- A South Carolina bill would make it a felony to help people get abortions online or over the phone.
- Tech legal experts say such laws violate First Amendment freedoms.
- However, other states may soon act to curb out-of-state abortions, experts say.
As abortion restrictions continue to tighten across the U.S., lawmakers are looking for ways to further prosecute abortion providers and prevent more abortions in a post-Ro world.
In South Carolina, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would restrict phone calls, emails, text messages and websites that share information about abortion.
SB 1373, if enacted, would make it a felony to transmit or maintain abortion-related information by “telephone, Internet, or any other means of communication” or websites that provide abortion-related information to women, punishable by 2 Up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000.
Other states may follow similar laws soon. And even if courts eventually strike down the bill as violating the First Amendment, it could take months before it takes effect and could harm the health of many women who seek abortions, academics and advocates say.
“We’re worried we’re going to see a lot of new state laws trying to limit how people can get reliable and accurate information about reproductive care,” Alexandra Ginns, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, told Insider.
Earlier this month, CDT formed a task force to address data access and user privacy following the Dobbs and Jackson decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
He said the law is “clearly unconstitutional” and the scope of the law is “shocking”.
“This law could be written into the discourse of journalists or politicians or public interest groups trying to help people understand their rights and understand the resources available to them,” Givens said.
The law is supported by ‘religious zealots’.
The South Carolina law is modeled after a model law by the National Right to Life Committee, one of the most established anti-abortion organizations in the United States. The NRLC proposed the bill as a model for creating an “effective enforcement system” that would prevent health care providers from offering abortion services, according to a memo from NRLC counsel Jim Bopp.
The NRLC did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.
The abortion industry “takes advantage of state laws on telehealth and proximity laws in states with less protective laws,” Bopp wrote in June. Bopp did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.
The bill in the South Carolina State Senate Medical Affairs Committee is sponsored by three Republicans: Sen. Richard Cash, Sen. Rex Rice and Sen. Daniel Verdin. The bill’s affiliates did not immediately respond to questions sent by an insider.
In a statement to Insider, Democratic state Sen. Mia McLeod, who sits on Cash, Rice and Verdin on the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Committee, said the bill would likely pass in the state and rob women of “God’s gift.” Rights and Freedoms”.
“As a woman and a survivor of sexual assault, I am deeply concerned about its impact, as well as its wider implications,” McLeod wrote. “There is nothing biblical, scriptural or constitutional about what these religious zealots are doing.”
The bill could have a ‘chilling effect’ on people’s speech.
Michele Goodwin, director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy, told Insider that “broad” laws aimed at preventing abortion are “sad but not surprising” after Roe.
Goodwin cited the history of laws in this country that restricted First Amendment rights and the right to travel for black people under slavery and the Jim Crow era. “Our mistake would be to see this as something original rather than pulling from an earlier playbook,” she says.
Goodwin found SB 1373 unconstitutional in the pre-Roe Supreme Court case Bigelow v. Virginia pointed out. But, Goodwin added, the Dobbs decision means the Supreme Court may not be faithful in upholding established precedent.
Robert Korn-Revere, a First Amendment advocate, said these laws are “highly unlikely” to succeed, citing Bigelow v. You mention Virginia as a precedent. Korn-Revere told Insider that the Supreme Court, despite criticism, “has been very strong in protecting First Amendment rights.” He also pointed out that there will be “intervention measures” including preliminary litigation regarding the law.
But Goodwin said the bill could have dire consequences, including dissuading many women from seeking abortions even before it reaches the Supreme Court.
Givens, who shared the same sentiment, told Insider that she worries lawmakers may not care about the constitutionality of the law, even if it is unconstitutional. Instead, she said, “scare people into silence.”
“In the First Amendment domain, we talk a lot about chilling effects, and how laws like this — even if they’re unconstitutional — affect people’s will and courage to post information to people who want it,” Givens said. “And that’s one of the things that worries me about even discussing laws like this.”
SB 1373 also targets internet hosting and technology companies
In the wake of bills that could target people’s electronic records, people should take steps to reduce their digital footprints, but tech companies are encouraged to comply with these state laws and not hand over user data that people share about abortion. .
Hayley Tsukayama, senior legislative activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Insider that while the foundation was reviewing the South Carolina law, she was concerned about the free speech implications of the law not only for citizens posting information, but also for Internet companies. themselves.
For example, Tsukayama pointed out that Internet companies cannot always restrict sites in certain states and that they must completely restrict abortion information to comply with state laws.
“So what we’re afraid will happen is if a bill like this passes, that will really have a chilling effect on everybody’s speech,” Tsukayama said.
