A federal court has ruled against a Tennessee law that aimed to criminalize advising minors on how to obtain out-of-state abortions. This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over abortion rights and free speech in the United States.
Background of the Case
In June 2024, Rachel Welty, an abortion rights advocate, and a state representative filed a lawsuit against Tennessee’s district attorneys. The lawsuit challenged the state’s law that penalized people who guide minors in seeking an abortion, including helping them travel to another state where abortion is legal.
The plaintiffs argued that the law restricted free speech, as it criminalized sharing information about obtaining a legal abortion outside Tennessee.
The Law in Question
The specific law, Tennessee Code Section 39-15-213, made it a crime to “recruit” a minor to get an abortion, even if that abortion were legal in another state. The plaintiffs argued that the law unjustly criminalized the act of providing guidance and information about lawful medical procedures.
In response to the lawsuit, the state officials contended that the law was meant to protect minors from abortion procedures and argued that any advice aiding a minor in obtaining an abortion, whether in-state or out-of-state, contributed to a crime because abortion is generally banned in Tennessee.
The Judge’s Ruling
On Friday, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Julia S. Gibbons ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. In her 32-page decision, Judge Gibbons highlighted that the law prohibited speech that encouraged legal abortion while allowing speech that discouraged it, a violation of the First Amendment.
“That is impermissible viewpoint discrimination,” she wrote, emphasizing that the First Amendment protects speech, including advocacy about lawful abortion procedures.
The ruling made it clear that Tennessee cannot criminalize speech intended to help minors access legal abortions in other states. The court noted that although abortion is illegal in Tennessee, the state cannot prevent individuals from discussing or facilitating access to legal abortion services available elsewhere.
Impact of the Decision
This decision is a significant win for those advocating for reproductive rights in Tennessee and across the U.S. It prevents the state from enforcing a law that restricts the free flow of information about legal abortion options in other states.
The case also reaffirmed the constitutional principle that the government cannot punish citizens for sharing information that is legal in another jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs celebrated the ruling, stating that it was a victory for free speech. “This ruling ensures that people in Tennessee can speak freely about legal abortion options without fear of criminal prosecution,” said attorney Daniel A. Horwitz.
Constitutional Concerns
While the plaintiffs also argued that the law was vague, specifically questioning the definition of the word “recruits,” the judge ruled that the law’s prohibition on certain speech was still unconstitutional.
The decision focused on the law’s infringement on free speech and its violation of constitutional rights, rather than the vague language alone.
This ruling is a crucial step in the legal battles surrounding abortion rights and free speech in the U.S. It affirms that people should be able to share truthful information about legal medical procedures, regardless of state laws that may attempt to silence such speech.
The decision also strengthens the understanding that while states can regulate abortion within their borders, they cannot extend those regulations to activities that occur in states where abortion is legal.
