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?
All Content © 2017 Episcopal Café
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!)
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
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?
Of course the Court sees no problem with restrictions around their own entrances.