Four Years After Dobbs: The Rising Threat to Online Speech
It is easy to view the four‑year anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as a moment of reflection on the erosion of constitutional abortion protections. But for the digital rights community, the anniversary is a stark reminder that the fight over reproductive health has morphed into a high‑stakes battle for the open internet.
From Clinics to Clicks: The Shift to Digital Censorship
For years, anti‑abortion advocates have targeted clinics, pharmacies, and medical professionals. The last four years, however, have seen a systematic expansion into the online information ecosystem. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has documented a steady stream of cease‑and‑desist letters, takedown demands, and new legislation aimed at silencing websites that simply provide facts about abortion access.
These tactics are not limited to direct abortion providers. Legislators and attorneys general have launched campaigns against organizations that only offer educational resources. For example, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall sent letters to Plan C—a public health campaign that offers research and guidance on abortion access—claiming that the site “facilitates, aids, and abets” illegal abortion, despite not distributing pills or prescribing medication. Similarly, Arkansas’s attorney general targeted Mayday Health, an organization that aggregates information but does not directly provide abortion medication.
"The state does not need to win a lawsuit to get what it wants.” — EFF AnalysisThese letters are powerful: they can silence a website overnight, even if the target does not face any legal judgment. The threat alone can cause smaller organizations to self‑censor, erasing critical information from the public sphere.
Legislative Firewalls: Making Information Illegal
State legislatures have attempted to make it a felony to "advertise" or "provide information" about abortion. South Dakota’s 2024 law criminalizes any advertisement that could lead someone to use or apply an abortion‑inducing method. The language is broad enough to encompass advocacy and educational content on global websites. Mayday Health has sued the state in federal court, arguing that the law could reach as innocuous a target as a sweatshirt bearing the organization’s web address. Another example is Texas, which in 2025 introduced a bill that would have made it illegal to supply information about abortion‑inducing drugs. Although the bill failed to pass, the attempt signals a persistent strategy: criminalize the very act of sharing factual information.
"The Supreme Court has said that providing information about legal abortion in a state where it is illegal is First Amendment protected.” — EFF StatementThese legislative efforts threaten to create a precedent where the state can dictate what is permissible content on the internet, effectively turning the web into a regulated domain of reproductive discourse.
Consumer Protection as a Trojan Horse
A particularly insidious tactic is the use of consumer‑protection and deceptive advertising statutes to silence speech. South Dakota sued Mayday Health for running ads that read, "Pregnant? Don’t want to be?" with a link to its website, labeling the ads "deceptive." The state argued that the claims could mislead consumers about the safety and legality of abortion. Mayday Health counter‑sued, challenging the state’s claims under the First Amendment. Although a federal judge did not intervene during the state case, the court noted that Mayday’s website constitutes "speech subject to protection under the First Amendment." Other states have followed suit. Missouri sued Planned Parenthood under its consumer‑protection statute, labeling a webpage that described abortion pills as a "unfair and deceptive" trade practice. Florida pushed the envelope further by invoking its RICO law—traditionally used against organized crime—over the same content, citing a single anti‑abortion study while ignoring the overwhelming consensus from major medical organizations.
"States should not cherry‑pick studies to erase online speech.” — EFF CommentaryThe danger here is that consumer‑protection laws, which are designed to shield consumers from fraud, are being weaponized to suppress legitimate, truthful information about a public health issue.
Targeting Intermediaries: The Internet as a Physical Asset
Some officials are not content with penalizing individual websites; they want to shut down entire digital spaces. Arkansas’s attorney general sent cease‑and‑desist letters to internet intermediaries—domain registries and web hosts—demanding they stop supporting sites that discuss abortion drugs. By cutting off hosting or domain services, the entire website disappears, not just the targeted content. This tactic extends beyond Arkansas. Texas’s 2025 bill would have required intermediaries to take down abortion‑related content, directly conflicting with 47 U.S.C. § 230, which protects online intermediaries from liability for user‑generated speech. Federal pressure is also mounting. In March 2026, Senator Bill Cassidy and colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee urged the FDA to leverage every tool it has against online sellers, including pressure on domain registrars that keep these sites online.
"The push has gone federal, too.” — EFF ReportIf successful, these moves could set a dangerous precedent: that the state can compel private companies to silence speech that it deems undesirable, undermining the very ethos of a free and open internet.
Why This Matters Beyond Reproductive Rights
At first glance, these attacks seem specifically aimed at reproductive rights. However, the underlying strategy—using criminal statutes, consumer‑protection laws, and intermediaries to censor speech—can be applied to any disfavored viewpoint. The internet has become the primary channel for marginalized voices and grassroots organizing; silencing it would chill political engagement on a national scale. The consequences are twofold:
- Immediate Harm to Reproductive Health. People seeking safe and legal abortion care rely on the internet to find providers, understand legal status, and access medication. Each letter, lawsuit, and takedown threat removes a lifeline.
- Long‑Term Erosion of Free Speech. Once the state demonstrates it can force intermediaries to remove content, other groups—whether political, religious, or ideological—will follow. The digital commons will shrink, and the internet will transform into a curated, state‑approved space.
In the words of EFF founder John Perry Barlow: "The internet is a public good. It must be defended against those who would turn it into a private utility." As the anniversary of Dobbs approaches, let us remember that the battle for reproductive rights is inseparable from the battle to keep the internet free, open, and in the hands of its users.
Source: EFF – Four Years After Dobbs, Anti‑Abortion Lawmakers Keep Coming for Online Speech
Related Reading Fri, 19 Ju · Digital Rights Wed, 08 Ju · Digital Rights 2026-08-01 · Radio ShowsSimilar posts
UK’s Under-16 Social Media Ban: A Recipe for Censorship and Collateral Damage
The UK’s upcoming ban on social media for users under 16 is sparking fierce debate, with critics warning it will erode privacy, free speech, and meaningful online participation for young people. This deep dive unpacks th
Surveillance Stalks Abortion Care in Texas: How ALPRs and Digital Tracking Threaten Reproductive Freedom
Mayday Health’s billboards in Houston warn Texans that surveillance tools like ALPRs could track their abortion care. EFF reports show 83,000 license plate readers were used to hunt a woman seeking self-managed abortion.
Can a License Plate Say “Fuck the Police”? The First Amendment Fight Behind FTP&ATF
A Virginia vanity plate became a constitutional fight over government speech, private expression, vulgarity, and whether the state can police dissent once it opens a public channel.