Sec. 1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters

Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934), for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce -

(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or
(b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or
(c) 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 information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or

Whoever knowingly takes or receives from such express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934) any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful -

Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

This certainly raises the question of whether or not a doctor's discussion of the details of an abortion procedure with another doctor is now illegal if it takes place over the Internet. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that such a discussion would be legal provided it was not advertising the doctors' (or others') services as abortionists. It does, however, appear to make it impossible for crisis pregnancy centers promoting abortion as a solution to a problem pregnancy to advertise their services on the Internet. While my personal feeling is that this is not necessarily a bad thing, I can understand that there are probably many who do not agree with me. Although their freedom to express their views is not impeded, their ability to advertise what they consider Constitutionally-protected essential medical services is impeded.

I have to conede that the CDA prohibits the advertisement of abortion services. However, I do not agree that this is the same as banning ALL discussion of abortion on the Internet. Does the CDA go too far on this issue? I cannot say because I believe that most abortions performed in the United States today are immoral. Therefore, I am predisposed to conclude that a law that may serve to retard the abortion rate is preferable to no law at all. Before you flame me on this, understand that I do NOT believe abortion is wrong in EVERY case. There are extenuating circumstances where I believe it is the least of many evils and therefore the best humanly possible choice. Any further abortion discussion is inappropriate here. Does the CDA ban ALL discussion of abortion? NO, but it certainly bans SOME of them.