Legislators are looking at ways to prevent more abortions in a post-Roe world as abortion restrictions tighten.
Legislators in South Carolina want to restrict phone calls, emails, text messages, and websites that share information on how to get abortions.
Providing information that could help women get an abortion by "telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication" or hosting or maintaining websites that could help women access abortions would be a felony if the bill became a law.
Similar laws are possible in other states. It may take months before courts strike down the bill for violating the First Amendment and could affect the health of many women seeking abortions.
"We are very worried that we are going to see a number of emerging state laws, trying to limit the ability of people to get reliable, accurate information about how to access reproductive care."
The CDT formed a task force to address access to information and user privacy in the wake of the Jackson decision.
The law is unconstitutional and the bill is starting.
Givens said that the law could bring in speech by journalists or politicians who are trying to help people understand their rights.
The National Right to Life Committee is an anti-abortion organization in the US. According to a memo by Jim Bopp, counsel for the NRLC, the model legislation was proposed as a way to prevent healthcare providers from providing abortion services.
The NRLC did not reply immediately.
Bopp wrote in June that the abortion industry would exploit existing State laws to circumvent pro-life laws in a particular State. Bopp did not reply immediately.
Three Republicans in the South Carolina State Senate sponsored the bill. The co-sponsors of the bill didn't reply to the questions sent to them.
The bill would strip women of their God-given rights and freedoms, according to a statement from a Democratic state senator.
As a woman and sexual assault survivor, I am deeply concerned about its impact. There is nothing about what these religious zealots are doing that is biblical or constitutional.
Laws meant to prevent abortion access were unfortunate, but not surprising, according to the director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy.
The history of laws in this country restricts the rights of people under slavery and Jim Crow. She said that seeing this as original would be a mistake.
The case in which the Supreme Court made it legal to share information that could help women get abortions is known as the "Boelow v Virginia" case. The Supreme Court may be unreliable if it upholds established precedent.
Robert Corn-Revere is a First Amendment lawyer. Corn-Revere said that the Supreme Court has been very strong in protecting the First Amendment. Initial litigation that would address the law would be included.
Even before the law reaches the Supreme Court, it could have a negative effect on women's reproductive health.
The bill is unconstitutional, but Givens is worried that lawmakers won't care. She said that they may be concerned about people being silent.
Even if the statute is unconstitutional, it still has a chilling effect on people's willingness and courage to post information to the people that need it. That's one of the biggest concerns that I have about discussing laws like this.
In the wake of bills that could target people's electronic records, Givens encouraged people to minimize their digital footprint, but also encouraged tech companies to refuse to hand over user data that could implicate people in spreading information about abortions.
The senior legislative activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Insider that she was concerned about the free-speech implications of the South Carolina bill, not just for citizens posting information, but for internet companies themselves.
Tsukayama pointed out that internet companies may have to restrict abortion information to comply with state laws.
Tsukayama said that a bill like this could have a chilling effect on speech.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
