Washingtonpost.com:
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down protest-free buffer zones around abortion clinics in Massachusetts as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s ruling was a narrow one, pointing out that other states and cities had found less-intrusive ways to both protect women entering clinics and accommodate the First Amendment rights of those opposed to abortion.
Massachusetts asserts “undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on [its] streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities,” Roberts wrote. “But here the commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers.”
Significantly, only the court’s liberals joined Roberts’s opinion: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. That is a rare combination at the court, Roberts’s majority opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act in 2012 the most notable example.
The court’s four conservatives agreed that the law violated the First Amendment but, writing separately from Roberts, said he was wrong in not simply finding that the law discriminated against those opposed to abortion.
“Today’s opinion carries forward this court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. “There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.”
The problem here appears to be that the buffer zone is a public walkway. Will this buffer zone apply to all abortion clinics? It’s too soon to tell. Does this ruling mean that all the anti- abortion protesters can go running over to Amethyst Clinic in Manassas? No. That clinic and parking lot are private property.
I am disappointed in this ruling but it doesn’t come as a surprise. What does surprise me is the make up of the narrow ruling folks. Roberts and the liberals on the bench seem like the odd crew but …what do I know. Free speech is a funny thing. After Westboro Baptist’s free speech wins, nothing would surprise me.
Removing the buffer zone will probably usher in increased incidences of violence. Overly zealous do-gooders annoying distraught women on their way to have a procedure no one looks forward to sounds like a recipe for disaster. Hopefully, clinics and law enforcement will devise ways to protect patients from unwanted intrusion.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court itself has a buffer zone around its entrance.
There are also no protest zones around polling places.
Medical clinics for women just aren’t as important.
History of Violence at Reproductive Clinics-Rachel Maddow
Reproductive Rights groups in Mass. regroup
Look out, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has defected and joined The War on Women! (Just kidding)
The fact that this was a unanimous decision shows that it actually doesn’t have much to do with abortion at all. The court has already said that 8 ft. ‘floating’ buffer zones around women are legal. They just said that a 35 ft buffer on public property was too much. 8 feet seems like plenty of space to keep someone out of your face or impede your movement. Perhaps, like so many things, the fix is to enforce the laws already in place rather than create new ones.
I’m hoping that the real takeaway from this decision has nothing to do with abortion. I’d love to see this used as a precedent to get rid of those stupid “Free Speech Zones” around political conventions. I don’t like the idea of designated protest areas.
I think this law might have been used to stop some of the more silent forms of protest such as described in the history link provided by Rachel Maddow. It might also deter “clinic hits” by groups like Operation Rescue with all the crawling, chaining and use of crazy glue in locks.
The Supreme Court itself is very insulated and has a buffer zone as do all polling places. Perhaps the Supremes need to examine their own hypocrisy. (all of them!)
We need to stop the dreaded silent forms of protest? You really think that people shouldn’t be allowed to silently protest something on public property? I don’t like to throw the word around, but honestly, that’s un-American. If you really oppose silent protest on public property, you need to rethink some things.
Chaining doors and gluing locks are already crimes. The fix is to enforce existing laws on vandalism and destruction of property. Similarly, push for more aggressive enforcement of floating buffer laws. Have your escort women carry video cameras and record violations. Heck, have two women walk side by side 7 feet apart, cutting a 23 ft wide swath (8 ft + 7 ft + 8th). There are plenty of existing protections.
The supreme court buffer zone is entirely different. You have multiple conflicting interests ranging from security, noise control to accommodating tourists. GSA (I assume its GSA) has determined that some space is needed to balance those conflicting interests. You are free to challenge it in court if you’d like, and you might win. If you can demonstrate that the buffer around the supreme court is the least restrictive way to accomplish the goals.
That’s were the Massachusetts law failed. They needed to demonstrate that a 35 foot buffer was the LEAST restrictive way to protect women. They couldn’t do that and so the law was struck down. Other less restrictive things, like the 8 ft. floating buffer, are legal because they are more reasonable balances between what is needed to protect the legitimate and legal right of women to enter the abortion facility and the legitimate, legal right of protesters on public land.
