Anti-Abortion Efforts to Censor Online Speech Threaten Broader Digital Rights

• Four years after the Dobbs decision, U.S. state officials are increasingly using legal threats and censorship tactics to restrict online information regarding reproductive healthcare.
• Anti-abortion officials are targeting informational websites, funds, and advocacy groups with cease-and-desist letters and takedown demands, even when those sites provide only educational resources rather than abortion services.
• These government actions threaten broad First Amendment rights and create a dangerous precedent for suppressing disfavored online speech through consumer protection and criminal statutes.

Targeting Informational Resources

• State attorneys general are actively pressuring groups like Plan C, Mayday Health, and the Prairie Abortion Fund by labeling educational content as aiding illegal activity.
• Tactics include sending cease-and-desist letters, threatening lawsuits, and demanding the removal of links to external informational resources.
• Smaller organizations often comply with these threats to avoid costly legal battles, effectively chilling protected speech.

Legislating Censorship

• States have introduced or passed laws that criminalize sharing information about obtaining abortions, with broad language that could encompass advocacy and educational content.
• South Dakota passed a felony law targeting abortion "advertisements," which is currently being challenged in court by Mayday Health.
• Legislative attempts in Texas have aimed to criminalize the simple act of sharing information about legal abortion access in other states.

Weaponizing Consumer Protection and RICO Laws

• Officials are labeling factual statements about abortion safety as "deceptive advertising" or "unfair trade practices" to suppress speech.
• Examples include lawsuits against Planned Parenthood in Missouri and the use of RICO statutes in Florida to challenge the accuracy of medical information.
• These actions rely on cherry-picked data to challenge established medical consensus.

Pressure on Internet Intermediaries

• Some states have sent demands directly to internet service providers, domain registrars, and web-hosting companies to remove websites entirely.
• Such actions threaten global access to information, as blocking a host affects users beyond the specific state’s jurisdiction.
• These efforts often conflict with Section 230 protections, which shield intermediaries from liability for user-generated speech.

Broader Implications for Online Speech

• The techniques used to silence abortion-related information—including criminalizing intermediaries and abusing consumer protection laws—could be replicated to suppress any viewpoint deemed disfavored by the government.
• Protecting the right to share and read information online remains a critical defense against the erosion of constitutional expression rights.