[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 19 (Tuesday, February 13, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E197-E198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 652, TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. NITA M. LOWEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 1, 1996

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, although I support the conference report for 
H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995, I must rise in opposition to 
the provision in the bill that bans discussions about abortion on the 
internet. This is a high-technology gag rule, and it is unacceptable.
  Section 507 will apply portions of the Comstock Act to the internet. 
In addition to banning the dissemination of obscene materials, the 
Comstock Act also bans the dissemination of information about abortion. 
As a result, section 507 of H.R. 1555 will ban both the sending and the 
receipt of information about abortion on the internet.
  This ban will have a chilling effect on the rights of millions of 
Americans. Violation of the ban bill be a felony, punishable by 5 years 
for the first offense and 10 years for each subsequent offense. 
Obviously, most American women will not risk a jail term, even to share 
necessary information about abortion--a legal medical procedure that is 
an integral part of basic women's health care.
  Proponents of this provision have argued that because this provision 
is old and has not been enforced for decades, it will have no impact on 
women's speech about abortion. They 

[[Page E198]]
say that it is dead letter law, and at worst case it only bans some 
types of advertisements and commercial speech.
  Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether the proponents of 
this provision are right about whether this provision will be 
interpreted very narrowly--as they claim--or very broadly. Either 
interpretation is possible, because the provision's scope is unclear. 
That is what makes this provision so dangerous. No one knows what it 
will do.
  One problem is that no court has addressed this provision since the 
Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade. In fact, the only Court 
decision directly addressing this ban on information about abortion was 
decided in 1915. Obviously, quite a lot has changed since then--most 
notably, the Supreme Court has held that abortion was a 
constitutionally protected right. What does this provision mean in a 
world where abortion is legal?
  Would H.R. 1555 ban all discussion of abortion on the internet? Or, 
would it only apply to information about unlawful abortions, as the 
court in the 1915 held? And what, in 1996, does unlawful abortion mean? 
For example, abortion laws vary greatly from State to State. If a 
person receives information about abortion services that are legal in 
her State, but illegal in the State from which the information was 
sent, would she go to jail?

  Would the provision only apply to advertisements and commercial 
speech, as some proponents claim? If it does, this provision 
potentially bars the providers of reproductive health services from 
having websites detailing the medical services they offer. This could 
also potentially bar many internet discussions of RU-486--discussions 
which could be described as facilitating the sale of a drug for use in 
producing abortions. Whatever its breadth, this provision--by limiting 
the information that women can get about abortion--puts the health of 
American women at direct risk.
  Including this restriction on speech concerning the reproductive 
rights of Americans in the telecommunications reform bill--a bill that 
has nothing to do with abortion--will impede the reproductive rights of 
all American women. To bar all internet users from discussing abortion 
is outrageous. To bar any American from discussing a medical procedure 
flies in the face of every ideal that we hold dear as Americans.
  Unfortunately, under parliamentary rules, I cannot offer an amendment 
to the conference report to strike this provision. However, I have 
already begun discussions with many of my colleagues about working to 
have this provision repealed on a future technical corrections bill. 
Again, although I support this conference report, I urge all of my 
colleagues to join me in working to remove this ban on discussions 
about abortion on the internet. This high-technology gag rule must not 
stand.

                          ____________________