How Massachusetts Is Fighting Back on the Supreme Court’s Abortion Ruling

The state passed a law Wednesday that strengthens protest restrictions around abortion clinics.

Janice Pemberton (C) of Brooklyn, NY, speaks to pro-choice activists with the National Organization For Women at a vigil outside the U.S. Supreme Court on January 23, 2012 in Washington, DC. The vigil was held to mark the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. (Photo by Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)
National Journal
Sophie Novack
July 30, 2014, 12:49 p.m.

Mas­sachu­setts is not let­ting a Su­preme Court de­cision get in the way of what the state sees as ne­ces­sary pro­tec­tions for abor­tion clin­ics.

Demo­crat­ic Gov. Dev­al Patrick signed a bill in­to law Wed­nes­day that aims to pro­tect pa­tients at re­pro­duct­ive health cen­ters from po­ten­tially dan­ger­ous an­ti­abor­tion pro­test­ers.

The le­gis­la­tion comes in re­sponse to a Su­preme Court rul­ing at the end of last month that struck down a 2007 state law re­quir­ing a 35-foot protest “buf­fer zone” around abor­tion clin­ics. In a un­an­im­ous de­cision, the Court said the law vi­ol­ates the First Amend­ment in part be­cause the buf­fer zones in­clude pub­lic spaces such as side­walks. States could re­spond to spe­cif­ic in­cid­ents, the justices said, but a broad­er re­stric­tion like the Mas­sachu­setts law was deemed un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

The new Mas­sachu­setts safe-ac­cess law ad­dresses safety con­cerns of abor­tion-rights ad­voc­ates by tight­en­ing se­cur­ity around clin­ics. The le­gis­la­tion in­creases pen­al­ties for ob­struct­ing ac­cess to health cen­ters, and in­creases po­lice au­thor­ity to re­move in­di­vidu­als who block pa­tients.

The state House and Sen­ate passed the bill Tues­day. The Le­gis­lature in­cluded an emer­gency pre­amble, mean­ing that the law takes ef­fect im­me­di­ately.

Planned Par­ent­hood League of Mas­sachu­setts has already be­gun pre­par­ing for the new law by mark­ing off the area where pro­test­ers in vi­ol­a­tion would need to stand tem­por­ar­ily, the or­gan­iz­a­tion said.

The law’s crafters hope it will also serve as a mod­el for oth­er areas with buf­fer-zone laws that have been af­fected by the Su­preme Court rul­ing. These in­clude New Hamp­shire; Port­land, Maine; and Bur­l­ing­ton, Vt., ac­cord­ing to Planned Par­ent­hood Fed­er­a­tion of Amer­ica Pres­id­ent Cecile Richards. There are also buf­fer zones in place in about six or sev­en oth­er com­munit­ies around the coun­try, but those have not been af­fected, she said.

An­ti­abor­tion pro­test­ers have already an­nounced they will chal­lenge the new law in court, ac­cord­ing to Mas­sachu­setts At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Martha Coakley, who worked on the le­gis­la­tion. But sup­port­ers of the law are con­fid­ent it will with­stand con­sti­tu­tion­al scru­tiny this time around, and say the tar­geted ap­proach is in keep­ing with the Court’s de­cision.

“The Su­preme Court took one tool away from us last month, but as Mas­sachu­setts has demon­strated, when they take one tool away, we come back with a full tool­box,” Richards said Wed­nes­day.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×