8 ms·

Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

114 points by miniBill 2mo ago

khalic 2mo ago
[flagged]
- whateverboat 2mo ago
  As other commenter said, control over women. But this is not just some desperate attempt, but a way to get back to the roots.
- fhdkweig 2mo ago
  Controlling reproduction means controlling women. Controlling women seems to be a high priority for crotchety old men. But that doesn't really answer your question, it just rephrases it. I think it is like anorexia. Someone who has no control over their own lives tries to control the few things they can. An anorexic controls their food, but a married man controls his wife and kids. It makes even the weakest person feel strong to have someone to boss around.
  - skrebbel 2mo ago
    > crotchety old men Such as Giorgia Meloni?
    - fhdkweig 2mo ago
      I don't know what is going on in Italy, but that's why we are doing it in America.
      - altern8 2mo ago
        Oh, a post about Italy. Let's take this opportunity to talk about America :-D
        fhdkweig 2mo ago
        I zeroed in on khalic's mention of "far right populism" which I thought was a universal term, but skrebbel made it sound like that doesn't apply to Italy (but I still think it does), so I clarified.
    - lolgab 2mo ago
      The first thing she did in office was a order to be called "il signor presidente", masculine of the correct "la signora presidente". She's not an old man but behaves as such and the fascist side of her support is strongly misogynist.
  - philipov 2mo ago
    I don't think you need an analogy like that to explain why people want to control women. They want to control women for the same reason they want to control men. Is it any mystery why people seek power? Those with power can decide how to distribute the resources of the society in a way that preferences them and their inner circle. Access to reproduction is one of the most basic resources a society has available. It is common for the old men to control the young men by being the ones to decide who gets access to women. "Work for us loyally, and we'll allow you to get married"
    - fhdkweig 2mo ago
      I don't think they are trying to control men. I'm not seeing any evidence of that. When I see a law that attacks women, it is very clearly targeted towards women, but I don't see anything that clearly targets men.
      - philipov 2mo ago
        Controlling women means controlling men. The most basic way to do that is by controlling who is allowed to get married. Attacks against the reproductive rights of women are caused by a desire to avoid "side channels" by which a couple could avoid passing through the systems established to control marriage. Society became much more complex than a tribal village where the elders decide everything, and so have the levels of indirection in how control of reproduction is wielded. The situation is also quite a bit more complicated now that populations are able to grow so far above the local carrying capacity of the land. Yet we can still trace a line back to when it was necessary for a community to collectively maintain the sustainability of their population by deciding how many children could be supported at any one time.
      - lelanthran 2mo ago
        > When I see a law that attacks women, it is very clearly targeted towards women, but I don't see anything that clearly targets men. Drafts? They typically only targeted men, with a large possibility of maiming or death as the result.
  - geremiiah 2mo ago
    This is the kind of rational you arrive to, if you spend too much time in feminist circles and never bother to actually try to understand the other side. I can assure you that nobody thinks in terms of "controlling women".
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
  - skissane 2mo ago
    > Controlling reproduction means controlling women. Controlling women seems to be a high priority for crotchety old men. You ignore that so many leading anti-abortion activists are women. I think for example of Joanna Howe, [0] who is arguably the most prominent activist against abortion rights in contemporary Australia-and far from some “crotchety old man”, she is a 43 year old law professor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Howe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Howe
- joshuaheard 2mo ago
  The issue with abortion is that some think the fetus deserves legal protection because it is equivalent to a human baby. So, they don't think it should be killed. In Italy, abortion is allowed in the first 90 days. After that, it is illegal. These websites were providing abortion pills to be used past the 90 day period, which is illegal. So, these websites were being blocked because they were engaged in illegal activity.
  - krunck 2mo ago
    Would not illegality be handled by charging those suspected of the activity and hearing the case in a court of law? Maybe those blocking the sites are not acting on behalf of law enforcement but rather their own ideas of legality and morality.
  - khalic 2mo ago
    That doesn’t answer my question…
- CamperBob2 2mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche And in the US [1,2]: 2016 election: Approximately 39% to 42% of female voters cast their ballots for Trump. 2020 election: Approximately 44% of female voters cast their ballots for Trump. 2024 election: Approximately 46% of female voters cast their ballots for Trump Like it or not -- and make no mistake, I don't like it -- many women want this. ---------- 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patterns-in-the-2024-election/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patte... 2: https://www.cfr.org/articles/women-voters-pivotal-role-electing-next-us-president https://www.cfr.org/articles/women-voters-pivotal-role-elect...
- jamesbelchamber 2mo ago
  Reproductive control undermines most right-wing ideologies; outlawing it patches up the cracks.
- Argonaut998 2mo ago
