- ‘Gay Jeans’ that fade into rainbow-colored denim created
- Divided court strikes down big porn award
- Jimmy Carter: Don’t hurt Russian people with sanctions
- Oldest ex-MLB player dies in Cuba, 2 days shy of 103rd birthday
- ‘Top Gun’ for drones: Squadrons of carrier-based killers have Navy’s approval
- Bill Clinton to endorse Charlie Rangel for re-election
- Pfc. Bradley Manning is now Pfc. Chelsea Manning: Court says so
- Secret base U.S. special forces used to train Libyans now under terrorist control: report
- 9th suspect in N.C. kidnapping turns self in to FBI
- L.A. sheriff admits to testing flyover spy program without notifying residents
Justices’ questions appear unsympathetic to abortion clinic ‘buffer zone’ law
The Supreme Court’s justices on Wednesday challenged attorneys on the history, impact and motivation for the 2007 Massachusetts public safety law that established clearly marked, 35-foot buffer zones around entrances and driveways of abortion clinics.
No one is permitted in the zones except people with business at the clinics or those who are passing by. Violators face arrest and criminal charges.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said there was a “considerable history of disturbances” at abortion clinics, and no one can tell “who will be well-behaved and who will be disruptive.” Because states can’t screen people, “the only way” to ensure access to abortion clinics “is to have a rule that applies to everyone,” she said.
Other justices homed in on the free speech issues during the hourlong oral arguments. Justice Antonin Scalia described the matter as more of a “counseling case” than a “protest case.” Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. raised the issue of discrimination based on political views, noting that a person in the buffer zone who says the clinic is safe is free to express himself, but someone in the buffer zone who says the clinic is not safe could be penalized.
Several justices questioned the size of the buffer zone and the precedent such zones could set for public protests or political gatherings. The law’s critics warn that the buffer concept could be used for government-approved zones for animal rights advocates at slaughterhouses or restricted picket areas during labor strikes.
Seven pro-life activists, led by Eleanor McCullen, have sued to overturn the law, saying it infringes on their constitutional rights to be on public sidewalks and peacefully try to dissuade women from entering the abortion clinics.
Jennifer Grace Miller, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice in Boston, told the court that a 35-foot buffer zone was reasonable to limit congestion. Ms. Miller spoke on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and other state officials, who say the zones are needed to keep clinic clients from verbal and physical harassment.
Deputy Solicitor General Ian H. Gershengorn, representing the Obama administration, said courts have upheld buffer zones around events such as political conventions, circuses and funerals.
If people could “defeat those buffer zones by simply saying, ‘I would like to have a quiet conversation with the delegates as they go into the political convention,’” that would “wipe out” the kinds of buffer zones that courts have said are needed, Mr. Gershengorn said.
Lawyer Mark L. Rienzi, who represented the pro-life activists, told the court that the buffer criminalizes quiet, consensual conversations at abortion clinics and restricts only speech that is critical of abortion.
In an exchange with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Mr. Rienzi suggested that he would have difficulty making his argument if he had to stand back an additional 35 feet from the bench.
“I’d hear you,” Justice Breyer cut in.
“You might hear me,” Mr. Rienzi said, “but I would suggest you’d receive it quite differently.”
A ruling in McCullen v. Coakley, one of the biggest abortion cases of the court’s term, should be announced by summer. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the law twice, in 2009 and in 2013.
Court watchers said the questions indicate that the high court may have a majority to upend the law or narrow it in some way on constitutional grounds.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Cheryl Wetzstein covers family and social issues as a national reporter for The Washington Times. She has been a reporter for three decades, working in New York City and Washington, D.C. Since joining The Washington Times in 1985, she has been a features writer, environmental and consumer affairs reporter, and assistant business editor.
Beginning in 1994, Mrs. Wetzstein worked exclusively ...
- Divided court strikes down big porn award
- 10 million new babies? China's hope for boom likely to become policy bust
- Judge voids N. Dakota's 'heartbeat' abortion law
- Family, agency in custody battle over sick daughter
- Values group wins court round over use of gay marriage photo
Latest Blog Entries
- Gay therapy ban author seeks Calif. House seat
- Transgender 'bathroom law' gets 5,000 more signatures
- Pro-life, stem-cell bill signed into law by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback
- N. Dakota lawmakers approve tough abortion bill
- Pope Benedict XVI's successor should allow priests to get a new title: Husband, poll finds
TWT Video Picks
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Obama's veil of secrecy is pierced
- Pentagon plans to replace flight crews with 'full-time' robots
- 'Top Gun' for drones: Squadrons of carrier-based killers have Navy's approval
- CARSON: When government looks more like foe than friend
- Kansas will nullify local regulation of guns
- Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy hailed as patriot, ripped as lawless deadbeat
- America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds
- Washington Redskins' 2014 schedule opens with Texans
- Texas is next! AG warns BLM wants 90,000 acres after Bundy ranch standoff
- Opposition rising to Colorado gun control laws
- Harry Reid using tax dollars to fight Koch brothers, La. GOP chair charges
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Celebrity deaths in 2014