The new law lets anyone sue someone (other than a medical staff) who “abet” an abortion. So the “reporting” would be on someone other than the person having an

The new law lets anyone sue someone (other than a medical staff) who “abet” an abortion. So the “reporting” would be on someone other than the person having an abortion. Let’s say, a boyfriend who pays for an abortion. The person doing the reporting is someone other than the “abettor” or the person getting an abortion. Let’s say the boyfriends ex-wife. Once a certain number of people know about something, it’s not private. Even current medical privacy laws, and including abortion laws, don’t create any privacy obligations for non-commercial third partied, much less fourth parties. If my ex-boyfriend tells me he helped his girlfriend get an abortion, I have no obligations to keep this secret. As it should be. This website allowed fourth parties to communicate with fifth parties (Texas Right to Life). Think about this: someone is informing an anti-abortion organization about an abortion. At this point the cat is out of the bag. It’s not a secret. It’s in the open. It’s public. Imagine if social media organizations decided to treat abortions the same way they treat CSAM, revenge porn, the identity of intelligence officers, nuclear secrets, copyright violations, and misinformation about COVID. Is that what we want? Some people do. I’m sure there’s a constituency for that. But notice how the we are descending down a slope. Maybe we should be doing that. But let’s do it with our eyes open and with rigorous debate that results in action. That’s not how GoDaddy approached this.