Massachusetts Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones Ruled Illegal By US Supreme Court

Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that banned protesters within 35 feet of abortion clinics, called the buffer zone. The ruling came from the fact that judges said the law infringed upon the First Amendment rights of antiabortion activists.

The Tech Times notes that the ruling stemmed from a case filed by 77-year-old Eleanor McCullen, a grandmother who stands outside a Planned Parenthood clinic every Tuesday and Wednesday to convince women from having an abortion. McCullen felt that the abortion buffer zone of 35 feet was too restrictive. She said being pushed back 35 feet away from the entrance of the clinic severely restricted her right to speak with the women because she wouldn’t know if they were patients, workers, or just people passing by.

The ruling notes that 35 feet is too excessive, but does say that smaller buffer zones may be legal. However, they do not offer insight on what size buffer zone would be considered constitutional, only that a smaller one may not restrict free speech. The origin of the abortion buffer zone stemmed from a 1994 case where the Supreme Court upheld a 36-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics in Florida following the shooting at a Brookline clinic that led to the death of two workers.

According to the Boston Globe, the decision effectively overturns about 10 fixed-buffer-zone laws across the country. Buffer zone laws span from San Francisco to Portland, Maine, but the ruling does offer a framework for more limited restrictions around clinic demonstrations. Abortion opponents feel strides were made Thursday in free speech. Eleanor McCullen, the lead petitioner in the case, said:

“The court recognized our First Amendment rights, and now I’ll have a chance to speak to people one-on-one.”

However, not everyone is happy about the ruling. Abortion advocates are upset, noting that patients and staff may now be harassed. Abortion supporters say they will find ways to keep their patients and staff safe. One way is to enforce the law that bans blocking of the entrance to an abortion clinic. This portion of the law remained intact after the ruling Thursday. Though abortion buffer zones are no longer enforceable, pieces of the previous legislation still stand. Attorney General Martha Coakley, who’s law office lead the defense in the proceedings, notes:

“We will utilize all of the tools we have available to protect everyone from harassment, threats, and physical obstruction.”

Martha Walz, president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, told the Boston Globe that police have ensured her that they will do everything to ensure the safety of those in the clinic. Volunteers will also be available to walk patients to and from their vehicles.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, in the majority opinion, stated eloquently the purpose of free speech, noting the purpose behind these principles:

“With respect to other means of communication, an individual confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the channel, or leave the Web site. Not so on public streets and sidewalks. There, a listener often encounters speech he might otherwise tune out. In light of the First Amendment’s purpose ‘to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, this aspect of traditional public fora is a virtue, not a vice.”

Do you feel the abortion buffer zone ruling was needed to protect free speech, or is safety of staff and patients too grave of a concern in these clinics?

[Image Credit: The New York Post]