Mafia and other criminal enterprises, RICO allows for extended criminal penalties and civil causes of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. Under RICO, prosecutors can target individuals or groups involved in a pattern of racketeering activities, which can include offenses such as bribery, fraud, and money laundering.
However, RICO is not intended to target legitimate businesses or medical practices. The ordinance’s attempt to apply RICO to “abortion providers” is a gross misuse of the law. Abortion providers operate within the legal framework of state and federal regulations, and they are not criminal enterprises. By encouraging citizens to sue under RICO, the ordinance misrepresents the purpose of the law and aims to intimidate those who provide essential healthcare services.
The Comstock Act is an antiquated federal law passed in 1873, originally aimed at suppressing the distribution of “obscene” materials through the mail. Named after its chief proponent, Anthony Comstock, the law broadly prohibited the mailing of any materials deemed to be obscene. At its peak, the Comstock Act was a tool for moral crusaders to enforce strict standards on public behavior and personal choices.
While much of the Comstock Act has been rendered obsolete by modern legal standards and court rulings, parts of it remain on the books. The Amarillo ordinance attempts to revive this outdated law to criminalize the distribution of Mifepristone, despite the fact that the landscape of reproductive rights and medical privacy has evolved significantly since the 19th century.
It's important to note that just this year, the US Supreme Court preserved access to mifepristone, a pill used in medication abortions and treating miscarriages. This decision underscores the fact that access to Mifepristone remains protected under federal law. The ordinance's attempt to criminalize distribution of abortion pills directly conflicts with this ruling, demonstrating how this ordinance would overstep established federal law. Any attempt to enforce the ordinance in this manner would likely face significant legal challenges, reinforcing the importance of protecting access to reproductive healthcare.
Moreover, the prohibition of mailing information about abortion and contraception under the Comstock Act is a direct attack on freedom of speech and the right to share information. In a democratic society, access to information is vital for individuals to make informed decisions about their lives and healthcare. Reviving such restrictions is not only regressive but also undermines fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Using the Comstock Act in this way ignores decades of progress and threatens to roll back essential rights, including the freedom to communicate and disseminate important healthcare information.
The ordinance's attempt to invoke civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) to target abortion providers and networks distributing abortion pills is not only legally questionable but also represents a dangerous overreach of local government authority. Civil RICO was designed to combat organized crime, not to target healthcare providers or individuals exercising their reproductive rights.
The ordinance encourages individuals to sue abortion providers and those who distribute abortion pills by labeling them as part of a "racketeering enterprise." This is a gross misapplication of RICO statutes and fundamentally misunderstands the law's purpose. Moreover, it opens the door for a new form of vigilante justice, where neighbors are encouraged to sue each other over deeply personal healthcare decisions.
It's crucial to understand that RICO laws were never intended to be used as a tool for private citizens to sue their neighbors. Encouraging such lawsuits is a divisive and harmful tactic that sows distrust and fear within communities. This ordinance pits neighbor against neighbor, turning personal, private decisions into public battlegrounds. The idea that individuals could be sued by their own community members for seeking or aiding in access to reproductive healthcare is not only alarming but also legally unsound.
Federal law, including the recent US Supreme Court decision protecting access to mifepristone, ensures that such actions are not only overreaching but also likely unenforceable. The ordinance's attempt to circumvent these protections by encouraging community members to act as enforcers of this misguided law is not only ethically troubling but also legally flawed. Such tactics are designed to intimidate and punish, rather than to uphold justice or protect community welfare.
The ordinance’s reliance on the Comstock Act to criminalize the distribution of abortion pills ignores the significant legal challenges such an application would face. The Comstock Act's provisions have never been enforced in the modern context, and its use in this ordinance represents an attempt to resurrect a law that is largely considered irrelevant today.
Local governments do not have the authority to unilaterally apply laws in a way that contradicts state and federal standards. The ordinance's use of RICO and the Comstock Act not only misinterprets these laws but also exceeds the legal authority of the municipality.
The Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn ordinance is a clear example of government overreach. By attempting to apply federal laws like RICO and the Comstock Act at the local level, the ordinance bypasses the checks and balances that exist to protect citizens from such overreach. Local governments are not empowered to enforce federal laws in ways that contradict established legal standards or infringe upon individual rights.
Allowing this ordinance to stand would set a dangerous precedent, where local authorities could selectively apply federal laws to advance specific agendas, regardless of the broader legal context. This threatens not only reproductive rights but also the fundamental principles of governance and the rule of law.
The ordinance's use of RICO and the Comstock Act is a legally dubious strategy that exemplifies this government overreach. These federal laws were never intended to target legitimate healthcare providers or restrict access to essential services. By educating our community about this ordinance, we can protect one another from the misuse of federal laws and ensure that reproductive rights are upheld.
As Election Day approaches, it’s critical spread the word about this ordinance. Join ARFA in our efforts to safeguard our rights and keep government intrusion in check.
