This week marks four years since *Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization* overturned *Roe v. Wade*, eliminating constitutional protections for abortion care. In the wake of this landmark decision, the **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)** has observed a troubling trend: the intertwining of digital rights and reproductive rights, particularly concerning online speech and government censorship. A steady stream of proposed laws, cease-and-desist letters, lawsuits, and government investigations are targeting websites and online resources that help individuals find and learn about reproductive healthcare. This coordinated effort by anti-abortion government officials aims to reshape the information ecosystem, restrict access to information, and sever communication channels. While many of these attempts have, thankfully, failed, the persistence of such efforts is a cause for concern. If successful, these strategies could have far-reaching repercussions for freedom of expression online, extending beyond the realm of reproductive rights. ### Targeting Sites That Just Share Information A clear indicator that this is also a war on speech is the focus on websites that do nothing more than provide information about options, how to find a doctor, and where abortion remains legal. These efforts extend beyond abortion providers or entities that prescribe and sell medication. #### Cease-and-Desists & Takedown Demands State attorneys general are actively issuing cease-and-desist letters and takedown demands to online information hubs. For instance, **Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall** recently sent cease-and-desist letters to multiple groups with abortion-related websites, including **Plan C**. **Plan C** is a public health campaign offering educational resources and research on abortion access. It does not sell or ship abortion pills; it merely provides information. Yet, Marshall's office claimed **Plan C's** website “facilitates, aids, and abets” illegal abortion. Similarly, the **Arkansas** attorney general issued cease-and-desists to organizations like **Mayday Health**, which, like **Plan C**, provides only information. What's particularly concerning is that states don't need to win, or even file, a lawsuit to achieve their objectives. Earlier this year, **North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley** threatened legal action and ordered the **Prairie Abortion Fund** to remove information from its website. The fund was targeted not for selling pills, but for linking to external informational resources, notably **Plan C**. For smaller organizations, a letter threatening legal action can be enough to chill their speech, leading them to remove important content and go quiet. #### Censorship Mandates Legislators in several states have also attempted to criminalize sharing resources on how to obtain an abortion, even on purely informational websites with national or global audiences. **South Dakota** recently passed a law making it a felony to “advertise” anything “described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing an abortion.” This broadly worded language could easily apply to websites engaged in First Amendment-protected advocacy or educational resource provision. **Mayday Health**, which operates such a website, has since sued the state in federal court to block the law. The lawsuit argues that the law could reach something as minor as wearing a sweatshirt displaying **Mayday's** web address. Other states have made similar attempts. Last year, **Texas** introduced a bill that would have made it illegal to “provide information” on how to obtain an abortion-inducing drug. This bill, which thankfully did not pass, would have criminalized sharing information about legal abortion services in other states through emails, online chats, or websites. **Texas** has pursued similar legislation for several years. ### Dressing Censorship Up as Consumer Protection A significant tactic employed by anti-abortion officials is the weaponization of consumer protection and deceptive advertising laws. They claim that providing information about abortion violates these statutes, posing a direct threat to free speech rights. The First Amendment protects the publication of truthful information on public issues, and the Supreme Court has explicitly affirmed that this includes providing information about legal abortion in states where it is otherwise illegal. Despite this, states like **South Dakota** continue to use deceptive advertising claims to target abortion-related speech. Last year, **South Dakota** issued a cease-and-desist and then filed a lawsuit against **Mayday Health** for running ads that simply read: “Pregnant? Don’t want to be?” with a link to **Mayday's** website. The state deemed the ads “deceptive.” **Mayday** then counter-sued in federal court, challenging **South Dakota’s** actions under the First Amendment. While the federal judge declined to intervene during the pending state case, she noted her belief that **Mayday's** website constitutes “speech subject to protection under the First Amendment.” Other states have followed suit. **Missouri** sued **Planned Parenthood** in 2023 under its consumer-protection statute, labeling a webpage that stated abortion pills are safe as an “unfair and deceptive” trade practice. **Florida** went further, invoking its **RICO** law—typically reserved for organized crime—over similar statements. **Florida** heavily relied on a single study funded by an anti-abortion think tank, despite major medical organizations and decades of research indicating a serious-complication rate below half a percent. States should not be permitted to cherry-pick studies to suppress online speech. ### Going After Intermediaries & Erasing Whole Websites Some officials are not content with merely restricting specific abortion-related content; they aim to eliminate entire websites. Consider the cease-and-desist letters sent by the **Arkansas** attorney general last year. These letters were directed not only at content providers but also at internet intermediaries – entities that facilitate the use of the internet.