Unanimous! Supreme Court strikes down MA buffer zone law
Read the background for this case here.
Today, in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts’ buffer zone law, which banned pro-life advocates from entering a 35-foot restricted-speech zone around the entrance of abortion clinics. Read the decision here. Details, from USA Today:
The decision united Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberals, who said the distance improperly removed demonstrators from public sidewalks and spaces. The other conservative justices would have issued a more sweeping verdict, striking down the ban on grounds that it targets abortion opponents’ specific point of view….
Although the court had upheld an 8-foot buffer zone in Colorado in 2000, the Massachusetts law passed in 2007 went 27 feet farther.
The Colorado case was Hill v Colorado, wherein by a 6-3 decision SCOTUS ruled that zone constitutional (six were: Breyer, Ginsburg, O’Connor, Rehnquist, Stevens, Souter; three were Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas).
About that Hill decision, per Scotusblog.com:
Scalia says in his concurring opinion that Hill should be overruled….
The S. Ct. majority says nothing about its prior buffer zone ruling in Hill, the validity of which now seems in real question….
[T]here would seem to be a real question whether Hill would come out the same way after this….
Other pro-abortion buffer zone dominoes to fall?
That domino indeed may fall, along with others. Justice Roberts stated in his opinion (page 23) that five localities may be immediately impacted. Those might be, quoting from the New York brief:
As with the Mass state law, the law of Burlington, which is also fixed and 35 feet is probably unconstitutional; Portland ME (39 ft), likely unconstitutional; San Francisco has 25 feet, likely unconstitutional; Pittsburgh has 15 feet, possibly unconstitutional, and Santa Barbara has 8 foot, possibly unconstitutional.
There is also the Chicago 8-foot buffer zone law and a new New Hampshire 25-foot buffer zone law scheduled to take effected within 30 days.
Thursday’s ruling opens the door to multiple pro-life challenges.
Abortion access remains ensured
The decision does allow wiggle room. Quoting Scotusblog.com again:
The abortion protests ruling is relatively narrow. The Court makes clear that states can pass laws that specifically ensure access to clinics. It holds that states cannot more broadly prohibit speech on public streets and sidewalks….
[A] state has to more narrowly target clinic obstructions. For example, the police can tell protesters to move aside to let a woman through to the clinic. But it cannot prohibit protesters from being on the sidewalks in the first instance. If in practice protesters still are obstructing the entrance, then it can consider a broader restriction….
[T]he Court seemingly leaves no room for a law requiring as a general matter buffer zones of any size around the clinics — it lists all manner of alternatives, including court orders tailored to a specific clinic’s problems, that will be a more narrowly tailored way of responding to the State’s legitimate concerns.
[Top photo is of me praying outside the Supreme Court building this morning; bottom photo is of a now unconstitutional buffer zone yellow line around a Massachusetts Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, via Boston Globe]; thanks to Americans United for Life for analysis included in this post]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Omg Ive just heard this on my car radio.
Good. I believe a small buffer zone like the eight foot one is okay to prevent violent clashes but the larger ones are ridiculous and unconstitutional.
Deluded, nevertheless the ‘borts are probably going ballistic!
“nevertheless the ‘borts are probably going ballistic!”
Oh, they are.
http://twitchy.com/2014/06/26/free-speech-wins-scotus-unanimously-overturns-expansive-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-left-goes-nuts/
Well I guess the Supremes ate going to announce the decision in the Hobby House case on Monday, the last day of the session. I think they may decide in Hobby Lobby’s favor. Either way there is going to be a “sugar” storm . . .j
Great news! Love that it was unanimous.
You should read the hysterical, scare tactic, the world is coming to an end but lets make money off this fundraising emails that NOW’s Terry O’Neill and Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards sent out after the ruling.
Anyway, praise the Lord and God bless the justices and these united states.
I heard from one of my legislators this morning, ready to repeal NH’s yet-to-be-enforced law. It’s too early to file bills for next year, but she’s got the right idea. http://leavenfortheloaf.com/2014/06/26/right-decision-wrong-reason-but-lets-take-it-for-now/
Sandra Fluke is mad, I read. That means something good just happened.
“Sandra Fluke is mad, I read. That means something good just happened.”
