Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Pro-abortion-rights activists regroup after SCOTUS ruling

Posted by on Jun. 26, 2014 at 9:17 PM
  • 25 Replies

Pro-abortion-rights activists regroup after SCOTUS ruling

The Massachusetts attorney general and pro-abortion-rights activists are regrouping with state lawmakers and law enforcement after the Supreme Court overturned an abortion clinic buffer zone law.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that found a Massachusetts law prohibiting protests within 35 feet of abortion clinics unconstitutional because it violated free speech rights. [Read the court’s ruling.]

Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, said she was disappointed with the ruling and said it re-opened the fight to protect women in the state from anti-abortion activists at health clinics.

“With today’s decision that fight begins again,” Coakley said during a press conference Thursday. “We are vowed to make sure that we will continue here in Massachusetts to provide for the protections the decision still leaves and ... to work with our legislatures and others to find what other tools will be available to us moving forward.”

She pointed out that while the ruling struck down fixed buffer zones for abortion clinics, federal law still prohibits anyone obstructing entrances of abortion clinics, and women seeking abortions are still protected from harassment and threats.

Coakley added she is considering toughening the existing laws and raising penalties for those who harass women at abortion clinics.

Marty Walz, CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, echoed Coakley’s remarks and said the state's abortion clinics will add more escorts to protect women and healthcare workers.

Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), co-chairwomen of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, said they hope Massachusetts lawmakers will quickly rewrite laws to conform to the Supreme Court’s decision, and find a better balance between protecting women at abortion clinics versus protesters’ right to free speech. 

“While the Supreme Court today overturned this large fixed buffer zone in Massachusetts it’s important to note it left the opening for Massachusetts to re-write its laws,” DeGette said.

DeGette was the top Democratic state House legislature when Colorado signed a buffer zone law giving women who go to abortion clinics and healthcare workers an eight-foot personal space requirement from anti-abortion protesters.

That law was challenged in the 2000 Supreme Court case, Hill vs. Colorado, and upheld.

However, Massachusetts had its own six-foot floating buffer zone law based on Colorado’s before it adopted the fixed buffer zone law. 

Massachusetts lawmakers argued the floating buffer zone wasn’t effective in stopping protesters from harassing women seeking abortions.

Pro-abortion-rights activists and lawmakers used a unified line of attack on the Supreme Court, calling its decision hypocritical when the court itself has a fixed buffer zone.

Walz noted the Supreme Court sidestepped its own buffer zone rule.

“The rationale expressed in the decision certainly calls into question the constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s buffer zone,” she added.

Thursday’s ruling is expected to affect more than Massachusetts.

So far, nine localities from San Francisco and Santa Barbara to Pittsburg and Pensacola have fixed buffer zones at abortion clinics. New Hampshire also has a similar law that is expected to go into effect next month. 



Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/210782-pro-abortion-rights-activists-regrouping-after-scotus-ruling#ixzz35nXFYxLo 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

by on Jun. 26, 2014 at 9:17 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
supermonstermom
by on Jun. 26, 2014 at 9:21 PM
4 moms liked this

I am bit confused as to how a buffer zone violates anyone's speech.

Patients can get in safely without being harassed, and people who want to protest can do that 36 feet away.  I don't understand how a buffer zone is a violation of anyone's rights.


leksismommy
by Member on Jun. 26, 2014 at 9:28 PM
I'm thinking the same thing.

Quoting supermonstermom:

I am bit confused as to how a buffer zone violates anyone's speech.

Patients can get in safely without being harassed, and people who want to protest can do that 36 feet away.  I don't understand how a buffer zone is a violation of anyone's rights.

Its.me.Sam.
by Gold Member on Jun. 26, 2014 at 9:31 PM
8 moms liked this

those people who stand outside of health clinics where abortions (and other services) are performed should be ashamed of themselves.  there is nothing kind, compassionate, loving, or effective in shouting at women going into the building.
i think there should always be laws to prevent others from harassing people.  kind of seems like a no-brainer.  

AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Jun. 27, 2014 at 7:51 AM
I think that the decision was based on the way it is written. By claiming thirty five, the law could effectively move protesters well away from their intended audience. Thirty five feet could encroach on someone else's property or public property and protesters would be unable to stand where they should legally be able to stand.
They need to rewrite the law.
Bird_on_a_wire
by Bronze Member on Jun. 27, 2014 at 8:54 AM
1 mom liked this
Way to stand behind harassment.
VooDooB
by Platinum Member on Jun. 27, 2014 at 8:57 AM
1 mom liked this

Stupid. 

I'm all about the right to protest but I think this kind of protesting is harassment. I realize you can't pick and choose and it's difficult to draw a fair line but I really thought the buffer zone was a good idea. 

snookyfritz
by Platinum Member on Jun. 27, 2014 at 9:03 AM
1 mom liked this

What i am hoping is this ruling will stop the silliness involving protestors at election caucuses and conventions.  The last few years protesters have been caged and placed where they cannot be seen. 

I would never protest at an abortion clinic

RandRMomma
by Maya on Jun. 27, 2014 at 9:11 AM
1 mom liked this
I'm not seeing how stopping harassment infringes upon someone's constitutional rights.
LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Jun. 27, 2014 at 9:12 AM
Maybe you can't tell someone where they can and can not practice their free speech on public grounds? Scratching my head at the rationale.

Quoting supermonstermom:

I am bit confused as to how a buffer zone violates anyone's speech.

Patients can get in safely without being harassed, and people who want to protest can do that 36 feet away.  I don't understand how a buffer zone is a violation of anyone's rights.

supermonstermom
by on Jun. 27, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Maybe.  Adrienne commented a few comments up, that maybe its the wording?

I like the idea behind the law, if its just the wording, they should fix it.

Oh like the sidewalk in front of a medical clinic is public so they should be able to get a permit to protest?

Quoting LauraKW: Maybe you can't tell someone where they can and can not practice their free speech on public grounds? Scratching my head at the rationale.
Quoting supermonstermom:

I am bit confused as to how a buffer zone violates anyone's speech.

Patients can get in safely without being harassed, and people who want to protest can do that 36 feet away.  I don't understand how a buffer zone is a violation of anyone's rights.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN