What Today’s Supreme Court Ruling Means for Abortion Clinics

The Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law allowing a protest “buffer zone” around abortion clinics.

Anti-abortion protestor Eleanor McCullen (L) of Newton, Massachusetts, and her attorney, Philip Moran (R) speak outside the US Supreme Court following oral arguments in the case of McCullen v. Coakley, dealing with a Massachusetts law imposing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics for demonstrations and protests, in Washington, DC, January 15, 2014. McCullen argues that the 2007 state law restricts her free speech rights under the First Amendment, while the state and Planned Parenthood argue they provide protection for individuals going to the clinics and provide a way to maintain public safety. AFP PHOTO / Saul LOEB 
National Journal
Sophie Novack
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Sophie Novack
June 26, 2014, 6:36 a.m.

Free speech has won out over abor­tion-clin­ic safety in the Su­preme Court.

In a un­an­im­ous de­cision Thursday, the justices over­turned a Mas­sachu­setts law re­quir­ing a 35-foot “buf­fer zone” for pro­test­ers out­side abor­tion clin­ics in the state. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the de­cision.

The rul­ing could put sim­il­ar clin­ic pro­tec­tions in oth­er areas on shaky ground. 

The case, Mc­Cul­len v. Coakley, asked the Court to weigh First Amend­ment claims from the an­ti­abor­tion side against pub­lic-safety claims from the abor­tion-rights side. The Court on Thursday de­term­ined that the Mas­sachu­setts law vi­ol­ates the First Amend­ment, largely be­cause the buf­fer zones in­clude pub­lic areas such as side­walks. The Court calls for more tar­geted re­sponses to in­cid­ents; while states can ad­dress spe­cif­ic cases of ob­struc­tion, broad­er re­stric­tions are not per­mit­ted.   

The lead plaintiff, Elean­or Mc­Cul­len, is a 77-year-old grand­moth­er who has spent 13 years and more than $50,000 of her own money “coun­sel­ing” preg­nant wo­men out­side Bo­ston clin­ics not to get abor­tions. She ar­gues that the buf­fer-zone law in­ter­feres with her right to de­liv­er her mes­sage and un­fairly dis­crim­in­ates against an­ti­abor­tion ad­voc­ates, be­cause clin­ic work­ers are per­mit­ted to cross the di­vid­ing line and enter the fa­cil­it­ies with the pa­tients.

However, sup­port­ers of the law ar­gue that Mc­Cul­len’s story is an at­tempt to soften the face of abor­tion pro­test­ers from what they say is a long his­tory of vi­ol­ence and in­tim­id­a­tion out­side re­pro­duct­ive health clin­ics.

The Na­tion­al Abor­tion Fed­er­a­tion, a pro­fes­sion­al as­so­ci­ation of abor­tion pro­viders in North Amer­ica, has tracked thou­sands of in­cid­ences of vi­ol­ence out­side abor­tion fa­cil­it­ies since 1977. The or­gan­iz­a­tion says buf­fer-zone laws have dra­mat­ic­ally cut back on such in­cid­ents — a 2013 NAF sur­vey found that 51 per­cent of fa­cil­it­ies with buf­fer zones re­por­ted a de­crease in crim­in­al activ­ity near the fa­cil­ity after the zone was put in­to place, and 75 per­cent of re­spond­ing fa­cil­it­ies with buf­fer zones said the zones im­proved staff and pa­tient ac­cess to the fa­cil­it­ies.

The Mas­sachu­setts law is a re­sponse to past in­cid­ents of dan­ger­ous protests, the best-known of which was a 1994 shoot­ing at a Planned Par­ent­hood clin­ic in Brook­line that left two clin­ic work­ers dead and five wounded. The buf­fer zone is crit­ic­al to min­im­iz­ing these kinds of events and pro­tect­ing the safety of wo­men and clin­ic em­ploy­ees, sup­port­ers say.

Op­pon­ents ar­gue that any cases of mis­con­duct should be ad­dressed in­di­vidu­ally, rather than un­der a blanket re­stric­tion.

The Su­preme Court has con­sidered the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of state buf­fer-zone laws be­fore; in 2000, it up­held Col­or­ado’s law al­low­ing an 8-foot “float­ing” pro­tec­tion zone around in­di­vidu­als en­ter­ing or leav­ing abor­tion fa­cil­it­ies. But the Court has be­come more con­ser­vat­ive and more open to abor­tion re­stric­tions in re­cent years.

