CV NEWS FEED // Critics say a bipartisan online privacy bill currently being debated by federal lawmakers would undermine the efforts of pro-life groups and pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) if enacted.
Observers have pointed out that the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) places an undue burden on the pro-life movement in the name of protecting children online.
Federal lawmakers are reportedly reading and considering a memo, distributed by members of the House Freedom Caucus, that outlines the threats to unborn life in the bill.
The memo states that the “APRA’s broad definition of a ‘covered entity’ … includes non-profit organizations, which means that pro-life groups, crisis pregnancy centers, and faith-based organizations could be subject to government action and lawsuits.”
The memo points to a provision in the APRA which, “combined with the Act’s broad scope and complex requirements, could create a chilling effect on the activities of pro-life groups and their ability to provide critical support to women in crisis.”
“The threat of costly lawsuits may force these organizations to scale back their outreach efforts and limit the personal information they collect and use,” the memo warns, “even when such information is necessary to fulfill their mission of helping women in need.”
“All it takes is one Soros backed lawsuit to bury a pro-life group in service ending legal fees,” the memo emphasizes, noting that the bill has the potential to expose “pro-life organizations to frivolous lawsuits and significant legal costs, even if they are acting in good faith.”
CatholicVote Director of Governmental Affairs Tom McClusky said that with the bill, the “big issue is inhibiting law enforcement.”
“The bill would hamper pro-life states from investigating criminal abortions,” he explained. “If a 30-year-old soccer coach gets a 13-year-old pregnant and takes her for an abortion, the law protects the rapist, and not the 13-year-old.”
McClusky also noted that the bill “specifically preserves laws that are more protective of health privacy and medical records, such as state [pro-abortion] shield laws.”
>> ANALYST DECONSTRUCTS MYTH THAT PRO-LIFE LAWS ARE ‘KILLING WOMEN’ <<
“At a time when the Biden administration has reinterpreted and misused the law to go after their pro-life enemies, it is legislative malpractice to include language that clearly protects predators and abortionists and leaves their victims defenseless,” McClusky added.
A coalition of about a dozen law enforcement groups on Tuesday also voiced concern about some of the APRA’s provisions.
In a letter addressed to lawmakers, the groups said that these parts of the bill seek to “restrict access to data that is either publicly available or currently authorized to be obtained under federal law” and “delay law enforcement’s access to information in situations where time is of the essence.”
Per POLITICO, the groups include the “National Sheriffs’ Association, the National Alliance of State Drug Enforcement Agencies, the National District Attorneys Association, [and]the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.”
>> PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATIONS REACT TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S REPORT <<
According to an April press release from the Republican-controlled House Energy and Commerce Committee, the bill “puts people in control of their own data, gives Americans enforceable data privacy rights, and eliminates the patchwork of state laws.”
The press release further called the legislation “Congress’s best chance to establish comprehensive data privacy protections.”
Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-WA, added: “Many companies are using their control over our data to erode people’s agency, their rights.”
She stated that with the APRA, “we are at a unique moment in history where we finally have the opportunity to imagine the internet as a force for prosperity and good.”
A May report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) stated:
The APRA’s chief focus is governing how covered entities use covered data. Thus, these two definitions are central to the bill’s scope. The APRA defines “covered entities” to include most individuals, commercial entities, and nonprofits that “alone, or jointly with others, determine the purposes and means of collecting, processing, and retaining, or transferring covered data.” Small businesses, among others, are exempt from this definition.
The APRA defines “covered data” to include any information that “identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable” to an individual.
“Another key definition is sensitive covered data, for which the APRA provides additional protections,” the report added:
“Sensitive covered data” includes, among other things, government-issued identifiers, genetic information, health information, financial information, precise geolocation information, and information about a child under the age of 17. The APRA would give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to expand the categories of sensitive covered data through regulation.
