Abortion foes move to block online ads for reproductive services

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Politico

HEALTH CARE

Abortion foes move to block online ads for reproductive services

Digital ad platforms consider their legal risk in a post-Roe U.S.

By RUTH READER

07/16/2022 07:00 AM EDT

Updated: 07/16/2022 09:56 AM EDT

Opponents of abortion rights are looking at the next phase in their campaign to stop people from ending their pregnancies -- and they're targeting the advertising of abortion services. ... The National Right to Life Committee is lobbying states to enact legislation it's drafted that would make it a crime to advertise information about abortion pills or other methods of ending a pregnancy. The model bill treats abortion like organized crime, by using a combination of civil and criminal penalties in the same way that the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act does. The scope is broad and suggests penalizing anyone who even conveys information about the procedure. State lawmakers in Indiana and South Carolina have already shown interest. ... Proponents of abortion rights said the First Amendment and a Supreme Court precedent should protect advertisers, but the court's adherence to precedent is in flux. The lack of clarity could weigh on risk-averse online advertising platforms.

{snip}

Under the National Right to Life Committee's proposed legislation, Google's web-hosting service could be in trouble, said Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler. Likewise, Facebook could potentially be liable for any user-generated content promoting abortion that's aimed at people in states where those services are illegal. ... While these platforms continue to host abortion-related advertising, the abortion-rights advocacy group Plan C said that getting ads promoting abortion services approved on them is arduous and getting more so.

{snip}

The biggest concern for digital advertising platforms in the short term are laws, similar to those in the National Right to Life Committee's proposal, in Oklahoma and Texas that permit civil suits against anyone who helps someone else get an abortion. ... Both states allow residents to sue parties that aid or abet an abortion with damages set at a minimum of $10,000. While the laws specify that paying for an abortion qualifies as aiding and abetting, legal experts say the laws could extend to advertising.

{snip}

There's also a Supreme Court precedent protecting advertisers. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision, somes states explicitly banned advertising for abortion services. In 1971, Jeffrey Cole Bigelow, editor for an underground Charlottesville-based magazine called Virginia Weekly, ran an ad for an abortion clinic in New York, despite a Virginia law that made it a misdemeanor to "encourage or prompt the procuring of abortion." Bigelow was arrested and convicted, but his case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor. ... In the majority opinion, then-Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the advertisement wasn't promoting a simple commercial transaction. "It contained factual material of clear public import" and was entitled to First Amendment protection, he wrote. However, the ruling came at a time when the court was sympathetic to abortion rights, having granted them constitutional protection two years earlier in the Roe decision. The current court may feel differently.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/16/abortion-foes-move-to-block-online-ads-for-reproductive-services-00046195

---

Hat tip, Joe.My.God.

Christian Group Seeks To Outlaw Ads For Abortion Pills
July 16, 2022

https://www.joemygod.com/2022/07/christian-group-seeks-outlaw-ads-for-abortion-pills/

-- -- -- -- -- --

Oh! They can't do that. It's ...

It's what? Unprecedented?

-- -- -- -- -- --

Jeffrey Cole BIGELOW, Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/421/809

-- -- -- -- -- --

Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)

https://www.mtsu.edu:8443/first-amendment/article/194/bigelow-v-virginia

[dlk]

1. Given the radical extremism of the right-wing SCOTUS majority

Every right in the Constitution is threatened. We have already seen this court shred the separation of church and state, and the right to privacy. Make no mistake, more shredding of rights is on the way.

[Novara]

2. That's not legal. Now.

There's also a Supreme Court precedent protecting advertisers. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision, somes states explicitly banned advertising for abortion services. In 1971, Jeffrey Cole Bigelow, editor for an underground Charlottesville-based magazine called Virginia Weekly, ran an ad for an abortion clinic in New York, despite a Virginia law that made it a misdemeanor to "encourage or prompt the procuring of abortion." Bigelow was arrested and convicted, but his case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor. ... In the majority opinion, then-Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the advertisement wasn't promoting a simple commercial transaction. "It contained factual material of clear public import" and was entitled to First Amendment protection, he wrote. However, the ruling came at a time when the court was sympathetic to abortion rights, having granted them constitutional protection two years earlier in the Roe decision. The current court may feel differently.

Yeah, we can all see where this is going.

[Lonestarblue]

3. How long before the religious right declares that girls cannot be educated and women cannot work?

The Christian Taliban seems to have that as their ultimate goal so that women have no choice but to be dependent on a man, perhaps chosen for them by fathers or brothers, for their very existence. Once they strip away all personal rights, the Christian Morality Police will monitor all behavior for violations. That reminds me of the articles about Handmaiden Barrett’s right-wing cult where men in the community would drop by a woman’s home at unannounced times to make sure she was doing her chores for the day.

There is no reasoning with people who have no compassion for anyone but themselves and nothing but extremist religious beliefs that replaced whatever brains they may have once had.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

4. Christian groups? No, dear media, not Christian at all...run of the mill fools and cultists.

May want to brush up on the meaning of Christian and compare to these guys…dear media.

[efhmc]

13. Best word to describe these "people" is Christofascists.

[bronxiteforever]

5. Kick & recommend for visibility

[Bayard]

6. One more mark,

In the Stupid As Hell column.

[NEOBuckeye]

7. Time to come for their tax-free status

Fuck these people and fuck their goddamned religion.

[Crowman2009]

8. Let's lock arms and block these rabidly pro-life churches!

I think they should get a taste of their own medicine.

[oldsoftie]

10. Facebook isn't based in a RTL state. If I access them from a state that is, its not their fault

Would Texas try to charge CBS for showing an ad for the morning after pill?

[LiberalFighter]

11. Maybe show ads of what anti-abortionists want to the extreme?

Basically required breeding of underage girls by old geezers using an auction service. Endorsed by them. With parents selling the rights.

[NHvet]

12. How long before we re-name the USA to the Republic of Gilead?

We aren't just taking steps toward becoming a true Handmaid's tale but we're charging ahead in leaps and bounds

[kirby]

14. "risk-averse online advertising platforms"

What is the "risk-averse online advertising platforms" they refer to? The same platformsthat run ads promoting racism, election lies, fake supplements, financial schemes, miracle boner pills, etc?

[Haggis 4 Breakfast]

15. Have these people ever heard of the First Amendment ?

They will not win this fight.

Maybe womens' groups should try to outlaw those sites where men can get Viagra without an Rx ?