• Re: South Carolina Legislators Move to Criminalize Sharing Abortion Inf

    From Susan Cohen@21:1/5 to MEjercit@HotMail.com on Sun Jul 24 12:35:13 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, talk.abortion, soc.culture.usa
    XPost: soc.culture.israel

    On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 09:27:02 -0700, Michael Ejercito
    <MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/24/south-carolina-moves-to-criminalize-sharing-abortion-information/


    South Carolina Legislators Move to Criminalize Sharing Abortion Information >The South Carolina legislature is moving to enact a new law with deeply >troubling free speech implications. Following the Jackson Women’s Health >Organization v. Dobbs decision overturning Roe, the legislators have
    sought to criminalize any effort to ”aid, abet or conspire with someone”
    to obtain an abortion. That apparently includes sharing information over
    the Internet or other communication systems. In my view, the law
    violates the First Amendment and should be scuttled by the legislature. >Otherwise, it would likely be struck down by the courts.


    The language below is reminiscent of laws making it illegal to share >information on committing suicide. I have long objected to prosecutions
    for sharing such information as inimical to free speech.

    The free speech concerns are even greater with regard to the South
    Carolina law. Abortion is a protected right in many states. Indeed, many >continue to believe that this is a protected right under the Constitution.

    The law criminalizes sharing information on “the means to obtain an
    abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably
    likely to be used, for an abortion.” It is an unconstitutionally broad >provision. Even the federal government and members of Congress would be
    in violation since it is actively assisting those seeking abortion services.

    Of course, it is easy to introduce legislation but it is important to
    flag such excessive laws before they are replicated in other states.
    Indeed, the provision was reportedly based on model legislation drafted
    by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). Jim Bopp, the NRLC’s
    general counsel, reportedly wrote a memo noting that the model
    legislation seeks to use a type of organized crime model to deal with
    such activities: “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with
    to effectively prevent criminal activity.”

    The analogy to organized crime will not sustain such a law. As a noted
    above, this is a lawful procedure in many states and the criminalized >information would include core political and religious speech under the
    First Amendment.

    The law also makes it unlawful for a person “to knowingly or
    intentionally receive any proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a >pattern of prohibited abortion activity.” That could include a wide
    array of religious, journalistic, and public interest organizations.

    Presumably, tech companies themselves would be protected under Section
    230 of the Communication Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230). However, it
    would make it a crime for anyone, including journalists, public interest >groups, politicians, and advocates from sharing basis information on
    abortion services for women in states like South Carolina.

    Pro-life states need to be careful not to replicate the record of
    anti-gun states like New York, which have passed a series of
    ill-considered laws that resulted in major court losses. There is a
    tendency in such moments to follow Oscar Wilde’s rule that the only way
    to be rid of temptation is to yield to it. However, overreach can
    result in creating new and limiting precedent. The pro-life community
    needs to switch from years of being on the offensive to being on the
    defense. It needs now to hold the ground gained in Dobbs while
    pro-choice advocates must now shift to the offense in litigation after
    years of defending Roe.

    South Carolina has moved to lower its ban from the 20th to the 6th week
    of a pregnancy.

    Here is the critical language:

    Section 44-41-860. (A) It is unlawful to knowingly or
    intentionally aid, abet, or conspire with another person to violate the >provisions contained in Section 44-41-830. A person who violates this
    section is guilty of a felony and is subject to the same penalties as >provided in Section 44-41-830.

    (B) The prohibition against aiding and abetting a violation of
    Section 44-41-830 includes, but is not limited to knowingly and >intentionally:

    (1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone
    seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone,
    internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered >abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the
    information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an >abortion;

    (2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing
    access to an internet website, or providing an internet service
    purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this
    State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing
    that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used
    for an abortion;

    (3) offering or providing abortion doula services, knowing
    that the services will be used, or are reasonably likely to be used for
    an abortion;

    (4) providing a referral to an abortion provider, knowing
    that the referral will result, or is reasonably likely to result, in an >abortion; and

    (5) providing a referral to an abortion provider and
    receiving monetary remuneration, or other compensation, from an abortion >provider for the referral.


