As the chaos continues around the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, the states have become a free-for-all of right-wing conservatives figuratively jumping over each other in their attempts to become the state with the most absurd restrictive interpretation of women’s Constitutional rights. In their enthusiasm, they may well trample the First Amendment rights of the press, whose role is as a watchdog on democracy.
Women’s Equality Day historic image. Image courtesy of CollinsDemocrats.org
These zealous state legislators are not working in a void. They are working from the National Right to Life Committee’s (NRLC) new model law.
This “model” now appears to not just aim at removing women’s reproductive freedom over their own bodies (and as happened recently in Ohio, advocating forcing a victimized 10-year-old child into having a baby), but it targets websites that “encourage” abortion. We point out that this is part of a long history of suppressing speech—including news coverage—that centers on marginalized people in the U.S.
The question: what does it mean for a website to “encourage” abortion?
New anti-abortion model legislation from the NRLC could force anyone who publishes any work online, including journalists who cover abortion and women’s health issues, squarely into legal crosshairs. The first NRLC model anti-abortion law is already in place in Nebraska. The NRLC put their new model language up online, then pulled it after news media began to point out the obvious threat. (It is available here courtesy of the Wayback Machine)
The NRLC model legislation would subject people to criminal and civil penalties for “aiding or abetting” an abortion, including “hosting or maintaining a website, or providing internet service, that encourages or facilitates efforts to obtain an illegal abortion.” This seems squarely targeted at anyone providing what we used to call knowledge and that which supports an informed public.
Apparently, ignorance is a desired NRLC outcome? Or is it just control?
Marchers throng F Street headed towards Riverside Park for June 26, 2022 rally against Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. Daniel Flanders photo
The thing is, there is no guidance in the “document” that indicates how narrowly or broadly that model law would be interpreted. As pointed out by Prism Reports, there are many questions for which there are no answers:
“Does it cover an article on how medication abortion is accessible by mail or reporting on the medical consensus that it’s safe? What about a story on the opening of a new abortion clinic, or one covering the work of abortion care clinicians, advocates, and doulas? Is it too ‘encouraging’ for a website to simply remind readers that despite the leaked draft Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Whole Women’s Health, abortion remains legal, and people are free to keep their appointments?”
If this is the case, then even journalists at trusted news organizations could face legal jeopardy, harassment, and surveillance just doing their jobs; fighting misinformation, and providing readers with up-to-date, in-depth reporting, and fact-based information that reflects the state of the nation and helps women navigate their place within it.
So of course, it’s no accident that NRLC appears poised to attack the informational infrastructure around abortion — including news coverage. It is redundant to point out that news coverage IS information and information is power.
Such attacks aren’t new — during the 19th century, Congress passed a “gag law” preventing abolitionists from petitioning against slavery. The breakaway southern states took it a step further; making it illegal to speak a word of anti-slavery speech in the confederacy. Even publishers in “free” states faced physical threats, had their offices burned down and their presses destroyed. (Investigative journalist Ida B. Wells, who became one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and reported on post-Civil War civil rights injustices and started an anti-lynching campaign, was routinely threatened.)
Just as it became common in the 19th century, the attack on First Amendment rights — free speech and the freedom of the press — is not just verbal intimidation, it is physical violence. It may surface more in states where the NRLC Model abortion criminalization laws are shaping up to be the most extreme, or it may surface anywhere.
Even in the present day, it’s clear that speech-suppressive laws are part of a systemic approach that emboldens violence against the groups they target. In the past few years, the state of Florida has been a leader of anti-gay, anti-LGBTQ, and “anti-CRT” (critical race theory or any discussion of racial injustice) and not-so-veiled racism against black and brown teachers. That they have added language that threatens women’s right to control the health care decisions for their own bodies should come as no surprise.
Now, with a law specifically targeting abortion-related speech, the risks could be serious. Why? Because so many of the journalists leading the way on reproductive rights and justice reporting are women of color. They point out that the scientific data reveals the much higher risks of maternal and infant mortality in their communities. They already face disproportionate harassment, as they tell you the truth.
Childbirth in this country is dangerous; especially if you are a poor minority in a state forcing you to have a baby while denying you access to even minimal health care provided by the Affordable Care Act. Especially if you’re still only a child and are a child victim of rape and incest,
In the wake of the ruling, confusion is spurring delays and denials for some lifesaving pregnancy care. As reported this weekend by The Washington Post, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and other common complications are now scrutinized, jeopardizing maternal health.
There was nothing forced about Roe V. Wade; it offered women control of their own bodies and their own health care decisions. Everything about the reversal of Roe V. Wade is forced.
Purposely vague legislation prohibits “encourag[ing] abortion access,” which could mean virtually anything—which is the point. This is about control. With laws like these, both the cruelty and the vagueness are by design — to allow each Republican-controlled, state, sheriff, or court to apply their own interpretation, which could snag news media in legal quagmires (which is why we carry media liability insurance).
Silence – for us in the media — is not an option. There are no two sides here — there is only the truth.
Responding to Dan Tucker (and yes, I am female and not of the social issues Left or Socialist, etc., whatever names you wish to apply) I think a huge objection to the Supreme Court’s ruling is the clear stand of the conservative Justices to apply their religious beliefs to law. Returning the abortion issue back to the states: well, the southern states have demonstrated that they’d be happy enough to bring slavery back and their legislators do NOT follow the will of their own constituents and are doing everything in their power to keep everyone but white people out of voting. YES: Houston, as the fourth largest city in the U.S., the fine TX governor had all the ballot boxes removed except one for the last election. So, if you didn’t work during the day and had a car to drive 25 to 45 miles to the ballot box, you could vote. The religious right wants everyone to obey their interpretation of the Bible, and frankly it has become distasteful to many. With that said, there is one thing you and I agree on: “This thing cannot continue.” Please practice whatever religious beliefs you want to and let the rest of us practice ours. I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State, and this country was founded on the grounds of religious freedom.
There is no right to abortion annunciated in the Constitution. It’s inherently an issue to be settled locally. Harry Blackmun wrote it *into* the Constitution as a “right”. All the Court did in Dobbs was send the issue back to the states, recognizing the Federalist nature of our system. Many of us have good reasons to want abortion banned and in any sane “democracy”, our voices would be heard too. Why is it impossible for the social issues “Left” to approach this issue with some grace and charity towards its interlocutors? Why is this issue an absolute religion for its supporters, and why can’t the social issues “Left” also have some respect for our institutions? They expect social conservatives, of which there are many, to abide by court rulings like Obergefell. When the court goes against them, they go berserk. We can’t have a country like this. This thing cannot continue and it probably shouldn’t.
Dan, There is no right to a vasectomy in the United States Constitution — but men have them. Both are matters of freedom to control your own bodily functions and privacy. This right is covered by Amendment IX (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) as well as Section 1. of Amendment XIV.
Ark Valley Voice finds it interesting that men are responding to this article wanting their voices to be heard in what is referenced as “sane” democracy — which we suspect from your comments you wish were a theocracy; something our founding fathers abhorred. The wish to control and bend others to your frame of mind does not make your viewpoint superior; it makes your urge to control others life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness suspect.
Freedom over one’s own body is a human right sir, unless you wish that the same right of someone else to control yours. Your last comment is curious; you appear to be advocating for the destruction of this democracy. If that is so, we stand against such a position and we do stand for human rights.
Editors Note: Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution