Texas Representative Steve Toth of The Woodlands, a Republican, has proposed a legislative measure known as the Women and Child Safety Act. This bill includes a mix of criminal and civil mandates, targeting a wide range of activities associated with abortion. If enacted, the law would restrict online conversations surrounding the topic.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The act stipulates serious legal consequences for anyone involved in manufacturing, distributing, or even discussing abortion-inducing drugs. It goes as far as to outlaw the hosting or facilitating of online speech that could assist in obtaining these medications.
Additionally, the legislation seeks to prevent the dissemination of information about accessing abortion pills. This includes creating or managing websites and applications that might facilitate such access. It would also expose a wide array of tech companies to civil lawsuits if they fail to block Texas residents from accessing certain abortion-related content.
The bill states: “Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person may not… provide information on how to obtain an abortion-inducing drug;” and “create, edit, upload, publish, host, maintain, or register a domain name for an Internet website, platform, or other interactive computer service that assists or facilitates a person’s effort in obtaining an abortion-inducing drug.”
The bill further states: “Civil action against interactive computer service provider… a person… has standing to bring and may bring a civil action against a person who provides or maintains: an interactive computer service that allows residents of this state to access information or material that assists or facilitates efforts to obtain elective abortions or abortion-inducing drugs.”
This could force platforms to block all accounts associated with abortion discussions or restrict access to Texas residents entirely—an approach that might be unworkable given current technological limitations. The implications for free speech are profound, as blocking access to legal content based on location undermines the fundamental principles of free expression upheld by the First Amendment.
The act also contains peculiar provisions regarding legal defenses. It states that reliance on a court ruling that may later be overturned is no defense for actions taken under the bill. This eliminates the ability to argue that one was complying with the law at the time of the alleged violation, setting a precarious legal precedent.
The bill clearly rubs up against the First Amendment by enabling private lawsuits to enforce provisions that might otherwise be deemed unconstitutional. The act’s disclaimer, which asserts that it does not prohibit speech protected by the First Amendment, is merely nominal, doing little to mitigate the broader implications of censorship.