    All gook babies should be aborted. The world already has enough
    vermin. The rest of their population should be deported.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrew 'Andrzej' Baron@21:1/5 to thickirish@cunt.com on Sun Jul 24 18:59:01 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: talk.abortion

    In article <915rdht7gfscdr33pc7fk51ubsu9a7lafn@4ax.com>,
    Susan Cohen <thickirish@cunt.com> wrote:

    That's my point; if they had aborted that little turd before its'
    mother excreted it,

    I told you a 100 times that the correct spelling is "its". With
    "friends" like you, who needs enemies? Eat MORE shite and die.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Ejercito@21:1/5 to Susan Cohen on Sun Jul 24 11:35:45 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: talk.abortion

    On Sunday, July 24, 2022 at 9:35:17 AM UTC-7, Susan Cohen wrote:
    On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 09:27:02 -0700, Michael Ejercito
    <MEje...@HotMail.com> wrote:


    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/24/south-carolina-moves-to-criminalize-sharing-abortion-information/


    South Carolina Legislators Move to Criminalize Sharing Abortion
    Information
    The South Carolina legislature is moving to enact a new law with deeply >troubling free speech implications. Following the Jackson Women’s
    Health
    Organization v. Dobbs decision overturning Roe, the legislators have >sought to criminalize any effort to ”aid, abet or conspire with
    someone”
    to obtain an abortion. That apparently includes sharing information
    over
    the Internet or other communication systems. In my view, the law
    violates the First Amendment and should be scuttled by the legislature. >Otherwise, it would likely be struck down by the courts.


    The language below is reminiscent of laws making it illegal to share >information on committing suicide. I have long objected to prosecutions >for sharing such information as inimical to free speech.

    The free speech concerns are even greater with regard to the South >Carolina law. Abortion is a protected right in many states. Indeed,
    many
    continue to believe that this is a protected right under the
    Constitution.

    The law criminalizes sharing information on “the means to obtain an >abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably >likely to be used, for an abortion.” It is an unconstitutionally broad >provision. Even the federal government and members of Congress would be
    in violation since it is actively assisting those seeking abortion
    services.

    Of course, it is easy to introduce legislation but it is important to
    flag such excessive laws before they are replicated in other states. >Indeed, the provision was reportedly based on model legislation drafted
    by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). Jim Bopp, the NRLC’s >general counsel, reportedly wrote a memo noting that the model
    legislation seeks to use a type of organized crime model to deal with
    such activities: “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with >to effectively prevent criminal activity.”

    The analogy to organized crime will not sustain such a law. As a noted >above, this is a lawful procedure in many states and the criminalized >information would include core political and religious speech under the >First Amendment.

    The law also makes it unlawful for a person “to knowingly or >intentionally receive any proceeds directly or indirectly derived
    from a
    pattern of prohibited abortion activity.” That could include a wide >array of religious, journalistic, and public interest organizations.

    Presumably, tech companies themselves would be protected under Section
    230 of the Communication Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230). However, it
    would make it a crime for anyone, including journalists, public
    interest
    groups, politicians, and advocates from sharing basis information on >abortion services for women in states like South Carolina.

    Pro-life states need to be careful not to replicate the record of
    anti-gun states like New York, which have passed a series of >ill-considered laws that resulted in major court losses. There is a >tendency in such moments to follow Oscar Wilde’s rule that the only way >to be rid of temptation is to yield to it. However, overreach can
    result in creating new and limiting precedent. The pro-life community >needs to switch from years of being on the offensive to being on the >defense. It needs now to hold the ground gained in Dobbs while
    pro-choice advocates must now shift to the offense in litigation after >years of defending Roe.

    South Carolina has moved to lower its ban from the 20th to the 6th week
    of a pregnancy.

    Here is the critical language:

    Section 44-41-860. (A) It is unlawful to knowingly or
    intentionally aid, abet, or conspire with another person to violate the >provisions contained in Section 44-41-830. A person who violates this >section is guilty of a felony and is subject to the same penalties as >provided in Section 44-41-830.

    (B) The prohibition against aiding and abetting a violation of
    Section 44-41-830 includes, but is not limited to knowingly and >intentionally:

    (1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone
    seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone,
    internet, or any other mode of communication regarding
    self-administered
    abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the
    information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an >abortion;

    (2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing
    access to an internet website, or providing an internet service >purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this
    State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing
    that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used
    for an abortion;

    (3) offering or providing abortion doula services, knowing
    that the services will be used, or are reasonably likely to be used for
    an abortion;

    (4) providing a referral to an abortion provider, knowing
    that the referral will result, or is reasonably likely to result, in an >abortion; and

    (5) providing a referral to an abortion provider and
    receiving monetary remuneration, or other compensation, from an
    abortion
    provider for the referral.
    All gook babies should be aborted. The world already has enough
    vermin. The rest of their population should be deported.
    Just look at these InstaGram posts!

    http://www.InstaGram.com/p/Ca5VRN_JQs

    http://www.InstaGram.com/p/CfXwfsNDzvT

    How could you want to kill that baby?


