XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, talk.abortion, soc.culture.usa
XPost: soc.culture.israel

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.

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

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

XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, talk.abortion, soc.culture.usa
XPost: soc.culture.israel

Michael Ejercito 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.

"'Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending decades of federal
abortion rights' thereby reminding us that abortions are the terrible consequence of #TerriblyHungry people misbehaving terribly like
#Jan621 Insurrectionist #HangryDJT and motivates us to redouble our
efforts to #ConvinceItForward to stop being #Hangry in hopes of
stopping the #MourningInAmerica" -- HeartDoc Andrew

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLbY86WqEQE&lc=Ugz7f-yaXdea7oYt3dR4AaABAg

Shorter more shareable link:
https://tinyurl.com/RoeWadeOverturned

Suggested further reading:
http://bit.ly/h_angry (2 Kings 6:29)

Instead of hangry, I am simply wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?






...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
2024 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President: http://WonderfullyHungry.org
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

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

XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel

On Sunday, July 24, 2022 at 4:01:36 PM UTC-7, HeartDoc Andrew wrote:

Michael Ejercito 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.

"'Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending decades of federal
abortion rights' thereby reminding us that abortions are the terrible consequence of #TerriblyHungry people misbehaving terribly like
#Jan621 Insurrectionist #HangryDJT and motivates us to redouble our
efforts to #ConvinceItForward to stop being #Hangry in hopes of
stopping the #MourningInAmerica" -- HeartDoc Andrew

Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLbY86WqEQE&lc=Ugz7f-yaXdea7oYt3dR4AaABAg

Shorter more shareable link:
https://tinyurl.com/RoeWadeOverturned

Suggested further reading:
http://bit.ly/h_angry (2 Kings 6:29)

Instead of hangry, I am simply wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?

I am wonderfully hungry!


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)

XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel

Michael Ejercito wrote:

On Sunday, July 24, 2022 at 4:01:36 PM UTC-7, HeartDoc Andrew wrote:

Michael Ejercito 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.
"'Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending decades of federal
abortion rights' thereby reminding us that abortions are the terrible
consequence of #TerriblyHungry people misbehaving terribly like
#Jan621 Insurrectionist #HangryDJT and motivates us to redouble our
efforts to #ConvinceItForward to stop being #Hangry in hopes of
stopping the #MourningInAmerica" -- HeartDoc Andrew

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLbY86WqEQE&lc=Ugz7f-yaXdea7oYt3dR4AaABAg

Shorter more shareable link:
https://tinyurl.com/RoeWadeOverturned

Suggested further reading:
http://bit.ly/h_angry (2 Kings 6:29)

Instead of hangry, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?

I am wonderfully hungry!

Michael

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

Keep practicing, Michael. Eventually you'll get
the reply down pat. I doubt though that it'll
inspire Andrew to engage in some kind of rational
repartee. But if one can ignore years of history
one can then hope.

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