Whether you’re Pro-Choice or believe abortion should be outlawed, you’re probably aware of the protests routinely held outside abortion clinics. Some of these protests are fairly passive — protesters will simply hold up signs and picket outside the building. However, these peaceful protests can quickly escalate to verbal and even physical abuse. Critics may shame patients and threaten the clinic’s staff. Some have blocked doors or otherwise tried to prevent people from entering the building. In a few incidents, there have been shootings. In 1994, for example, shots were fired at two abortion clinics in Massachusetts.
In response to the overzealous protesters, many states have enacted laws requiring buffer zones and other protective measures for those entering an abortion clinic. For example, Massachusetts does not allow people to stand within 35 feet of the facility. Obviously, there are exceptions for passersby, those entering or leaving the building and construction workers making routine repairs to the streetlights or pavement. Even a solar mobile light tower phoenix needs to be serviced every once in a while.
Some critics of the law say they just want to be helpful and let women know there are other options. Now, the buffer laws are coming under fire, as one woman claims they violated her right to free speech. The Supreme Court is reviewing the case but it’s unclear how it will rule.
McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168
Eleanor McCullen is the plaintiff in the case against the law. She claims the abortion buffer zone violates the First Amendment by limiting free speech. Ms. McCullen is an abortion critic who wishes to council women seeking abortion. She says she wants to help women and let them know they have other options. Ms. McCullen alleges the buffer zone makes it unnecessarily difficult to carry out her mission.
Pro-Buffer Zone
Those in favor of the buffer zone say it is necessary for the safety of the clinic’s workers and patients. They cite numerous instances where protests have become violent. Even if there are no guns involved, verbal abuse is a serious concern. It’s impossible to separate those with good intentions from those who want to threaten and shame women seeking abortion. Justice Breyer explained that a general buffer was necessary for this reason.
Anti-Buffer Zone
Opponents of the law say the space outside the clinic is usually a public sidewalk, and they question why they can’t hold their protest on government-owned ground. They say the law seems arbitrary because it only applies to abortion clinics rather than all medical facilities. While the law initially did apply to all healthcare buildings, Massachusetts limited it to abortion facilities in an effort at simplification. Furthermore, the 35-foot buffer seems arbitrary. Ms. McCullen’s attorney also says by enacting the law, the government is favoring one side over the other in the abortion debate.
The Precedent
This is not the first time clinic buffer zones have come under fire. In the 2000 case Hill vs. Colorado, another protester challenged the state’s buffer zone. In Colorado, there is a 100-foot buffer zone around all healthcare facilities. Within these zones, you cannot approach another person within 8 feet without his or her permission. The major difference between this law and the one in Massachusetts is that it applies to all medical facilities — not just abortion clinics.
At this time, it’s unclear whether or not the Supreme Court will uphold Massachusetts’s legislation. Chief Justice Roberts asked no questions during the hearing, and the rest of justices seemed evenly split. No matter the outcome, the Court’s decision may have reverberations across the country.