  Because if you believe this fetus to be a human life then it follows believing that if it is terminated, it is akin to murder/infanticide. I don't know why people are being so (deliberatively?) reductive ITT.
  - quickthrowman 2mo ago
    If someone is morally opposed to abortion, they don’t need to have one. That’s where it should end, there’s no need to control the bodies of others due to a moral belief that other people don’t hold.
    - cocoto 2mo ago
      The whole point of the debate is that the fetus has no choice during an absorption, not some “moral” ground that you are imposing to someone else.
      - nancyminusone 2mo ago
        That is unfortunate, but the opposing view entitles a fetus to use of another persons body. This is something I am not entitled to, even if a blood transfusion, marrow transplant, or organ donation would save my life with certainty.
      - quickthrowman 2mo ago
        The fetus is inside of an adult human with a life they’re living. The decision is theirs to make, nobody else should have input, but unfortunately that isn’t the case in some places. Someone having an abortion have zero effect on a person who is against abortion but has never met them. The anti-abortion person should mind their own business. I don’t believe in god and think religion is generally harmful but I don’t go around campaigning to eliminate religious freedoms. I don’t tell religious people I think their beliefs are ridiculous, I keep it to myself. Abortion wasn’t even an issue in the US until Atwater->Reagan realized there were a bunch of religious people they could manipulate into voting for the GOP by making abortion a wedge issue.
  - 2mo ago
- mbmbn 2mo ago
  So, providing information on how to carry out abortion after the 1st trimester in a country where abortion in the first 90 days is legal and free is not the disturbing part to you… it’s trying to prevent abortions after those 90 days. I believe there’s something very wrong with your moral compass, pal.
  - dudefeliciano 2mo ago
    the question was why do far right populists care so much about genitals and reproduction, nothing to do with whatever you are saying here
- bwestergard 2mo ago
  The worse the experience of working life gets, the more important an idealized family life becomes for many downwardly mobile or precarious people. Most people's family lives cannot actually live up to this fantasy, so scapegoats - gender non-conforming people, feminists, immigrants - are required to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
- loup-vaillant 2mo ago
  There are several aspects to this. One is control over women. Another is panic over the idea that other people with darker skin tone might overrun us with their reproductive might; either by mating like rabbits, or straight up stealing our our women. (They’re ours, right? Riight?) Also, the Book said something like "Be fruitful and multiply". The weird thing about Great Replacement bullshit, is how it manages to mix superiority complex with inferiority complex. Like viewing oneself as less attractive than the "inferior" brother accros the street, or believing in the superiority of one’s culture, and in natural selection, and be afraid of being overrun by an "inferior" one…
salemh 2mo ago
[dead]
altern8 2mo ago
I couldn't find a lot of information, but abortion is a right in Italy. Women seeking terminations in the first 90 days of pregnancy are protected under law 194. From what I got, these organizations illegally sent women abortion pills. At least when I was young and still living in Italy, you could walk into a hospital and they'd give you abortion pills or day after pills for free. I guess it has to be a hospital/doctor and not a random website? Not sure.
- gpderetta 2mo ago
  It is indeed legal, but gynaecologists can object to help for conscientious reasons (65% do) and in quite a few hospitals, 100% do object, especially in the south. So in practice access to it is not always that easy.
  - altern8 2mo ago
    That's because they don't want to get sued. So, you think the government should force doctors to perform abortions, like putting them in jail if they don't want to do it?
    - lelanthran 2mo ago
      I don't think GP was making that argument (well, I didn't read it that way). He's just saying that access may not be easy. [EDIT: I see GP did reply to parent, and he apparently was making that asinine argument :-/ Oh well, at least I interpreted original GP comment charitably]
      - gpderetta 2mo ago
        of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed).
        2mo ago
eur0pa 2mo ago
Abortion is legal in this country, and any woman can go to the hospital (as in the ER), or at a consultorio familiare to initiate the process. Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter. As to why these two websites were rendered inaccessible it beats me, as there are many other local alternatives one may peruse, and they're all accessible. Hell, even the Italian Government Website has resources[1][2]! [1] https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/ https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/ [2] https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/interruzione-volontaria-di-gravidanza/ https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/int...
- altern8 2mo ago
  I couldn't find any information, either. The only thing I was able to find were many posts on Reddit from women trying to get these websites to send them abortion pills. I assume that this might be the reason why they got blocked--or if not a possibility. I don't understand why women would need these websites, there are plenty of free resources like local hospitals and doctors who are generally completely fine with abortion.
  - throwway120385 2mo ago
    Which medications were they trying to get? Plan B or something that works later?
- flaviolivolsi 2mo ago
  "Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter" You sure about that? Unfortunately there's a thing called "obiezione di coscienza" (TL;DR: doctors opposing abortion because they're catholics). Feel free to translate this article: https://www.editorialedomani.it/fatti/aborto-obiezione-coscienza-mappa-italia-diritto-ivg-regioni-destra-ru486-fd51r9le https://www.editorialedomani.it/fatti/aborto-obiezione-cosci...
