______________________________________________________
 Women's Health Care Advocates Win Government Assurance That Internet Abortion
Gag Won't Be Enforced
______________________________________________________
 For immediate release February 8, 1996 Contact: Andrea Miller 212-514-5534 ext. 250
Brooklyn, New York -- During arguments this morning in federal district court, United
States Attorney Zachary Carter acknowledged the unconstitutionality of a provision in
the minutes-old Telecommunications Act of 1996 that would outlaw abortion information
on the Internet. Appearing on behalf of the JusticeDepartment before U.S. District Court
Chief Judge Charles P. Sifton of the Eastern District of New York, Mr. Carter assured the
court and plaintiffs in Sanger v. Reno that the federal government would not enforce the
little-noticed section of the new law. Women's health care providers and advocates,
represented by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, filed suit yesterday in
anticipation of President Clinton's signing of the measure into law this morning -- with
the Internet abortion information gag taking effect immediately. "We are extremely
pleased that the Clinton Administration has recognized the invalidity of this law.
However, we believe a court ruling against the provision barring receipt or provision of
abortion information is still necessary to prevent a future administration or radical right-
wing members of Congress from wielding it against women's health care providers and
advocates," said Simon Heller, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy attorney who
represents the advocates and health care providers in Sanger v. Reno. Because plaintiffs
use the Internet for commercial and non-commercial speech concerning abortion, they
would be subject to the statute's onerous penalties of up to $250,000 in fines and/or five
years in prison for a first offense. Persuaded that there was no immediate threat of
enforcement, Judge Sifton did not issue a temporary restraining order against the
challenged provision. The court did indicate that it has asked Chief Judge Jon O.
Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to convene a three-judge
district court to decide Sanger v. Reno. The 1996 omnibus legislative package governing
the telecommunications industry includes amendments to the infamous Comstock Act, an
1873 federal obscenity statute that outlawed sending material on contraceptives or
abortion through the mail. Used to prosecute Margaret Sanger and other pioneers in the
birth control movement, the law was revised by Congress in 1971 to remove the language
concerning contraceptives. However, the restrictions on abortion information and
materials remained on the books, even in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973
decision in Roe v. Wade, which effectively legalized abortion. As amended by the 1996
communications law, 18 U.S.C. Section 1462(c) applies to taking or receiving, via
interactive computer service, "any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or
intended for producing abortion . . . or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book,
pamphlet, advertisement, or a 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." In the papers filed yesterday, attorneys for
the plaintiffs argued that the measure violates the First Amendment rights to freedom of
speech and freedom of the press, the Fifth Amendment right to receive notice of
prohibited conduct, and the Fifth Amendment right to make personal reproductive

Complaint Against Telecommunications Bill Janet Benshoof, Esq./JB5794 Simon Heller,
Esq./SH8760 Kathryn Kolbert, Esq./KK8520 The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy
120 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 (212) 514-5534 FAX: (212) 514-5538 Marcy
Wilder, Esq./MW6493 National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
(NARAL) 1156 15th Street, NW, Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 973-3014 FAX:
(202) 973-3030
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK
 _________________________________________ X
ALEX SANGER, PLANNED PARENTHOOD of : NEW YORK CITY, RHONDA
COPELON, : ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ, : CALIFORNIA ABORTION AND
REPRODUCTIVE : RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE (NORTH), NATIONAL :
ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION : LEAGUE, FUND FOR THE
FEMINIST MAJORITY, : MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE, and : NATIONAL
ABORTION FEDERATION, on behalf : of themselves and all similarly situated :
persons, : COMPLAINT Plaintiffs,
 : : --versus-- : :
JANET RENO, in her official capacity as : Attorney General of the United States, : :
Defendant. :
 _________________________________________X
 Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this complaint against the
above-named defendant, her employees agents and successors in office, and in support
thereof allege the following: I. Preliminary Statement 1. This class action challenges the
constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. Section 1462(c) as amended by Section 507 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the challenged provision") as violative of the First
and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A copy of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act") is attached hereto as Exhibit A. For the
convenience of the Court, a copy of Section 507 of the Telecommunications Act is
attached hereto as Exhibit B and a copy of 18 U.S.C. Section 1462 prior to its amendment
by the Act is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 2. Under Section 561(a) of the Act, this case,
which is a civil action challenging the constitutionality on its face of an amendment made
by Title V of the Act, "shall be heard by a district court of 3 judges convened pursuant to
the provisions of section 2284 of title 28, United States Code." Plaintiffs therefore ask
that a three-judge court be convened by the Chief Judge of this Circuit in accordance with
28 U.S.C. Section 2284. 3. Specifically, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief
on the grounds that the challenged provision violates the right to freedom of speech and
freedom of the press under the First Amendment; the due process right to have notice of
prohibited conduct under the Fifth Amendment; and the right to make personal
reproductive decisions under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 4. Upon
information and belief, the President of the United States will sign the challenged
provision into law on Thursday, February 8, 1996, at approximately 11 a.m. Eastern
Time. The amendments to the challenged provision are effective immediately upon the
President's signature, and will immediately subject plaintiffs and the class they seek to
represent to severe criminal penalties as set forth below. II. Jurisdiction 5. Jurisdiction is
conferred on the Court by 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and the First and Fifth Amendments