Roe v Wade is on deck

[lpetrich]

Meta Was Restricting Abortion Content All Along | WIRED - "Abortion access groups and activists say they were dealing with algorithmic suppression long before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade."

On May 3, shortly after the draft US Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked, Bleu Grano noticed something strange. Gano, who runs the Instagram account Fund Abortion Not Police, had posted a guide to abortion services, including information about how to obtain abortion pills by mail, and images with web addresses to organizations like Aid Access and PlanC. The post was removed for violating Instagram’s community guidelines on the “sale of illegal or regulated goods.”

“I got really stressed that they were going to suspend the account,” says Gano. “I started to think it was specific to abortion, and stopped using the word ‘pills’ and only said ‘abortion by mail.’”

This issue is older than the revocation of Roe vs. Wade.

“We have been seeing social media platforms, specifically Meta, suppressing abortion content for quite a while now,” Ensley says. She recalls a post on Reproaction’s Instagram account from September 2021 discussing World Health Organization protocols for self-managed abortion using medication. A month later, in October, Ensley noticed the content had been removed and Reproaction’s Instagram account had a flag on it, “notifying us that if we ever wanted to monetize, this would be a strike against us,” she says.

About an abortion-support Facebook group,

In order to keep the group from getting shut down or flagged by Facebook, the moderator says she enforces strict rules, including not allowing members to post links, to keep the group out of the company’s crosshairs.

“What’s wild is that you don't know where the line is,” she says. “Every single post has to be seen by a moderator, because we don't want people posting requests for pills, to request or to send pills, because that will get the entire group taken down.”

The moderator says that on Reddit, where she also moderates an abortion subreddit, there are similar rules about not selling or buying pills on the platform, but that content and links discussing them are not removed by the platform, and do not put the group at risk.

Activists and organizers who spoke to WIRED say that other platforms are known to censor abortion-related content too. Ensley says Twitter removed one of Reproaction’s tweets about the abortion pill this year. TikTok has been accused by some users of taking down videos about abortion, although company spokesperson Jamie Favazza says the service’s policies do not prohibit content related to abortions or abortion access, only medical misinformation and other violations of its Community Guidelines.

The article then described the fate of the phrase "Abortion pills are available by mail" when posted on Facebook and Instagram from various places and in various languages.

nsley told WIRED that Reproaction’s Instagram campaigns on abortion access in Spanish and Polish were both very successful and saw none of the issues that the group’s English-language content has faced.

“Meta, in particular, relies pretty heavily on automated systems that are extremely sensitive in English and less sensitive in other languages,” says Katharine Trendacosta, associate director of policy and advocacy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

However, unlike for abortion, "Marijuana is available by mail" was not flagged.

 

[lpetrich]

Next post-Roe battlefield: Online abortion information - "Conservative activists, having won their goal of being able to criminalize abortion, are now aiming to limit or ban online information-sharing on the topic."

Misinformation is a problem, too. New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, wrote to Google this week asking the company to correct search results directing people seeking abortions to "dangerous and misleading anti-abortion clinics in New York" on Google Maps.

Online claims about abortion pills making women infertile or being deadly proliferate on online forums. Videos promoting unsafe methods of herbal abortion are popular on TikTok, Rolling Stone reported.

Laws targeting free speech about abortion would put journalists at risk - "The National Right to Life Committee’s model law targeting websites that “encourage” abortion are part of a long history of suppressing speech—including news coverage—that centers on marginalized people in the U.S."

Noting National Right to Life Committee Proposes Legislation to Protect the Unborn Post-Roe | National Right to Life

Back to Prism Reports.

The model legislation—which NRLC hopes will be adopted by state legislatures around the country—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.” Unsurprisingly, the text offers no guidance on how broadly or narrowly the provision might be interpreted: ...

Information on abortion in general? How abortion methods work? How to get an abortion? Who might offer abortion assistance? Who sells abortion pills?

And the First Amendment may not offer much refuge. The legislation prohibits “encourag[ing] abortion access,” which might mean virtually anything—and that’s by design. With laws like these, both the cruelty and the vagueness are the point. Conservatives have used precisely the same playbook with “Don’t Say Gay” laws and so-called “anti-CRT” legislation—the ill-defined and vaguely-worded laws leave so much uncertainty about what’s prohibited that people start policing their own speech out of sheer caution. The result is that a vast amount of speech is chilled without the state ever having to lift a finger for enforcement.

There is also the question of whether some Republican-dominated court would recognize such laws as First-Amendment violations, even if doing so would violate long-standing precedent, and the recent US Supreme Court has shown a willingness to ignore precedent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

noting
Facebook Is Banning People Who Say They Will Mail Abortion Pills - "A Facebook user and Motherboard both faced consequences for posting about mailing abortion pills on Facebook on the same day the Supreme Court overturned protections offered by Roe v. Wade."

So much for Big Tech being left-wing ogres, what some right-wingers seem to believe.

Not surprised--that's criminal activity, they don't want to be a part of it. Abortion pills are prescription, not OTC.

 

[ZiprHead]

A Republican lawmaker from Utah said she believes women can control 'when they allow a man to ejaculate' and 'the intake of semen' during sex

"I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen," Karianne Lisonbee said.

www.businessinsider.com

A Utah state representative on Friday said women have the power to control the "intake of semen" during sex.

"I got a text message today saying I should seek to control men's ejaculations and not women's pregnancies," state Rep. Karianne Lisonbee said during a news conference on Friday. She said the underlying tone of the message was that "I clearly don't trust women enough to make choices to control their own body."

"And my response is I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen," Lisonbee said in response to the suggestion.

 

[Gospel]

While I can understand the "yall killing babies" argument, I don't understand the rape victims being forced to give birth argument.

 

[Toni]

While I can understand the "yall killing babies" argument, I don't understand the rape victims being forced to give birth argument.

If you equate a fetus with a baby, then exactly how the baby came into existence is subordinate to the value of the baby’s life. The baby is blameless and what the mother has gone through, will go through does not matter.

The life of the mother isn’t even a consideration beyond as a vessel.

FWIW, I know some people who feel this way—notice I don’t say think: that’s how they feel. For the most part, they are women who never had children.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

While I can understand the "yall killing babies" argument, I don't understand the rape victims being forced to give birth argument.

If you equate a fetus with a baby, then exactly how the baby came into existence is subordinate to the value of the baby’s life. The baby is blameless and what the mother has gone through, will go through does not matter.

The life of the mother isn’t even a consideration beyond as a vessel.

FWIW, I know some people who feel this way—notice I don’t say think: that’s how they feel. For the most part, they are women who never had children.

Yes, the mother isn't even part of the calculus, or she is just simply shamed for getting pregnant in the first place.

My niece (a teenager) was posting a bit about the Dobbs case. I was staying outside of it, being I was older and didn't want to butt in. She posted one thing and I told her voting would be important to fix this. One of her friends (another female teen) replied to me saying SCOTUS shouldn't be writing laws. I found that such a peculiar argument for a female teen to make. I can get being pro-life, but I couldn't get a teenager arguing over a technicality of the boundaries of our branches of government. This is argued by the elected elite because it is easier to make Government the bad guy and ignore the woman. But for a teen to be shooting out right-wing talking points on a decision that impacts her in a very serious way was peculiar, arguing technicality over biology and sociology.

Certainly seemed to a carry a, 'this is what my parents (Dad?) think' or 'that is what the guy on Fox News, which my parents watch, said' vibe to it.

 

[Toni]

While I can understand the "yall killing babies" argument, I don't understand the rape victims being forced to give birth argument.

If you equate a fetus with a baby, then exactly how the baby came into existence is subordinate to the value of the baby’s life. The baby is blameless and what the mother has gone through, will go through does not matter.

The life of the mother isn’t even a consideration beyond as a vessel.

FWIW, I know some people who feel this way—notice I don’t say think: that’s how they feel. For the most part, they are women who never had children.

Yes, the mother isn't even part of the calculus, or she is just simply shamed for getting pregnant in the first place.

My niece (a teenager) was posting a bit about the Dobbs case. I was staying outside of it, being I was older and didn't want to butt in. She posted one thing and I told her voting would be important to fix this. One of her friends (another female teen) replied to me saying SCOTUS shouldn't be writing laws. I found that such a peculiar argument for a female teen to make. I can get being pro-life, but I couldn't get a teenager arguing over a technicality of the boundaries of our branches of government. This is argued by the elected elite because it is easier to make Government the bad guy and ignore the woman. But for a teen to be shooting out right-wing talking points on a decision that impacts her in a very serious way was peculiar, arguing technicality over biology and sociology.

Certainly seemed to a carry a, 'this is what my parents (Dad?) think' or 'that is what the guy on Fox News, which my parents watch, said' vibe to it.

May not be her parents or Fox. Could easily be seen on other social media--for instance, I've seen it on Twitter. You're right: the right has used it against whatever SC decision they disagree with. I'm here to tell you now, it's also being used against THIS SC decision by abortion rights advocates. I'm reading a lot of commentary about how the SC has overreached regarding overturning Roe v Wade, and other recent decisions, and about how the legislative branch needs to reassert itself because the SC is overstepping its boundaries.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I tend not to read social media, so I don't know much that is going on there. Regarding SCOTUS, the issue for me is this is an extremely rare instance of a individual right being retracted by SCOTUS. SCOTUS certainly didn't exceed their authority in the Dobbs ruling.

However, what they did was the unusual step of stepping well outside of their typical bounds of tight and narrow rulings. Mississippi argued for a 15 week limit. SCOTUS didn't rule on that at all! They shredded Roe. No one asked them to shred Roe. The far right justices saw their opportunity and butted their asses right in. That is far from common. To make matters worse, the decision was so vague to render it near impossible to know what the limits are for individuals regarding abortion rights for the lower courts. Which to me is flagrant judicial malpractice. A rape victim doesn't have time for a case to go through the courts. They knew these issues existed, and despite their willingness to step well outside the bounds of the case, they refused to address the upfront and obvious questions that need to be addressed. Such as, does a rape victim need to throw themselves down the stairs to hope for a miscarriage?

This malpractice continued with the EPA case, where a case didn't even exist, but they took it, just to gut the EPA. They are exceeding the previously held bounds of the SCOTUS and its protocols regarding how it handles law. They know that time is fleeting, so they aren't waiting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A Republican lawmaker from Utah said she believes women can control 'when they allow a man to ejaculate' and 'the intake of semen' during sex

"I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen," Karianne Lisonbee said.

www.businessinsider.com

A Utah state representative on Friday said women have the power to control the "intake of semen" during sex.

"I got a text message today saying I should seek to control men's ejaculations and not women's pregnancies," state Rep. Karianne Lisonbee said during a news conference on Friday. She said the underlying tone of the message was that "I clearly don't trust women enough to make choices to control their own body."

"And my response is I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen," Lisonbee said in response to the suggestion.

Sounds like bad wording to me--I read this is as they get to choose when a man ejaculates inside them.

Of course this comes down to the fundamental issue they think sex is only for procreation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I can understand the "yall killing babies" argument, I don't understand the rape victims being forced to give birth argument.

If you equate a fetus with a baby, then exactly how the baby came into existence is subordinate to the value of the baby’s life. The baby is blameless and what the mother has gone through, will go through does not matter.

The life of the mother isn’t even a consideration beyond as a vessel.

FWIW, I know some people who feel this way—notice I don’t say think: that’s how they feel. For the most part, they are women who never had children.

If it's really about the fetus then it's the only sane position--a normal pregnancy doesn't rise to the level of threat that would permit deadly force to be used. Thus the means of conception doesn't matter.

Its the ones that accept abortion in case of rape/incest that are the true evil--its obvious not about the fetus because the fetus is innocent of its means of conception. That means it's about controlling women, not about life.

 

[Toni]

I honestly do understand the true believers : all life is previous, good coming from bad circumstances ( rape, or death/serious health complications for mother), redemption. The real true believers also oppose the death penalty and war, etc. they support a fair and just society, feeding and housing and caring for and loving the poor, the sick, the disabled, the strangers and outcasts among us.

They are very few and very far between.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I honestly do understand the true believers : all life is previous, good coming from bad circumstances ( rape, or death/serious health complications for mother), redemption. The real true believers also oppose the death penalty and war, etc. they support a fair and just society, feeding and housing and caring for and loving the poor, the sick, the disabled, the strangers and outcasts among us.

They are very few and very far between.

I've encountered two. In 40 years online. They're a drop in the bucket compared to the punishment crowd.

 

[Jarhyn]

I honestly do understand the true believers : all life is previous, good coming from bad circumstances ( rape, or death/serious health complications for mother), redemption. The real true believers also oppose the death penalty and war, etc. they support a fair and just society, feeding and housing and caring for and loving the poor, the sick, the disabled, the strangers and outcasts among us.

They are very few and very far between.

Honestly, I've met more atheists among those few and far between than ever a Christian. They are the vanishingly rare, the Christians among their number.

 

[ZiprHead]

Supreme Court Justices Have Been Praying With Leaders of a Group That Helped End Roe v. Wade

"They will pray with us...We actually go in there," Peggy Nienaber, whose group authored an amicus brief in Dobbs, was caught saying on a hot mic.

jezebel.com

In new hot mic audio obtained by Rolling Stone, Peggy Nienaber, executive director of Liberty Counsel’s D.C. ministry, bragged about praying with Supreme Court Justices at the court. Liberty Counsel authored an amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case, in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal right to abortion last month.


Per the Rolling Stone’s Wednesday report, during a celebration marking the fall of Roe, someone on a livestream asked Nienabar, “You actually pray with the Supreme Court justices?” Nienaber responded: “I do. They will pray with us, those that like us to pray with them.” As for where these prayers are happening, Nienaber indicated they’re taking place inside the Supreme Court: “We actually go in there.”

 

[Gospel]

Doesn't mean shit. There are two ways to undo what was done and neither of them is complaining about prayer at 1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543. Both are a roll of the dice regardless since the nature of the court is not to make everyone happy but to interpret the law. This being conducted by flawed humans is what makes it a dice roll. Even a supreme court full of Artificial intelligence would not be better.

1) Wait until death and replacement
2) stack the court

Neither is a guarantee to get what you personally want out of the court (see nature above) because once they get in there, fuck all can be done to get them to rule how you'd want them to (rightfully so).

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry, but the Constitution contains no right to eat dinner

“Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.” — Statement from Morton’s, after protesters gathered outside the D.C. steakhouse while Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh ate there
Oh, this is embarrassing! The right to congregate and eat dinner is actually not to be found anywhere in the Constitution. I have been studying the Constitution very carefully, including the emanations of the penumbras, and I can see why people might think there was some inherent right to dinner. Eating seems so fundamental: Whether or not you want to have steak inside yourself seems like something you ought to be able to determine on your own behalf. Eating and chewing, alone or in the company of others, feels as though it ought to be up to the person most affected, and protected from abridgment of any kind, even by the states.

 

[ZiprHead]

Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

A pregnant Texas woman who was ticketed for driving in the HOV lane suggested that Roe v. Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court means that her fetus counted as a passenger, and that she should not have been cited.

Brandy Bottone was recently driving down Central Expressway in Dallas when she was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy at an HOV checkpoint to see whether there were at least two occupants per vehicle as mandated. When the sheriff looked around her car last month, she recounted to The Washington Post that he asked, “Is it just you or is someone else riding with you?”
“I said, ‘Oh, there’s two of us,’” Bottone said. “And he said, ‘Where?’”

Bottone, who was 34 weeks pregnant at the time, pointed to her stomach. Even though she said her “baby girl is right here,” Bottone said one of the deputies she encountered on June 29 told her it had to be “two bodies outside of the body.” While the state’s penal code recognizes a fetus as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Shadowy Man]

Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

A pregnant Texas woman who was ticketed for driving in the HOV lane suggested that Roe v. Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court means that her fetus counted as a passenger, and that she should not have been cited.

Brandy Bottone was recently driving down Central Expressway in Dallas when she was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy at an HOV checkpoint to see whether there were at least two occupants per vehicle as mandated. When the sheriff looked around her car last month, she recounted to The Washington Post that he asked, “Is it just you or is someone else riding with you?”
“I said, ‘Oh, there’s two of us,’” Bottone said. “And he said, ‘Where?’”

Bottone, who was 34 weeks pregnant at the time, pointed to her stomach. Even though she said her “baby girl is right here,” Bottone said one of the deputies she encountered on June 29 told her it had to be “two bodies outside of the body.” While the state’s penal code recognizes a fetus as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not.

They then arrested her for child trafficking.

And a non-citizen at that!