[This is a very interesting press release, and associated docs, from US Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-CO), announcing a legislative challenge to the Comstock Act's treatment of abortion info as "obscene" (and, by extension, the Telecom Bill's criminalization of online abortion info.) Schroeder's upcoming bill does *not* affect the Communications Decency Act portion of the Telecom Bill, only the bill's abortion-related Comstock amendment.] PAT SCHROEDER 2307 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515 811 E. 17th Avenue Denver CO 80218 _____________________________________________________________________ * PRESS RELEASE * PRESS RELEASE * PRESS RELEASE * Contact: Andrea Camp 202-225-4431 Release: February 6, 1996 SCHROEDER TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO DELETE LANGUAGE IN THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT CRIMINALIZING ABORTION-RELATED SPEECH ON THE INTERNET Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colorado), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, today announced that she will introduce legislation when Congress reconvenes on February 26, to delete the anachronistic ban on abortion-related sspeech from the Comstock At, the 123 year old [sic] law governing the importaion or transportation of obscene matters. Schroeder said, "Abortion has been legal in this country for the last 23 years. It's ridiculous, obsolete, and unconstitution to keep this ban on abortion-related speech in the law. By keeping it in we create problems as we did last week when Congress extended this crazy provision to the Internet. We should just get rid of it." Schroeder continued, "I am alarmed that Chairman Henry Hyde, author of the provision, asserts that the provision does criminalize commercial speech about abortion. This interpretation threatens women's abuility to use the Internet to findt ou where and how to get a medical procedure that is legal in this country." Attached is a copy of the Dear Colleague letter that Mrs. Schroeder sent out to members of the House of Representatives today. On back of the Dear Colleague is the excerpt from the House debate on the Telecommuncations Act that relates to the abortion provision. [end press release] ******************************** Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-0601 Patricia Schroeder 1st District, Denver, Colorado Washington Office 2307 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 25015-0601 (202) 225-4431 ZAP THE COMSTOCK LAW BEFORE IT BECOMES A COMPUTER VIRUS ON THE INTERNET Dear Colleague: When you voted on the telecommunications bill last week, did you intend to criminalize speech about abortion on the Internet? Of course not! But hidden within Section 507 of the bill was a provision that provides for up to a $250,000fine and/or five years in prison for using interactive computer services to privide or eceive information about abortion. Section 507 was intended to criminalize onscenity on the Internet, not speech about abortion. Regrettably, Section 507 extends to the Internet not just the intended obscenity ban, but a much broader law from one fo the most censorious times in our history -- a time when government power was used to fine and imprison people who gave out accurate birth control information. Let's honor our oath to uphold the Constitution by deleting the ban on abortion-related speech from the obscenity law. The infamous Comstock Act, passed in 1873 at the urging of Anthony Comstock, secretary of the Committe for the Suppression of Vice, made it a crime to send material on birth control and abortion through the mails. As a special unpaid agent of the Post Office Department, Comstock went after people like Margaret Sanger and her husband, William, because they campaigned for accurate birth control information. Margaret Sanger was arraigned on eight counts of violating the Comstock Act in 1914 for publishing newpaper articles on birth control; William Sanger was convicted in 1915 for selling a single copy of "Family Limitation," a pamphlet on birth control. As a result of Comstock's crusade, publishers were forced to censor their scientific and physiological works, druggists were punished for giving out information about contraception, and average Americans had to live with censorship of their mail, and without access to relable information abou contraception. Two years before his death in 1915, Constock bragged that he had been responsible for the criminal conviction of enough people to fill a 61-coach passenger train. The Constock Act remains on our books today, in slightly modified for, at 18 U.S.C., Section 1462. In 1971, Congress deleted the prohibition on birth control; but prohibition on information about abortion remains, and the maximum fine was increased in 1994 from $5,000 to $250,000 for a first offense. If you voted for the telecommunications conference report last week, you voted to extend the Comstock Act to anyone who uses any interactive service to provide or receive information which directly or indirectly tells where, how, of whom, or by what means an abortion may be obtained. A broader gag rule is hard to imagine. It could criminalize: * an Internet posting of the referral directory of your local medical society, or the Yellow Pages of the telephone directory; * a tlemedicine consultation between two doctors who are conferring about a patient who may need an abortion to save her life; * uplaoding or downloading medical journal articles about RU-486, or about safe abortion techniques. This abortion-related gag law clearly violates our cherished First Amendment rights, While the Lowey-Hyde colloquy on the floor acknowledged that at least some abortion-related speech is protected by the First Amendment, the plain language of Section 1462 reaches all speech "which directly or indrectly [tells] where, how, of whom, or by what means" an abortion may be obtained. Furthermore, Chairman Hyde's full statement asserts that Section 1462 does criminalize commercial speech about abortion. This interpretation threatens speech relating to obtaining an abortion, as well as commercial speech relating to a legal medicine procedure (see the Congressional Record excerpt on reverse). Let's zap Mr. Comstock's law criminalizing information about abortion before it becomes a computer virus on the Internet. When Congress reconvenes on February 26, I will ontroduce legislation which leaves the anti-obscenity provisions of Section 1462 in place, but repeals the provision about abortion information. To be an original co-sponsor of this bill, call Carrie Nixon at x54431. Patricia Schroeder [end "Dear Colleague" letter] ******************************** February 1, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE Mr HYDE. * * * Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. LOWEY] for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BLILEY], the chiarman of the committee, and other members of the conference in bringing this very important conference report to the floor today. However, I would like to bring to your attention one section that is very troubling to me. Section 507 amends the preexisting section of the Criminal Code (18 U.S.C. 1462) and applies it to the Internet. Now, it was my understanding that your intent behind adopting this provision was to place reasonable restrictions on obscenity and indecency on the Internet. I support this goal. However, a section of this act may be constured to curb discussions about abortion. It seems to me this provision would certainly be unconsitutional. Mr. HYDE. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentlewoman that any discussion about abortion, both pro-life and pro-choice rights, is protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech; and I certainly agree, nothing in title V should be interpreted to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion. Further, it is correct that our principal intent in adopting this provision was to curb the spread of obscenity and indecency, speech that is not protected by the first amendment, from the Internet in order to protect our children. [...] Concerns have been raised about the amendment to 18 U.S.C. Section 1462 regarding an interactive computer service. Section 1462 generally prohbiots the importation or transportation of obscene matter. Subsection 1462(c) prohibits the importation or interstate carriage of "any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving away information, directly or indirectlym wherem howm or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters or things may be obtained or made***." We are talking about the advertisement, sale or procurement of drugs or medical instruments or devices used to bring about an abortion, This language in no way is intended to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion, nor in any way to limit medical or scientific discourse on the Internet. This amendment to subsection 1462(c) does not prohibit serious discussions about the moral questions surrounding abortion, the act of abortion itself, or the constitutionality of abortion. This statutory language prohibits the use of an interactive computer service for the explicit purpose of selling, procuring or facilitating the sale of drugs, medicines or other devices intended for use in producing abortions. The statutory language is confined to those commercial activities already covered in section 1462(c) of title 18 and in now way interferes with the freedom of individuals to discuss the general topic of abortion on the Internet. [end Congressional Record snippets]