  - altern8 2mo ago
    That's like 1 out of 1000 doctors, just go to another doctor. And even if that wasn't the case, what is the government supposed to do about that?
petcat 2mo ago
It's bizarre to me that countries in Europe can just compel their ISPs to block websites completely without any judicial review. That kind of thing would run afoul of all kinds of first amendment litigation in the US. The FBI will occasionally seize a domain, but only after a court order.
- drnick1 2mo ago
  The upside of that ISP-enforced bans can be trivially bypassed by using your own DNS or a public DNS like Quad9.
  - ordu 2mo ago
    It is a temporary solution. Events of these kind tend to escalate up to a obligatory VPN for just using Internet, and beyond that to VPNs that resist blocking, like amnezia-wg, xray and suchlike. You see, they block, then they notice that blocks do not work, they try harder. And still harder, till the situation comes to impasse, when to try harder means to shut off the Internet. It stops there, everyone is using some kind of DPI resistant VPN, paying more for internet access, and ISP spending more to block what politicians deem worthy of blocks. A pure waste of money. Though datacenters are happy, because they host a ton of VPNs.
- luckydata 2mo ago
  absolute freedom of speech is not a value or constitutional right in most european countries. I don't understand why americans can't get comfortable with the notion that other countries have different laws. There's plenty of things that could be considered bizarre and arbitrary in the US form the perspective of a european, I know full well being one living in California for 20 years.
  - eigencoder 2mo ago
    I think Americans get that other countries have different laws. But freedom of speech, an ideal we lifted from European enlightenment thinkers, is so important to our culture and national mythos that it is a little surprising how differently it's valued in much of Europe. I'm sure the culture shock goes both ways though, as you say. Curious about your perspective on the the most bizarre / arbitrary things in the US?
arlattimore 2mo ago
If other websites exist about this topic, why are these two specifically being censored and by who? If abortion is legal (within a set of guidelines), what laws exist that these sites are breaking or close to breaking that might lead them to be censored?
- lelanthran 2mo ago
  > If abortion is legal (within a set of guidelines), what laws exist that these sites are breaking or close to breaking that might lead them to be censored? Mailing out prescription drugs without a prescription.
pstuart 2mo ago
This is obviously a contentious issue, but it's important to understand why. Catholics are "pro birth" in general, but it really doesn't have much in scripture to support it; there is of course the "Quiverfull" movement which aims for each birth to be "an arrow in the quiver of God's army" So for all of that, it's clearly a religious viewpoint and that raises serious 1A questions. A question I've never seen addressed by those who hew to this belief system: Apparently roughly 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage, which is (using the belief system above), God is performing an abortion. How does that reconcile with that stance. My personal take is simple: "every baby should be a wanted baby" The politics of it started half a century ago, and the politicizing of abortion was very much intentional: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096154028/the-movement-against-abortion-rights-is-nearing-its-apex-but-it-began-way-before https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096154028/the-movement-again... It's important to have discussions based on logic and facts, rather than emotion. It will be interesting to see how that plays out here.
- ieatcandlewax 2mo ago
  > The politics of it started half a century ago, and the politicizing of abortion was very much intentional: It might have re-emerged as abortion became more in vogue in the early 20th century, but the politics of it have existed since ancient rome. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/infanticide-in-ancient-rome/ https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/infanticide-in-ancient... The rest of your argument is a strawman, you're imagining someone who disagrees with you and giving them weird arguments.
  - pstuart 2mo ago
    I'm arguing in good faith and welcome valid criticism. Please note that I'm not trying to troll (the bit about God doing abortions may seem like it but that point stands on its own: if an abortion is the cessation of the development of a fetus or proto-human, then a miscarriage is effectively an "abortion"). The question becomes "why did that happen". This is an important question to ask because women are being imprisoned for miscarriages and the "passionate pursuit of the matter" does not always lead to justice. As for any strawmen from me, my conflation of Catholic teaching and the Quiverfull movement -- I'll own that outright as being lazy on my part. Politics can be construed in different ways. Yes, there have been laws and movements, but not under the banner of any US political party. I'm talking about as a partisan platform issue. I remember, I was there. It's very well documented and there's an even less palatable facet to that movement as it has been documented that it was intended to succeed segregation as a politically activating issue. Now back to your points: Conflating infanticide with "abortion" is an Equivocation — using a single term or concept across two things that differ in a morally or legally. Also known as a false equivalence. It also begs the question, since the equivalence between fetus and infant is precisely what's in dispute. I'm engaging here in self-defense, because there are parties actively trying to make this country a theocracy and I think thats a very bad idea.