In Thursday’s de­cision, Roberts said the Mas­sachu­setts law was not “nar­rowly tailored” — one of the stand­ards gov­ern­ments must meet when de­fend­ing laws that en­croach on the First Amend­ment.

The state’s goals of pro­tect­ing pub­lic safety, and wo­men’s safety, around abor­tion clin­ics is a val­id one, the Court said. But it said the state could achieve those goals without “un­ne­ces­sar­ily sweep­ing in in­no­cent in­di­vidu­als and their speech.”

Be­cause only one clin­ic in Mas­sachu­setts has a his­tory of par­tic­u­larly dis­rupt­ive protests, Roberts wrote, the state could use po­lice to dis­perse protests at that fa­cil­ity. Or it could ad­opt meas­ures that make it a crime to “fol­low and har­ass” any­one with­in a cer­tain dis­tance of an abor­tion clin­ic.

“A painted line on the side­walk is easy to en­force, but the prime ob­ject­ive of the First Amend­ment is not ef­fi­ciency,” Roberts wrote.

The Court re­jec­ted more-sweep­ing ar­gu­ments against the buf­fer zone that could have helped un­der­mine oth­er states’ re­stric­tions. It said the state was not dis­crim­in­at­ing against an­ti­abor­tion act­iv­ists on the basis of their views, which would have made the law much harder to de­fend. But Mas­sachu­setts seemed to have “too read­ily fore­gone op­tions that could serve its in­terests just as well” while im­pos­ing few­er lim­its on free speech, Roberts wrote.

The de­cision could still put oth­er buf­fer-zone laws such as Col­or­ado’s at risk of be­ing struck down. Some cit­ies — in­clud­ing Chica­go and Port­land, Maine — also have buf­fer-zone laws. New Hamp­shire Gov. Mag­gie Has­san signed a 25-foot buf­fer-zone meas­ure in­to law just this month, which will go in­to ef­fect with­in 30 days.

Abor­tion-rights ad­vocacy groups con­demned the de­cision, ex­press­ing con­cern about its pos­sible dom­ino ef­fect on oth­er laws. “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.”

Thursday’s Su­preme Court rul­ing cre­ates a pre­ced­ent that leaves the door open for oth­er chal­lenges to these re­stric­tions.

Sam Baker contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
HAITIANS TO BE MOST AFFECTED
White House to End TPS Program
12 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"The Trump administration is ending a humanitarian program that has allowed some 59,000 Haitians to live and work in the United States since an earthquake ravaged their country in 2010, Homeland Security officials said on Monday. Haitians with what is known as Temporary Protected Status will be expected to leave the United States by July 2019 or face deportation. ... About 320,000 people now benefit from the Temporary Protected Status program, which was signed into law by President George Bush in 1990."

Source:
MAKES PERMANENT A PREVIOUS INJUNCTION
Federal Judge Blocks Sanctuary Cities Order
24 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"A federal judge on Monday permanently blocked President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities. U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick rejected the administration's argument that the executive order applies only to a relatively small pot of money and said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress. The judge had previously made the same arguments in a ruling that put a temporary hold on the executive order."

Source:
HAD DRAWN SCRUTINY FOR LACK OF DONATIONS
Trump Shutting Down Charitable Foundation
26 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump's charitable foundation, which last year admitted violating federal rules on 'self-dealing,' is in the process of dissolving, according to newly filed documents reviewed by NBC News. The move fulfills a promise Trump made last December, when he said he would wind down the Donald J. Trump Foundation to avoid conflicts of interest. New York's attorney general ordered the foundation to stop soliciting contributions in October 2016." At year's end, the foundation had about $970,000 in assets.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Much Will the Air Force’s New Bomber Program Cost?
43 minutes ago
THE ANSWER

About $97 billion, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report.

Source:
DOES SCHOOL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ASIANS?
DOJ Investigating Harvard for Its Affirmative Action Programs
47 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"The U.S. Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the use of race in Harvard University’s admissions practices and has accused the university of failing to cooperate with the probe, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal." The inquiry stems from a lawsuit filed in Boston in 2014, which claimed that the school intentionally discriminated against Asian Americans.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login