Justices strike abortion-clinic buffer zone

FILE - This  Dec. 17, 2013 file photo shows anti-abortion protester Eleanor McCullen, of Boston, left, standing at the painted edge of a buffer zone as she protests outside a Planned Parenthood location in Boston. In a unanimous ruling Thursday, June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down a 35-foot protest-free zone outside abortion clinics in Massachusetts, saying that extending a buffer zone 35 feet from clinic entrances violates the First Amendment rights of protesters. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File)
FILE - This Dec. 17, 2013 file photo shows anti-abortion protester Eleanor McCullen, of Boston, left, standing at the painted edge of a buffer zone as she protests outside a Planned Parenthood location in Boston. In a unanimous ruling Thursday, June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down a 35-foot protest-free zone outside abortion clinics in Massachusetts, saying that extending a buffer zone 35 feet from clinic entrances violates the First Amendment rights of protesters. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File)

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot protest-free zone around the entrances to abortion clinics, saying it violates the free-speech rights of abortion opponents.


RELATED ARTICLE

http://www.arkansas…">Justices curb Obama power on appointees

The nation's highest court unanimously said the measure, which prevented people from handing out leaflets and starting conversations with women entering clinics, ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantees. The nine justices were divided in their reasoning.

Massachusetts enacted the law in 2007, strengthening an existing measure that had required a 6-foot buffer zone at abortion clinics. The new law made it a crime to "knowingly enter or remain" in an area within 35 feet of a clinic entrance, exit or driveway. The measure exempted clinic employees and people entering or leaving the facility.

Writing for five justices, Chief Justice John Roberts called the Massachusetts law an "extreme step" in carrying out the "undeniably significant interests" in maintaining public safety.

The state "has available to it a variety of approaches that appear capable of serving its interests, without excluding individuals from areas historically open for speech and debate," Roberts said.

For example, localities can enact laws that require crowds blocking clinic entrances to disperse when ordered to by the police, he wrote.

Joining in Roberts' opinion were the court's Democratic appointees, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would go further and rule that the buffer zones are unlawful because they suppress speech that opposes abortion.

The court gives "abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents," Scalia wrote.

Seven abortion opponents, led by Eleanor McCullen, challenged the law. McCullen, a grandmother in her 70s, spends two days a week outside a Boston Planned Parenthood clinic trying to counsel women.

A Boston-based federal appeals court upheld the Massachusetts law, pointing to a Supreme Court decision in 2000 that upheld Colorado restrictions on abortion clinic protests. The Colorado law barred anyone from getting within 8 feet of another person, without consent, to hand out material or engage in a discussion. That law wasn't directly called into question in Thursday's ruling.

Massachusetts said its law was a response to years of violence at and near abortion clinics, including a 1994 shooting that killed two people. The abortion opponents said the state has no evidence of recent problems, arguing that Massachusetts hasn't prosecuted anyone for trying to block an abortion clinic or engaging in violence since 1997.

Martha Walz, a former Massachusetts legislator, said she co-sponsored the legislation after visiting one clinic on a Saturday and being screamed at by an abortion opponent who confronted her.

Walz, who now leads that state's Planned Parenthood affiliate, said the organization would continue trying to shield women seeking abortions from aggressive protesters.

Roger Evans, the Planned Parenthood senior counsel, said as many as 10 laws elsewhere in the U.S. might fall in legal challenges inspired by the ruling, while less restrictive laws may stand.

Abortion opponents celebrated the court's decision.

Americans United for Life on Thursday called the law "a brazen affront" to the Constitution.

"Massachusetts government officials had sought to use the threat of arrest and criminal conviction to silence those offering women life-affirming alternatives to abortion," President Charmaine Yoest said in a news release. "The Supreme Court rightly rejected this unlawful attempt to deny pro-life Americans their First Amendment rights."

The Washington-based Pro-Life Action League said the ruling was a "great vindication of sidewalk counseling."

Arkansas Right to Life Executive Director Rose Mimms called it a "life-affirming decision."

"I think it's important that women who are seeking an abortion, who are going to those clinics, have the ability to speak to people who are out there to help them," she said. "A lot of women going into abortion clinics feel like they have no support. It's so important that those last few moments before they make that life or death decision for their child ... that they have that presented to them."

Mimms said activists, whom she called prayer warriors, are consistently outside Arkansas' only surgical abortion clinic in west Little Rock.

"There is a sidewalk, we are able to stand on that sidewalk. There are people on that sidewalk every single day," Mimms said, adding that the largest group appears Saturdays. "They sing, they pray, they are right there."

ACLU of Arkansas attorney Holly Dickson said Arkansas law does not have a buffer zone, although there is a boundary for protesting at funerals.

"We don't have one for medical care or specifically for reproductive health care or abortion," she said. "It remains to be seen whether [the decision] will have any practical effect here in Arkansas."

She said the national ACLU organization's position on buffer zones has shifted, from not wanting any restrictions to supporting some restriction of speech seen as harassing or intimidating a person seeking health care.

"This definitely is a balance of two potentially competing constitutional rights," she said. The decision shows "a recognition that all speech is not going to be protected speech."

President Barack Obama's spokesman, Josh Earnest, said that while the administration filed a brief with the court supporting the Massachusetts law, "We are pleased that their ruling was narrow and that they recognized the possibility of alternative approaches."

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said the state won't surrender its fight to ensure the safety of women approaching abortion clinics. She said she will work with state lawmakers to explore additional legislation that comports with the court's ruling.

Information for this article was contributed by Greg Stohr and Andrew Harris of Bloomberg News and by Sarah D. Wire of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

A Section on 06/27/2014

Upcoming Events