Again, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn’t have a problem with the decision, this isn’t a huge deal. Clearly abortion is a special case issue for you, but if you look at both the practical effects of this decision (which are minimal) and look at without the “War on Women” lens filter, I think you’d see this is a reasonable compromise.
I NEVER said that. I don’t think people should be allowed in the face of other people, regardless of reason, especially medical patients. It is a violation of privacy.
If one place is allowed a buffer zone, a medical facility should be allowed a buffer zone. To do otherwise is cherry picking. I think the Supremes are wimps on the issue. All of them. Actually, the clinic should move so its entrance is on private property rather than on the street. That’s one way to fix it.
Did you watch the Rachel Maddow piece on the history of violence at clinics. I have seen it myself and been a victim of it. A family friend from long ago was killed in Pensicola. Yea, its sort of personal.
Again, the supreme court did not strike down buffer zones. They said a 35 ft buffer zone was too big, but they have upheld an 8 ft buffer zone around people entering and leaving the facility.
I do agree that the easiest fix is for the facility to have an entrance further from public land. Put it on the xth floor of a multi-story medical building (like the ones around the hospital or the one at Hoadly and PW Parkway) that way the building entrance that is near public land is shared by multiple tenants but the entrance to the abortion facility is on private property that everyone agrees can restrict protests.
The funny thing is that your agreement that there are other ways to fix the problem short of 35 ft buffer zones shows the supreme court made the right call. The legal standard was that the 35 ft buffer zone had to be the LEAST restrictive way to protect people entering the abortion facility. That you and I can come up with others shows it wasn’t.
Rachel Maddow’s piece on attacks at abortion facilities is irrelevant to this court decision. If someone is going to shoot a doctor over abortion, is a 35 ft buffer zone going to stop them? Heck, one guy was killed in a church, wasn’t he? Do you think the killer of your friend in Pensicola would have been stopped by a 35 ft buffer zone?
You seem to have a different legal standard something akin to “do absolutely anything to protect women entering an abortion facility” The problem is when that conflicts with the rights of other people. I personally don’t really care much on the whole issue of abortion, but protesters have rights too. I think a 35 ft buffer zone is too much.
And you remain welcome to challenge the supreme court’s buffer zone. I wouldn’t mind seeing it shrunk to 8 ft for protesters either.
I thought of an alternative but at what cost to the owner of said clinic? Does that place an undue burden on the owner? Maybe.
If you had watched the Maddow history, it shows the kinds of protest that go one.
For the record, John Bayard Britton wasn’t my friend, he was my uncle’s friend. They actually took a road trip either right before the war or right after the war, on a motorcycle no less, to Texas from Charlottesville. My uncle had wind burn on his face for the rest of his life following that trip.
Back to protest: Looking at that clinic, in order to make sure you got a person going to that clinic rather than just a passerby, you would have to be able to catch them right at the door. The 8 foot portable buffer is really difficult to enforce. A standard buffer zone, not so much. It’s really not a good solution.
I am not sure why anyone thinks they have the right to accost someone else making a medical decision. I sure don’t think I have that right. Today abortion. Tomorrow the pill. The next day a vasectomy. Aren’t these things private decisions? I don’t think anyone has the right to bother another person like that. Screw their first amendment rights.
I bet if I decided I wanted Mark Warner to win and started following people into the polling place pressuring them and trying to get them to take leaflets, you would be all over me like a duck on a June bug–and rightfully so. There are buffer zones. Is the right to vote more sacred than right to privacy?
Finally, not all of the interaction is with protestors. Some of the people are self appointed “counselors” who advise women not to have an abortions. Usually its emotional, hysterical talk if what I have personally witnessed is any indication. Those kinds of encounters are very disturbing and very personal.
Now I haven’t done escorting or defense in nearly 20 years. Part of the reason is its just too dangerous and I have had some injuries doing it. The fact that I am now almost afraid to help because of danger speaks to the issue.
Reminder, what these women are doing is legal and should be protected by privacy, like all other medical information. Why is this procedure treated differently?
They pretty much did strike down permanent buffer zones. I don’t think for one minute a city can come erect a 10 foot buffer zone even. The 8 foot zone is portable and therefore difficult to enforce.