The Supreme Court last week clearly declared that it had no federal right to abortion. However, how the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization’s decision affects the right to speak about abortion remains unresolved, and legal experts have said that Article 1 of the Constitutional Amendment is an illegal medical procedure. It was an upcoming conflict about whether to allow censorship speeches about. In many of the countries.
For example, in a state where abortion is prohibited, how can women be informed of their choices elsewhere? Is it free to publish ads across state boundaries from providers operating in states where abortion is not outlawed? Just as the Supreme Court ruled long ago. If a woman decides to end her pregnancy but does not live in a state that allows it, can she accept information about the abortion? What if the state moves to make this kind of information exchange illegal?
“On the surface, you have the right to talk about abortion,” said Will Creeley, Foundation’s General Counsel for Individual Rights in Education. “The question is, if it helps, beats, or encourages others to have an abortion, can we regulate the story?
“It presents the issue of the First Amendment,” he added. “Is there a say in the First Amendment even when the constitutional right to abortion is gone? And that would be a nuisance.”
Recently proposed by the National Right to Life Commission, a top group of lobbying opposition to abortion Model legislation For states where it is a crime to pass information “by phone, internet, or other means of communication” used to abort an abortion.
Many states basically did that before the Roe v. Wade case was decided in 1973. And it is not clear whether the court will determine that the protection given to the constitutional speech still applies to abortionists who are trying to circumvent the rafts of the new restrictions. ..
Many legal scholars say that such protection should still be applied. Promoting non-criminal activities is generally not illegal. And since abortion continues to be legal in many places, scholars said it should not be a crime to provide information on how women can legally obtain an abortion.
Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “Suppose you’re deliberately advertising in a Texas newspaper.’Do you want an abortion? Go to this New Mexico abortion clinic. Can Texas ban it?”
One similarity is gambling. Las Vegas casino operators are constantly promoting where activities are not permitted. However, the Supreme Court has put restrictions on that practice. Volok pointed out the 1993 decision, United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. It upheld federal law prohibiting advertising on state lottery tickets that do not allow them.
The Supreme Court directly addressed whether this type of ban could be applied to abortion, nearly 50 years ago in Bigelow v. Virginia, which invalidated a law that misdemeaned the disclosure of information recommending abortion to women. It was when I had an abortion. Or helped her get it.
The case, which deals with a newspaper called Virginia Weekly that advertised from a New York City abortion group, helped many women outside the state find doctors who could legally carry out the procedure. “Currently, abortion is legal in New York. There are no residence requirements,” the ad said, promising “strictly confidential” service seven days a week.
The editor-in-chief of the dissertation was tried and convicted. The lower court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect advertising for commercial purposes and upheld the conviction.
But the Supreme Court Said The speech would not be deprived of the First Amendment’s protection if it had a commercial side, and one state, such as Virginia, would “ citizens from another, such as New York. It has declared that it cannot be banned “because of disseminating information about legitimate activities in the state.”
Some First Amendment experts who support the right to abortion said it would not be surprising to see the state try to criminalize such speech again.
“Give me three weeks,” said Professor Lynn Greenkey of Syracuse University, who teaches the issue of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the first amendment to the Constitution in the past began with an abortion case. Among them McAllen vs. Cokley In 2014, the court ruled that the state could impose restrictions on speech outside the abortion clinic, but those restrictions could not be restricted enough to bear the rights of the First Amendment. Did.
Greenky said the protection of Article 1 of the Constitutional Amendment applies not only to those who provide counseling to women outside the clinic, but also to those who, if legal, help women to have an abortion. Said that it should be.
“If people who oppose abortion can talk to patients, can pro-choice people advise women seeking abortion?” She said.
With so many issues currently ready for legislative intervention by the state, it is unclear where abortion opponents will focus their resources and whether limiting the way information is shared will be a priority. is.
Mark L. Reenji, a law professor at the American Catholic University, hypothesized that the court could test how the Constitutional Amendment Article 1 applies in the post-abortion world. Would you like to travel north for a legal abortion?
Lienji, who insisted in the Supreme Court on behalf of Eleanor McAllen, who provided counseling and support to women outside the clinic in hopes of persuading them not to have an abortion, said Texas had someone in New York for the billboard. Prosecute.
“The fundamental thing is that it’s not a crime that’s happening,” he said.
However, Lienji added that the new legal situation is unknown and there is little certainty as to which law is currently free to pass. “The political process has been disrupted for 50 years in nature, so I don’t think we really know in some ways,” he added.
