![]() Wells, who became one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and reported on post-Civil War civil rights injustices and started an anti-lynching campaign, was routinely threatened.) Even publishers in “free” states faced physical threats, had their offices burned down and their presses destroyed. The breakaway southern states took it a step further making it illegal to speak a word of anti-slavery speech in the confederacy. Such attacks aren’t new - during the 19th century, Congress passed a “gag law” preventing abolitionists from petitioning against slavery. It is redundant to point out that news coverage IS information and information is power. So of course, it’s no accident that NRLC appears poised to attack the informational infrastructure around abortion - including news coverage. If this is the case, then even journalists at trusted news organizations could face legal jeopardy, harassment, and surveillance just doing their jobs fighting misinformation, and providing readers with up-to-date, in-depth reporting, and fact-based information that reflects the state of the nation and helps women navigate their place within it. Right wing pro life groups free#Whole Women’s Health, abortion remains legal, and people are free to keep their appointments?” “Does it cover an article on how medication abortion is accessible by mail or reporting on the medical consensus that it’s safe? What about a story on the opening of a new abortion clinic, or one covering the work of abortion care clinicians, advocates, and doulas? Is it too ‘encouraging’ for a website to simply remind readers that despite the leaked draft Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. As pointed out by Prism Reports, there are many questions for which there are no answers: The thing is, there is no guidance in the “document” that indicates how narrowly or broadly that model law would be interpreted. Marchers throng F Street headed towards Riverside Park for Jrally against Supreme Court’s Roe v. The NRLC model legislation would subject people to criminal and civil penalties for “aiding or abetting” an abortion, including “hosting or maintaining a website, or providing internet service, that encourages or facilitates efforts to obtain an illegal abortion.” This seems squarely targeted at anyone providing what we used to call knowledge and that which supports an informed public.Īpparently, ignorance is a desired NRLC outcome? Or is it just control? (It is available here courtesy of the Wayback Machine) The NRLC put their new model language up online, then pulled it after news media began to point out the obvious threat. The first NRLC model anti-abortion law is already in place in Nebraska. New anti-abortion model legislation from the NRLC could force anyone who publishes any work online, including journalists who cover abortion and women’s health issues, squarely into legal crosshairs. The question: what does it mean for a website to “encourage” abortion? We point out that this is part of a long history of suppressing speech-including news coverage-that centers on marginalized people in the U.S. This “model” now appears to not just aim at removing women’s reproductive freedom over their own bodies (and as happened recently in Ohio, advocating forcing a victimized 10-year-old child into having a baby), but it targets websites that “encourage” abortion. They are working from the National Right to Life Committee’s (NRLC) new model law. These zealous state legislators are not working in a void. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |