Four years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, a coordinated effort by anti-abortion government officials to restrict online speech has intensified, raising alarms about the broader implications for digital freedom. Since the ruling, state governments have increasingly targeted websites and online resources that provide information about reproductive healthcare, using legal threats, censorship laws, and pressure on internet intermediaries to suppress access to critical health-related content.
The fight over online speech has become a central front, as state attorneys general and legislators seek to control the flow of information. These efforts, while framed as enforcement of state laws, have drawn criticism for their broad scope and potential to chill legitimate discourse. The targeting of sites like Plan C, a public health campaign that provides abortion-related information without selling or distributing pills, underscores a pattern of legal overreach that extends far beyond direct providers of reproductive care.
“This is an effort by anti-abortion government officials to mold the information ecosystem, restrict what people can read, and cut off the ways people communicate with one another,” said the EFF, which has documented a surge in legal actions against information hubs. “The encouraging news is that many of these efforts have failed. The worrying news is that they keep coming.”
Cease-and-Desist Letters Target Informational Websites
One of the most visible tactics has been the use of cease-and-desist letters by state attorneys general to pressure websites that share information about abortion access. Just this month, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall sent such letters to multiple organizations, including Plan C, a campaign that provides research and educational materials about abortion. Despite the group’s stance, Marshall’s office claimed its website “facilitates, aids, and abets” illegal abortion. Similar actions by the Arkansas attorney general targeted Mayday Health, which provides only information and does not directly prescribe or mail pills.
These letters often rely on vague legal language to justify removal of content. For example, North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley ordered the Prairie Abortion Fund to scrub information from its website, citing concerns over links to external resources like Plan C. The fund’s website did not sell abortion pills, but the state’s focus on its connection to information hubs highlights a broader strategy to conflate access with illegal activity.
“What’s especially concerning is that the state doesn’t have to win, or even file, a lawsuit to get what it wants,” said the EFF. “Especially for smaller organizations and funds, a letter threatening legal action can be enough to chill their speech, causing them to remove important content and go quiet.”
Censorship Mandates and Legal Challenges
Beyond individual letters, several states have enacted laws that explicitly criminalize the sharing of abortion-related information. 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.” The law’s broad language has sparked lawsuits from organizations like Mayday Health, which argues that the statute could reach something as small as wearing a sweatshirt that carries Mayday’s web address.
Texas has also pursued similar measures. Last year, Texas introduced a bill that would have made it illegal to “provide information” on how to obtain an abortion-inducing drug. While the bill ultimately failed, Texas has attempted to pass similar laws for several years now.
“Legislators in multiple states have also attempted to make it illegal to share resources on how to obtain an abortion, including on purely informational websites with a national or global audience,” noted the EFF.
Dressing Censorship as Consumer Protection
Another strategy has been to frame censorship efforts as consumer protection. States like South Dakota have used deceptive advertising claims to justify legal action against websites that provide abortion-related information. Last year, South Dakota sent a cease-and-desist and then filed a lawsuit against Mayday Health, claiming its ads—such as “Pregnant? Don’t want to be?”—were “deceptive.” The state’s argument hinged on the idea that such messaging could mislead individuals about the safety of abortion, despite the lack of evidence supporting this claim.
Florida’s approach has been even more extreme. In 2025, Missouri sued Planned Parenthood under its consumer-protection statute, calling a webpage that says abortion pills are safe an “unfair and deceptive” trade practice. Florida went even further, invoking its RICO law—a law typically used for organized crime—over the same kind of statement. Florida leaned heavily on a single study funded by an anti-abortion think tank, even as major medical organizations and decades of research put the serious-complication rate below half a percent.
“States should not be able to cherry-pick studies in order to erase online speech,” said the EFF.
Going After Intermediaries and Erasing Websites
Some officials have gone beyond targeting individual websites, instead pressuring internet intermediaries like domain registrars, web hosts, and search engines to remove abortion-related content. Last year, the Arkansas attorney general sent cease-and-desist letters to a domain registry company and a web host, demanding they stop supporting a site that discusses abortion drugs. This approach, if expanded, could effectively erase entire platforms from the internet, not just in the states where the laws are enacted.