    Michael

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Susan Cohen@21:1/5 to MEjercit@HotMail.com on Sun Jul 24 14:52:07 2022
    XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: talk.abortion

    On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 11:35:45 -0700, Michael Ejercito
    <MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, July 24, 2022 at 9:35:17 AM UTC-7, Susan Cohen wrote:
    On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 09:27:02 -0700, Michael Ejercito
    <MEje...@HotMail.com> wrote:


    http://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/24/south-carolina-moves-to-criminalize-sharing-abortion-information/


    South Carolina Legislators Move to Criminalize Sharing Abortion
    Information
    The South Carolina legislature is moving to enact a new law with deeply >troubling free speech implications. Following the Jackson Women’s
    Health
    Organization v. Dobbs decision overturning Roe, the legislators have >sought to criminalize any effort to ”aid, abet or conspire with
    someone”
    to obtain an abortion. That apparently includes sharing information
    over
    the Internet or other communication systems. In my view, the law
    violates the First Amendment and should be scuttled by the legislature. >Otherwise, it would likely be struck down by the courts.


    The language below is reminiscent of laws making it illegal to share >information on committing suicide. I have long objected to prosecutions >for sharing such information as inimical to free speech.

    The free speech concerns are even greater with regard to the South >Carolina law. Abortion is a protected right in many states. Indeed,
    many
    continue to believe that this is a protected right under the
    Constitution.

    The law criminalizes sharing information on “the means to obtain an >abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably >likely to be used, for an abortion.” It is an unconstitutionally broad >provision. Even the federal government and members of Congress would be >in violation since it is actively assisting those seeking abortion
    services.

    Of course, it is easy to introduce legislation but it is important to >flag such excessive laws before they are replicated in other states. >Indeed, the provision was reportedly based on model legislation drafted >by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). Jim Bopp, the NRLC’s >general counsel, reportedly wrote a memo noting that the model >legislation seeks to use a type of organized crime model to deal with >such activities: “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with
    to effectively prevent criminal activity.”

    The analogy to organized crime will not sustain such a law. As a noted >above, this is a lawful procedure in many states and the criminalized >information would include core political and religious speech under the >First Amendment.

    The law also makes it unlawful for a person “to knowingly or >intentionally receive any proceeds directly or indirectly derived
    from a
    pattern of prohibited abortion activity.” That could include a wide
    array of religious, journalistic, and public interest organizations.

    Presumably, tech companies themselves would be protected under Section >230 of the Communication Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230). However, it
    would make it a crime for anyone, including journalists, public
    interest
    groups, politicians, and advocates from sharing basis information on >abortion services for women in states like South Carolina.

    Pro-life states need to be careful not to replicate the record of >anti-gun states like New York, which have passed a series of >ill-considered laws that resulted in major court losses. There is a >tendency in such moments to follow Oscar Wilde’s rule that the only way >to be rid of temptation is to yield to it. However, overreach can
    result in creating new and limiting precedent. The pro-life community >needs to switch from years of being on the offensive to being on the >defense. It needs now to hold the ground gained in Dobbs while
    pro-choice advocates must now shift to the offense in litigation after >years of defending Roe.

    South Carolina has moved to lower its ban from the 20th to the 6th week >of a pregnancy.

    Here is the critical language:

    Section 44-41-860. (A) It is unlawful to knowingly or
    intentionally aid, abet, or conspire with another person to violate the >provisions contained in Section 44-41-830. A person who violates this >section is guilty of a felony and is subject to the same penalties as >provided in Section 44-41-830.

    (B) The prohibition against aiding and abetting a violation of
    Section 44-41-830 includes, but is not limited to knowingly and >intentionally:

    (1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone
    seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, >internet, or any other mode of communication regarding
    self-administered
    abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the >information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an >abortion;

    (2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing
    access to an internet website, or providing an internet service >purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this
    State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing >that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used
    for an abortion;

    (3) offering or providing abortion doula services, knowing
    that the services will be used, or are reasonably likely to be used for >an abortion;

    (4) providing a referral to an abortion provider, knowing
    that the referral will result, or is reasonably likely to result, in an >abortion; and

    (5) providing a referral to an abortion provider and
    receiving monetary remuneration, or other compensation, from an
    abortion
    provider for the referral.
    All gook babies should be aborted. The world already has enough
    vermin. The rest of their population should be deported.
    Just look at these InstaGram posts!

    http://www.InstaGram.com/p/Ca5VRN_JQs

    http://www.InstaGram.com/p/CfXwfsNDzvT

    How could you want to kill that baby?


    That's my point; if they had aborted that little turd before its'
    mother excreted it, there wouldn't be a baby. It's sub-humans like
    filipinos that make abortion necessary,






    Michael

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)