Let’s hope she gets really angry on Monday.
Dennis Miller referred to her as “Moan of Arc.”
I guess Planned Parenthood will have to erase those ugly yellow lines. Good grief, that one extends out into the street. Did they really force pro-lifers to walk in the street to avoid the buffer zone?
So; great for you. Enjoy screaming at women using their constitutional rights.
I was reading some of those tweets, JDC, and I can’t help but notice the glaring language difference between pro-lifers and pro-abortionist. One group uses mostly English, the other uses mostly f-bomb laden profanity. Kinda speaks volumes.
I like the 40 Days of Life approach, which is gentle and prayerful. I do not like people who try to make women feel bad. But pro-abortionists have to understand, we’re all human and alive from conception. Your attempts at curbing our free speech didn’t make abortion less deadly.
Not safe, still legal,
not rare, and still lethal.
9ek…i saw that too. Jessica Valenti just wrote f*** another wrote fity f f f …you know. I hope they will be okay when the swelling goes down.
GL, I used to hand out literature at Planned Parenthood. I never screamed, threatened, or tried to intimidate anyone, that’s just not my style. If someone did get out of hand, the other protestors chastisted him or her. I had to stop because it was too intense. I would often start to cry, and that wasn’t good.
You’re right, Heather and 9ek, all that foul language . . . I hope their mothers are proud of them.
Hi Phillymiss. Let me start by saying I give you credit for trying. Its not easy standing in front of an abortion clinic…especially if you are having problems at home or work etc. You will be called names out there and PC people have no mercy. I believe many of them are self loathing because we are putting what they have done ( graphic signs ) in their faces. A pastor I protest with can be humerous at times. Every time a woman would flip the bird hed say “Yea thats what got you here in the first place.”
GL neither have I. Our best days is when women would look at our graphic signs and ask ” Is that really what an abortion looks like?” A few would go into the clinic and come right back out saying ” I just could NOT do it.”
Pro-borts walk in with hate. It clouds their judgement. Even as we stand on the sidewalk, in quiet prayer or smiling welcome — they can only see us “shouting.”
That is why pro-borts often respond to the sight of us with profanity and violence. They even tell police that we “started it.” In their minds, our quiet presence is a threat.
Always remember that this is a fight for the hearts of the general public. The abortion industry claimed that they needed these buffer zones because pro-lifers are “violent” and “harassing.” They will shout this message again — they aren’t going to waste this court decision.
We have to keep our message clear: We were quiet, we are quiet, we will always be peaceful. We are here to love and help women and their children. We are generous. The abortion industry frightens women and takes their money, often hurting them as they kill the children. We are the real Choice. We are the alternative that women hope for. And we offer our help for free.
“Pro-borts walk in with hate. It clouds their judgement. Even as we stand on the sidewalk, in quiet prayer or smiling welcome — they can only see us “shouting.”
Well, I wouldn’t say that ALL of them are like this, but some are.
Del et al., even when they are at their nastiest, smile and be courteous — kill em with kindness!
If anyone is screaming its the borts! Some get right up in your face and one woman yelled at me ” I will kick your a**!” And believe me she could have. She was dropping off her young daughter for an abortion. It was hard to say how old the daughter was because she was on the heavier side. To clarify very large breasts and backside. I had to study her face. It was youthful. And mom was huge. Im sure she was post abortive. She decided against kicking my butt cuz I told her Id press charges. She watched her daughter enter the clinic and jumped back in her car. She peeled out!
Pro aborts would complain if their icecream was cold.
They are gonna fight this one to the death. Relax its just a little ol buffer zone law. Trust me if a woman is determined to enter a clinic she will do it!!
[…] response to the Supreme Court reversing Massachusetts’ abortion clinic buffer zone law this week, pro-choice blogger Dan Savage at TheStranger.com suggested following the lead of West […]
[…] to Cosmopolitian, for while its article unsurprisingly blasted the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision overturning Massachusetts’ buffer zone law, it took the high road and properly portrayed […]
[…] U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision last week overturning Massachusetts’ 35-foot abortion clinic buffer zone law, which the court […]
[…] within 35 feet of abortion clinics in the state. With so many other states having similar laws, the hope is that the ruling will create a domino effect that will allow women in all states to be provided […]