Can restrictions on abortion clinic demonstrations pass Supreme Court muster?

June 27, 2014
Jim Naughton

The US Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that banned protesters within 35 feet of abortion clinics, ruling that the law infringed upon the First Amendment rights of antiabortion activists.

The decision effectively overturns about 10 fixed-buffer-zone laws across the country, from San Francisco to Portland, Maine, but offers a framework for more limited restrictions around clinic demonstrations, legal experts said.

“They’ve approved the idea of this kind of law, just not the mechanism,” said Jessica Silbey, a Suffolk University Law School professor. “It was too broad.”

What did you think of the decision?

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, of which the Episcopal Church is a member, was unhappy with the decision.

The Southern Baptist Convention was pleased.

What kind of “more limited restrictions around clinic demonstrations” would pass muster with the high court?

0 0 vote

Article Rating

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

4 Comments

Newest

Oldest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Geoffrey McLarney

June 28, 2014 9:45 am

I’m surprised: “buffer zones” are standard up here. I used to see protestors at the end of my street as a kid because it was the closest they could get to the Morgentaler Clinic three blocks up (in the same building as my family dr, so I wasn’t complaining!)

tgflux

June 27, 2014 4:08 pm

Have there been any “anti-voting” based MURDERS around the polls, as well? (I don’t think so). While there have been *dozens* (hundreds?) of anti-choice ***physical attacks*** on abortion clinics, w/ multiple deaths.

WTF were Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg thinking?! [Not to mention the SCOTUS guys, but y’know. Lower expectations there.]

The only SAFE response to this, is increased police protection. And good luck w/ that…

Kyrie eleison!

JC Fisher

tobias haller

June 27, 2014 11:46 am

Nor is there a problem with laws restricting electioneering near polling places — and by much further than 35 or 8 feet!

Or will the court overturn that as well?

Ann Fontaine

June 27, 2014 10:11 am

Of course the Court sees no problem with restrictions around their own entrances.

wpDiscuz

Support the Café

Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition. The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity. Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.