114 points by miniBill 2mo ago

khalic 2mo ago

[flagged]

whateverboat 2mo ago
As other commenter said, control over women. But this is not just some desperate attempt, but a way to get back to the roots.
fhdkweig 2mo ago
Controlling reproduction means controlling women. Controlling women seems to be a high priority for crotchety old men. But that doesn't really answer your question, it just rephrases it. I think it is like anorexia. Someone who has no control over their own lives tries to control the few things they can. An anorexic controls their food, but a married man controls his wife and kids. It makes even the weakest person feel strong to have someone to boss around.
- skrebbel 2mo ago
  > crotchety old men Such as Giorgia Meloni?
  - fhdkweig 2mo ago
    I don't know what is going on in Italy, but that's why we are doing it in America.
    - altern8 2mo ago
      Oh, a post about Italy. Let's take this opportunity to talk about America :-D
      - fhdkweig 2mo ago
        I zeroed in on khalic's mention of "far right populism" which I thought was a universal term, but skrebbel made it sound like that doesn't apply to Italy (but I still think it does), so I clarified.
  - lolgab 2mo ago
    The first thing she did in office was a order to be called "il signor presidente", masculine of the correct "la signora presidente". She's not an old man but behaves as such and the fascist side of her support is strongly misogynist.
- philipov 2mo ago
  I don't think you need an analogy like that to explain why people want to control women. They want to control women for the same reason they want to control men. Is it any mystery why people seek power? Those with power can decide how to distribute the resources of the society in a way that preferences them and their inner circle. Access to reproduction is one of the most basic resources a society has available. It is common for the old men to control the young men by being the ones to decide who gets access to women. "Work for us loyally, and we'll allow you to get married"
  - fhdkweig 2mo ago
    I don't think they are trying to control men. I'm not seeing any evidence of that. When I see a law that attacks women, it is very clearly targeted towards women, but I don't see anything that clearly targets men.
    - philipov 2mo ago
      Controlling women means controlling men. The most basic way to do that is by controlling who is allowed to get married. Attacks against the reproductive rights of women are caused by a desire to avoid "side channels" by which a couple could avoid passing through the systems established to control marriage. Society became much more complex than a tribal village where the elders decide everything, and so have the levels of indirection in how control of reproduction is wielded. The situation is also quite a bit more complicated now that populations are able to grow so far above the local carrying capacity of the land. Yet we can still trace a line back to when it was necessary for a community to collectively maintain the sustainability of their population by deciding how many children could be supported at any one time.
    - lelanthran 2mo ago
      > When I see a law that attacks women, it is very clearly targeted towards women, but I don't see anything that clearly targets men. Drafts? They typically only targeted men, with a large possibility of maiming or death as the result.
- geremiiah 2mo ago
  This is the kind of rational you arrive to, if you spend too much time in feminist circles and never bother to actually try to understand the other side. I can assure you that nobody thinks in terms of "controlling women".
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- skissane 2mo ago
  > Controlling reproduction means controlling women. Controlling women seems to be a high priority for crotchety old men. You ignore that so many leading anti-abortion activists are women. I think for example of Joanna Howe, [0] who is arguably the most prominent activist against abortion rights in contemporary Australia-and far from some “crotchety old man”, she is a 43 year old law professor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Howe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Howe
joshuaheard 2mo ago
The issue with abortion is that some think the fetus deserves legal protection because it is equivalent to a human baby. So, they don't think it should be killed. In Italy, abortion is allowed in the first 90 days. After that, it is illegal. These websites were providing abortion pills to be used past the 90 day period, which is illegal. So, these websites were being blocked because they were engaged in illegal activity.
