Can a state block access to online information about abortion services?

Can a state that prohibits most or all abortions block access to online information provided by abortion rights advocates and clinics in states with more permissive abortion laws? After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationin which the US Supreme Court returned to states the power to regulate access to abortion, that question is no longer theoretical.

The answer ought to be “no.” After all, the First Amendment generally provides robust protection against government attempts to limit speech. However, a review of some of the Supreme Court precedents that will be invoked when this question inevitably appears shows that getting to that answer is more complex than it might first appear.

In 1975, the Supreme Court decided Bigelow v. Virginia, a case that arose from an advertisement published in a Virginia newspaper in 1971 regarding abortion services available in New York. A Virginia statute at the time outlawed the “sale or circulation of any publication” that would “encourage or prompt the procuring of abortion.” Bigelow, who was the managing editor of the newspaper that published the advertisement, was found guilty of violating the statute, and his conviction was subsequently upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court. The Virginia Supreme Court also reconsidered the conviction after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, upholding it a second time.

The US Supreme Court reversed the conviction on First Amendment grounds. The Court noted that “the fact that the particular advertisement in [Bigelow’s] newspaper had commercial aspects or reflected the advertiser’s commercial interests did not negate all First Amendment guarantees.” (A year later, the Court more directly addressed the question of commercial speech and the First Amendment, concluding that “commercial speech, like other varieties, is protected.”)

A key consideration in Bigelow was that the advertisement, while unquestionably commercial in nature, also conveyed facts through

Read the rest

How treatment of ectopic pregnancy fits into post-Roe medical care

As laws restricting abortion snap into place across at least 18 states after the June 24 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, people have taken to social media to question whether this decision will limit access to the treatment for ectopic pregnancies.

A Facebook post claimed “the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is abortion.”

This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

Similar posts have been shared widely across social media. Actress Halle Berry posted a similar graphic on Instagram.

Ectopic pregnancy happen when a fertilized egg implants itself outside of the uterus. This can cause life-threatening bleeding.

We found that while in some cases there is some overlap in the way ectopic pregnancies are treated and how pregnancies are electively terminated through abortion, that overlap appears to be small.

The larger issue is whether medical providers interpret restrictive abortion laws as limiting their ability to treat patients who present with ectopic pregnancies, which can be life-threatening.

How providers respond could depend on how “abortion” is defined under state laws.

Ectopic or extrauterine pregnancies happen when the egg travels down the fallopian tube to meet the sperm but does not reach the uterus. In 90% of ectopic cases the fertilized egg attaches to the fallopian tube. In other cases it can attach to the cervix or to the scar of a cesarean section. Out of every 1,000 pregnancies in the US around eight are ectopic.

“As the pregnancy grows, it can cause the tube to burst,” which can lead to life-threatening internal bleeding, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

These pregnancies are not viable and they cannot be reimplanted in the uterus. As a result,

Read the rest