US. Supreme Court. Credit: Chris Phan (CC_BY_20)
Posted on 06/26/2014 2:20:56 PM PDT by NYer
.- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts state law that imposed a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, in which protestors and pro-life counselors could not enter to speak with patients.
The law violates First Amendment free speech protections, the court said in its McCullen vs. Coakley opinion, delivered June 26 by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr.
Although it did not strike down all buffer laws, the court said that the Massachusetts regulation is unconstitutional, stressing that sidewalks and public ways are key forums for free speech.
In 2007, Massachusetts amended existing law and made it a crime to “knowingly stand on a ‘public way or sidewalk’ within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any ‘reproductive health care facility.’” This barred pro-life sidewalk counselors from distributing literature and having personal conversations with women entering the building anywhere within this distance of the clinic.
The state's brief on the case argued that the law was “justified solely by legitimate government interests in public safety and health care access.”
However, pro-life challengers to the law said that it infringed upon their constitutionally-protected First Amendment right to the freedom of speech. They argued in a legal brief that the law “indiscriminately criminalizes even peaceful, consensual, non-obstructive conversation and leafleting” and that it unfairly targeted certain kinds of speech, namely, pro-life counseling and views.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the buffer law in January 2013, ruling that the First Amendment does not guarantee an audience “available at close range,” and arguing that pro-life counselors still have access to women seeking abortions, even with the 35-foot buffer zone in place.
However, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in a rare unanimous vote, saying that the law restricted speech on public streets and sidewalks.
“It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas,” the court opinion stated. “Even today, they remain one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply preaching to the choir.”
The buffer zone law imposed “serious burdens” on the free speech of pro-life sidewalk counselors, inhibiting their ability to conduct “close, personal conversations that they view as essential to ‘sidewalk counseling,’” as well as their ability to distribute literature, the court said.
Calling the law “extreme,” the ruling said that the legislation shut off “a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers” and failed to find an alternative that would “leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes.”
“Petitioners are not protestors,” the court opinion said. “They seek not merely to express their opposition to abortion, but to inform women of various alternatives and to provide help in pursuing them.”
“Petitioners believe that they can accomplish this objective only through personal, caring, consensual conversations. And for good reason: It is easier to ignore a strained voice or a waving hand than a direct greeting or an outstretched arm. If all that the women can see and hear are vociferous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively stifled petitioners’ message.”
Dear Friends,
We have been waiting for the Supreme Court's ruling on Hobby Lobby. Today the Court announced that it will release this decision on Monday, June 30th.
As we wait for the outcome of Hobby Lobby, we were enormously cheered by the Court's decision today in McCullen v Coakley. The Court decided unanimously that free speech is protected in front of abortion clinics. We are celebrating this affirmation of free speech. Becket Fund Senior Counsel Mark Rienzi fought this case personally for 7 years, taking the case four years before he joined the Becket Fund. We congratulate him on his outstanding work and his 9-0 victory.
Kudos to the Becket Fund! Ping.
Liberals: Steeeeeerike two.
You know it’s a stinker of a law when all nine of them agree.
A few years ago the Supreme Court affirmed the right of a bunch of nutcases to show up at the funerals of service people and protest something. As I said to many times,
“Only in America could a body called the ‘Supreme Court’ rule that a right of privacy exists for a parent to murder a child, but no similar right of privacy exists for a parent to bury a child. And a child that has died fighting for our country to boot!!”
Lots of my friends started using that line. Maybe it got back to the Supremes and they thought they'd fix half of it. (I still think it is disgusting to have grieving parents harassed at a funereal.)
OH COOL that big decision waiting for Hobby Lobby
Help Pro-Lifers Save Babies from Abortion
Good for Scotus releasing on a Monday. If it was something they wanted to bury, then it would be released on a Friday afternoon.
Monday might mean that it will have no big reaction either way. This tracks with Derschowitz’ view that they will decide on the basis of closely held corporations only and not all public corporations. That would cause little furor.
My sense was they’d decide it narrowly on the religious freedom restoration act....they can’t say the government has an so pressing that it must override religious freedom when it’s handing out exemptions right and left to everything from corporations to unions. So, it can’t deny an exemption to Hobby Lobby, either, UNTIL all other exemptions have expired.
The one fact I can’t track down that will shoot Hobby Lobby in the foot is if they have had a policy in the past that DID include IUDs, drugs, etc., but only lodged their exemption after ObamaCare. I have ‘heard’ that about a prior policy, but can’t track it down.
Praying for the right decision for this case. It will have a huge impact on this country, one way or the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.