- krunck 2mo ago
  Would not illegality be handled by charging those suspected of the activity and hearing the case in a court of law? Maybe those blocking the sites are not acting on behalf of law enforcement but rather their own ideas of legality and morality.
- khalic 2mo ago
  That doesn’t answer my question…
CamperBob2 2mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche And in the US [1,2]: 2016 election: Approximately 39% to 42% of female voters cast their ballots for Trump. 2020 election: Approximately 44% of female voters cast their ballots for Trump. 2024 election: Approximately 46% of female voters cast their ballots for Trump Like it or not -- and make no mistake, I don't like it -- many women want this. ---------- 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patterns-in-the-2024-election/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patte... 2: https://www.cfr.org/articles/women-voters-pivotal-role-electing-next-us-president https://www.cfr.org/articles/women-voters-pivotal-role-elect...
jamesbelchamber 2mo ago
Reproductive control undermines most right-wing ideologies; outlawing it patches up the cracks.
Argonaut998 2mo ago
Because if you believe this fetus to be a human life then it follows believing that if it is terminated, it is akin to murder/infanticide. I don't know why people are being so (deliberatively?) reductive ITT.
- quickthrowman 2mo ago
  If someone is morally opposed to abortion, they don’t need to have one. That’s where it should end, there’s no need to control the bodies of others due to a moral belief that other people don’t hold.
  - cocoto 2mo ago
    The whole point of the debate is that the fetus has no choice during an absorption, not some “moral” ground that you are imposing to someone else.
    - nancyminusone 2mo ago
      That is unfortunate, but the opposing view entitles a fetus to use of another persons body. This is something I am not entitled to, even if a blood transfusion, marrow transplant, or organ donation would save my life with certainty.
    - quickthrowman 2mo ago
      The fetus is inside of an adult human with a life they’re living. The decision is theirs to make, nobody else should have input, but unfortunately that isn’t the case in some places. Someone having an abortion have zero effect on a person who is against abortion but has never met them. The anti-abortion person should mind their own business. I don’t believe in god and think religion is generally harmful but I don’t go around campaigning to eliminate religious freedoms. I don’t tell religious people I think their beliefs are ridiculous, I keep it to myself. Abortion wasn’t even an issue in the US until Atwater->Reagan realized there were a bunch of religious people they could manipulate into voting for the GOP by making abortion a wedge issue.
- 2mo ago
mbmbn 2mo ago
So, providing information on how to carry out abortion after the 1st trimester in a country where abortion in the first 90 days is legal and free is not the disturbing part to you… it’s trying to prevent abortions after those 90 days. I believe there’s something very wrong with your moral compass, pal.
- dudefeliciano 2mo ago
  the question was why do far right populists care so much about genitals and reproduction, nothing to do with whatever you are saying here
bwestergard 2mo ago
The worse the experience of working life gets, the more important an idealized family life becomes for many downwardly mobile or precarious people. Most people's family lives cannot actually live up to this fantasy, so scapegoats - gender non-conforming people, feminists, immigrants - are required to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
loup-vaillant 2mo ago
There are several aspects to this. One is control over women. Another is panic over the idea that other people with darker skin tone might overrun us with their reproductive might; either by mating like rabbits, or straight up stealing our our women. (They’re ours, right? Riight?) Also, the Book said something like "Be fruitful and multiply". The weird thing about Great Replacement bullshit, is how it manages to mix superiority complex with inferiority complex. Like viewing oneself as less attractive than the "inferior" brother accros the street, or believing in the superiority of one’s culture, and in natural selection, and be afraid of being overrun by an "inferior" one…

