WASHINGTON – A Massachusetts law that established a 35-foot protest-free buffer zone around abortion clinics is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled June 26.
The buffer zone represents a "dramatic intrusion on First Amendment rights," said Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., in reading the opinion from the bench.
Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News
The buffer zone represents a "dramatic intrusion on First Amendment rights," said Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.
The Justices were unanimous that the law was a First Amendment violation, but varied on how they formulated their opinions. Chief Justice Roberts Jr. was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Antonin Scalia was joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Justice Clarence Thomas, who all agreed that the law was unconstitutional on its face, and that there were no acceptable alternatives to barring protesters from the clinics. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed in a separate concurring opinion.
The 2007 law prohibited most people – with the exception of employees and their agents, patients, and people passing by the clinics – from standing within 35 feet of an abortion clinic. Those buffer zones were delineated by painted lines.
In McCullen v. Coakley, Eleanor McCullen said that the law violated her First Amendment right to talk with women going into the clinics, in an effort to counsel them and persuade them not to have an abortion.
The Chief Justice and his five colleagues agreed and said that though the buffer zones had helped the state maintain public safety and preserve access to the clinics, it had done so at the expense of the First Amendment. Ms. McCullen and her colleagues are not "protesters," the Justices said. Instead, "they seek not merely to express their opposition to abortion, but to engage in personal, caring, consensual conversations with women about various alternatives."
And, they said, "It is not enough for Massachusetts simply to say that other approaches have not worked."
Pro-life groups praised the ruling. "The Massachusetts law impermissibly discriminated against and censored pro-life Americans," said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and chief executive officer of Americans United for Life, in a statement. "The pro-abortion position could be represented in the zone, while the pro-life view point was strictly prohibited under threat of criminal sanctions."
The Pro-Life Action League issued a statement following the decision that, "The pro-life movement scored a huge victory at the Supreme Court today."
Pro-choice groups, however, said they were disappointed. Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, noted that there has been a long history of violence against women who patronize clinics, and physicians and other clinic workers, with 8 murders and 17 attempted murders since 1991.
"Let’s be clear: Today’s decision puts women and health care providers at greater risk," Ms. Hogue said in a statement.
Megan Amundson, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said that the ruling "turns back the clock to when women were too intimidated to seek medical care," adding that "women’s health will suffer because of it."
Planned Parenthood echoed that position. "This decision shows a troubling level of disregard for American women, who should be able to make carefully considered, private medical decisions without running a gauntlet of harassing and threatening protesters," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.
"We are taking a close look at this ruling, as well as patient protection laws around the country, to ensure that women can continue to make their own health care decisions without fear of harassment or intimidation," she said.
On Twitter @aliciaault