The Texas House of Representatives is proposing a measure that would restrict online conversations in the state regarding abortion.
The measure, known as House Bill 2690, the Women and Child Safety Act, was filed by State Rep. Steve Toth (R-Conroe). It will mandate all ISPs to "make every reasonable and technologically feasible effort to block internet access to information or material intended to assist or facilitate efforts to obtain an elective abortion or an abortion-inducing drug."
The restrictions would block all efforts to "create, edit, upload, publish, host, maintain or register a domain name for an internet website, platform or other interactive computer service that assists or facilitates a person's effort in obtaining an abortion-inducing drug." (Related: New York passes pro-abortion ballot initiative that mandates other leftist agendas.)
The bill names six websites associated with organizations providing abortifacient drugs and other abortion services to states like Texas that have restricted abortion access, including Aid Access, Hey Jane, Plan C, Choix Health, Just the Pill and Carafem.
The bill presents serious legal consequences for anyone involved in manufacturing, distributing or even discussing abortion-inducing drugs. It goes as far as to outlaw the hosting or facilitating of online speech that could assist in obtaining these medications.
The legislation also seeks to prevent the dissemination of information about accessing abortion pills. This includes creating or managing websites and applications that might facilitate such access. It would also expose a wide array of tech companies to civil lawsuits if they fail to block Texas residents from accessing certain abortion-related content.
Critics claim bill violates First Amendment rights of Texans
The implications for free speech in the legislation have critics of the bill afraid of its profound consequences. The bill blocks access to legal content based on location and undermines the fundamental principles of free expression upheld by the First Amendment.
The act also contains peculiar provisions regarding legal defenses. It states that reliance on a court ruling that may later be overturned is no defense for actions taken under the bill. This eliminates the ability to argue that one was complying with the law at the time of the alleged violation, setting a precarious legal precedent.
Kiki Freedman, co-founder and CEO of Hey Jane, a virtual clinic that offers abortion services through the internet, said in a written statement that the bill "baselessly attacks individual liberty and equity" as well as "freedom of speech and commerce."
"This proposed bill shows just how far anti-abortion politicians have gone in the months since Roe v. Wade was overturned," Freedman said. "It would not only infringe on the First Amendment right to free speech by trying to silence telehealth abortion providers, but also target abortion funds and their donors – who have been instrumental in ensuring access to safe abortion care across the country – and anyone who travels out of state for care."
She added: "Anti-abortion politicians understand that medication abortion is now the most viable form of safe and effective abortion access, which is why they continue to attack it."
Visit Abortions.news for more about abortion legislation in America.
Watch this episode of "The Kim Iversen Show" as host Kim Iversen reports on an incident wherein a private equity firm forced an employee to get an abortion.
This video is from the Sanivan channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
Florida ballot measures to legalize recreational weed and expand "abortion rights" FAIL.
New York passes pro-abortion ballot initiative that mandates other leftist agendas.
U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Biden administration’s appeal challenging Texas abortion law.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.