salemh 2mo ago

[dead]

altern8 2mo ago

I couldn't find a lot of information, but abortion is a right in Italy. Women seeking terminations in the first 90 days of pregnancy are protected under law 194. From what I got, these organizations illegally sent women abortion pills. At least when I was young and still living in Italy, you could walk into a hospital and they'd give you abortion pills or day after pills for free. I guess it has to be a hospital/doctor and not a random website? Not sure.

gpderetta 2mo ago
It is indeed legal, but gynaecologists can object to help for conscientious reasons (65% do) and in quite a few hospitals, 100% do object, especially in the south. So in practice access to it is not always that easy.
- altern8 2mo ago
  That's because they don't want to get sued. So, you think the government should force doctors to perform abortions, like putting them in jail if they don't want to do it?
  - lelanthran 2mo ago
    I don't think GP was making that argument (well, I didn't read it that way). He's just saying that access may not be easy. [EDIT: I see GP did reply to parent, and he apparently was making that asinine argument :-/ Oh well, at least I interpreted original GP comment charitably]
    - gpderetta 2mo ago
      of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed).
      - 2mo ago

eur0pa 2mo ago

Abortion is legal in this country, and any woman can go to the hospital (as in the ER), or at a consultorio familiare to initiate the process. Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter. As to why these two websites were rendered inaccessible it beats me, as there are many other local alternatives one may peruse, and they're all accessible. Hell, even the Italian Government Website has resources[1][2]! [1] https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/ https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/ [2] https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/interruzione-volontaria-di-gravidanza/ https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/int...

altern8 2mo ago
I couldn't find any information, either. The only thing I was able to find were many posts on Reddit from women trying to get these websites to send them abortion pills. I assume that this might be the reason why they got blocked--or if not a possibility. I don't understand why women would need these websites, there are plenty of free resources like local hospitals and doctors who are generally completely fine with abortion.
- throwway120385 2mo ago
  Which medications were they trying to get? Plan B or something that works later?
flaviolivolsi 2mo ago
"Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter" You sure about that? Unfortunately there's a thing called "obiezione di coscienza" (TL;DR: doctors opposing abortion because they're catholics). Feel free to translate this article: https://www.editorialedomani.it/fatti/aborto-obiezione-coscienza-mappa-italia-diritto-ivg-regioni-destra-ru486-fd51r9le https://www.editorialedomani.it/fatti/aborto-obiezione-cosci...
- altern8 2mo ago
  That's like 1 out of 1000 doctors, just go to another doctor. And even if that wasn't the case, what is the government supposed to do about that?

petcat 2mo ago

It's bizarre to me that countries in Europe can just compel their ISPs to block websites completely without any judicial review. That kind of thing would run afoul of all kinds of first amendment litigation in the US. The FBI will occasionally seize a domain, but only after a court order.

