Skip to comments.Identifying Abortion Doctors, Staff, Patients Online May Soon be Prohibited: California
Posted on 07/08/2006 11:29:17 AM PDT by wagglebee
CALIFORNIA, July 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) A bill that would make it illegal to post information about abortion practitioners online may soon become law in California, the St. Helena Star reported yesterday.
AB 2251, brought forward by Democrat representative Noreen Evans, would ban any online posting, sale, trade or solicitation of the personal information of abortionists, abortion clinic staff and volunteers, and patients of abortion clinics. Addresses, telephone numbers and pictures would be considered protected information.
Web sites are used by militant anti-abortion activists to publicize personal information about reproductive healthcare service providers and patients in order to threaten or incite violence against them, Evans said in a statement. This bill gives women and their physicians a powerful tool against these Web sites.
The bill specifies that the display of information would be prohibited if it intentionally incited a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified, or if it would constitute a threat to the person, or place them in objectively reasonable fear for his or her safety.
Although the legislation is directed against abortion opponents who resort to violence, some are concerned that the bill has the potential to severely limit freedom of speech rights. Pro-life groups have at times identified doctors who commit abortions so as to allow pro-life women the option of avoiding them as ob-gyns.
The bill has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and will be voted on by the Senate.
Abortion-provider Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and NARAL have supported the bill, as have the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association and the National Organization for Women of California.
As far as the left is concerned, they are the only one's who have free speech.
I sense my freedom of speech rights being taken away--sounds like it this passes it is a very good case for the SCOTUS.
I'm sure that the NY and LA Times will immediately post all the forbidden information and the ACLU will defend them in court.
(Fit of hysterical laughter follows)
So it is against the law to identify Murderers ?b'shem Y'shua
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Heck the NYT can publish national securtiy secrets, so I doubt they can bury this information. But if it becomes law and eventually is honored by the SCOTUS, what does this say about our country . . . ? Protect our citizens and soldiers, not baby killers.
>>And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out<<
So will that make advertising of abortion services illegal?
"Free speech" is only for ultra-leftists and baby murderers. There is no First Amendment for anyone else, say the "activist" (Stalinist totalitarian) judges.
It's not just a matter of pro-life women not wanting abortions committed upon them by force or fraud. I, for one, don't want an abortionist to TOUCH me. Ever. I would not want ONE CENT my money to go to an abortionist, or to a hospital, clinic or group practice which had abortions on site.
Then not posting the names of rape victims must infringe on you free speech also?
Abortionists, like exterminators, are commercial vendors of "services." Rape victims are not.
Well, if you end up in an emergency room with, say, a large burn [things happen - say, hot cooking oil could splash] the ER physician treating you in that [not abortion related] situation could pretty well turn out to be an abortionist. It would be interesting to see if your "I, for one, don't want an abortionist to TOUCH me. Ever." would be equally forceful then, especially its "Ever" part. For some reason I have a hunch that the pain from the large burn would be of more overriding concern.
The Democrats want to take away the free choice of women to choose their ob/gyn's based on objective information?
Women seeking ob/gyn services can avoid abortion providers, based on the currently available information, and therefore decrease the market demand for people providing such services. With this bill, women will not be able to make an informed choice as easily.
see # 15. Sometimes you choose to have medical services, and sometimes you need them, even on emergency basis. And the need could constrain choice, and even override it. [See the proverb about beggars]. You have your doctor[s] whom you supposedly know and trust on whatever criteria you use - stick with them by all means. But providing the information for the use of the Eric Rudolfs [sp?] is another matter.
But, for non-emergency procedures, women should have the knowledge to help them choose which doctor offices to visit. It's not right for California to censor this information or advice.
If I wanted to have a baby, I would want to choose doctor who respects life for the nearly yearlong prenatal care and for the delivery. For one, I would prefer that the profits benefit someone of similar thinking. For another, I would be more comfortable if the doctor respected the unborn baby as more than a parasitic mass of cells.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.