Modern-Day ‘Comstocks’ Ramp Up Travel and Information Policing in Bid to End Abortion

Mark Lee Dickson claims he has barely been home in the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case.

The 38-year-old director of Right to Life of East Texas has been on a relentless campaign to enact local ordinances that severely restrict abortion access. In his quest, he attends various local gatherings—ranging from pregnancy-center banquets and Republican women’s club meetings to Catholic fish fries and rodeos. His goal is to make cities and counties “sanctuaries for the unborn,” thus creating legal challenges that could eventually reach higher courts.

“I find myself in a variety of different places, wherever the Lord takes me,” Dickson said to States Newsroom.

Rural areas frequently lack adequate maternal care, yet Dickson sees his mission as a vigilante effort to save embryos and fetuses. Reproductive justice advocates compare him to 19th-century anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock. They argue his efforts are part of a broader movement to impose a national abortion ban.

Following the fall of Roe v. Wade and with a presidential election on the horizon, one significant threat to abortion rights is an administration willing to enforce the Comstock Act. Abortion providers and advocates are already concerned about activists like Dickson, whose ordinances empower residents to sue anyone suspected of assisting with an abortion.

“I have a whole lot of friends that spend time on the sidewalks of abortion facilities throughout America,” Dickson stated. “I’ve told these friends, if you ever meet someone from Abilene, Texas, that is seeking out an abortion in New Mexico, use the sanctuary city ordinance as a deterrent as much as you can.”

Jonathan F. Mitchell, former solicitor general of Texas and counsel for Donald Trump, partners with Dickson in pursuing this anti-abortion agenda. The duo helped draft Senate Bill 8, which effectively banned abortion in Texas in 2021 by allowing citizens to sue abortion providers. They are now using similar strategies to challenge state abortion rights initiatives.

Legal scholars Reva Siegel and Mary Ziegler argue in a forthcoming article that Anthony Comstock’s original intent was to prevent illicit sex and pornography, not to preserve fetal life. They criticize the modern revival of Comstock’s legacy as a misinterpretation of history.

Through their Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn project, Dickson and Mitchell have successfully passed 80 ordinances in seven states. They aim eventually to challenge these restrictions in higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mitchell has also received support from conservative think tanks like Heritage Foundation and law firms such as Alliance Defending Freedom. He plans to use Comstock as a tool to fight state ballot initiatives supporting abortion rights.

“There are many ways the Comstock Act can be used to help inoculate pro-abortion ballot initiatives in states like Arizona and Nebraska,” Dickson said.

Mitchell, who is currently defending Texas professors’ rights to penalize students who miss class for abortions, did not respond to interview requests. His legal efforts focus on utilizing the Comstock Act, which has garnered support from prominent federal judges.

Anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue, led by Troy Newman, continue to monitor abortion clinics and disseminate information to pressure and shut down providers in states without abortion bans.

“We can’t keep track of them all, but we have people feeding us information daily,” said Newman.

Legal experts view the Comstock Act as potentially difficult to enforce. Still, even temporary measures could significantly impact reproductive healthcare. Democrats have introduced a bill to repeal Comstock, but its advancement before the election is uncertain.

At a recent summit called ComstockCon, stakeholders gathered to strategize against anti-abortion laws. Participants emphasized the need for solidarity, especially as marginalized groups face the brunt of these legal attacks.

“You have to keep pushing now,” said Renee Bracey Sherman, founder of We Testify. “There will always be another ban. It’s not going to stop us from talking, from sending pills.”

No civil lawsuits have been filed under SB 8 or similar ordinances, yet Dickson continues to push for more restrictive measures. His recent efforts in Amarillo sought to make high-trafficked roads illegal for abortion-related travel, citing the Comstock Act as a basis. Though the city council rejected the proposal, the debate persists.

Dickson contends these ordinances mainly serve as deterrents, inhibiting abortion-related activities even where it remains legal. This strategy has led to significant anxiety among providers and patients.

The Amarillo ordinance aims to give anti-abortion advocates legal standing in future judicial battles, a tactic that alarmed local residents like Lindsay London, who decried the use of her city as a “strategic chess piece.”

“It creates a culture of fear and mistrust,” London said. “The last thing that people need to be concerned about … is someone that they trust or a neighbor … going to use that vulnerable situation to try and sue them? Positing neighbor upon neighbor is not how we create healthy communities.”

Elisha Brown contributed to this report.