drnick1 2mo ago
The upside of that ISP-enforced bans can be trivially bypassed by using your own DNS or a public DNS like Quad9.
- ordu 2mo ago
  It is a temporary solution. Events of these kind tend to escalate up to a obligatory VPN for just using Internet, and beyond that to VPNs that resist blocking, like amnezia-wg, xray and suchlike. You see, they block, then they notice that blocks do not work, they try harder. And still harder, till the situation comes to impasse, when to try harder means to shut off the Internet. It stops there, everyone is using some kind of DPI resistant VPN, paying more for internet access, and ISP spending more to block what politicians deem worthy of blocks. A pure waste of money. Though datacenters are happy, because they host a ton of VPNs.
luckydata 2mo ago
absolute freedom of speech is not a value or constitutional right in most european countries. I don't understand why americans can't get comfortable with the notion that other countries have different laws. There's plenty of things that could be considered bizarre and arbitrary in the US form the perspective of a european, I know full well being one living in California for 20 years.
- eigencoder 2mo ago
  I think Americans get that other countries have different laws. But freedom of speech, an ideal we lifted from European enlightenment thinkers, is so important to our culture and national mythos that it is a little surprising how differently it's valued in much of Europe. I'm sure the culture shock goes both ways though, as you say. Curious about your perspective on the the most bizarre / arbitrary things in the US?

arlattimore 2mo ago

If other websites exist about this topic, why are these two specifically being censored and by who? If abortion is legal (within a set of guidelines), what laws exist that these sites are breaking or close to breaking that might lead them to be censored?

lelanthran 2mo ago
> If abortion is legal (within a set of guidelines), what laws exist that these sites are breaking or close to breaking that might lead them to be censored? Mailing out prescription drugs without a prescription.

pstuart 2mo ago

This is obviously a contentious issue, but it's important to understand why. Catholics are "pro birth" in general, but it really doesn't have much in scripture to support it; there is of course the "Quiverfull" movement which aims for each birth to be "an arrow in the quiver of God's army" So for all of that, it's clearly a religious viewpoint and that raises serious 1A questions. A question I've never seen addressed by those who hew to this belief system: Apparently roughly 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage, which is (using the belief system above), God is performing an abortion. How does that reconcile with that stance. My personal take is simple: "every baby should be a wanted baby" The politics of it started half a century ago, and the politicizing of abortion was very much intentional: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096154028/the-movement-against-abortion-rights-is-nearing-its-apex-but-it-began-way-before https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096154028/the-movement-again... It's important to have discussions based on logic and facts, rather than emotion. It will be interesting to see how that plays out here.

ieatcandlewax 2mo ago
> The politics of it started half a century ago, and the politicizing of abortion was very much intentional: It might have re-emerged as abortion became more in vogue in the early 20th century, but the politics of it have existed since ancient rome. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/infanticide-in-ancient-rome/ https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/infanticide-in-ancient... The rest of your argument is a strawman, you're imagining someone who disagrees with you and giving them weird arguments.
- pstuart 2mo ago
  I'm arguing in good faith and welcome valid criticism. Please note that I'm not trying to troll (the bit about God doing abortions may seem like it but that point stands on its own: if an abortion is the cessation of the development of a fetus or proto-human, then a miscarriage is effectively an "abortion"). The question becomes "why did that happen". This is an important question to ask because women are being imprisoned for miscarriages and the "passionate pursuit of the matter" does not always lead to justice. As for any strawmen from me, my conflation of Catholic teaching and the Quiverfull movement -- I'll own that outright as being lazy on my part. Politics can be construed in different ways. Yes, there have been laws and movements, but not under the banner of any US political party. I'm talking about as a partisan platform issue. I remember, I was there. It's very well documented and there's an even less palatable facet to that movement as it has been documented that it was intended to succeed segregation as a politically activating issue. Now back to your points: Conflating infanticide with "abortion" is an Equivocation — using a single term or concept across two things that differ in a morally or legally. Also known as a false equivalence. It also begs the question, since the equivalence between fetus and infant is precisely what's in dispute. I'm engaging here in self-defense, because there are parties actively trying to make this country a theocracy and I think thats a very bad idea.