The US Supreme Court has invalidated a Massachusetts law imposing 35-foot “buffer zones” around abortion clinics. In a unanimous decision, the court sided with pro-life campaigners and lead plaintiff Eleanor McCullen in saying that the law placed an undue burden on the free-speech rights of pro-life activists.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, said that the ruling “frees sidewalk counselors at abortion facilities to be able to offer compassionate and caring alternatives.”
The Court’s majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court’s four ‘liberal’ justices, emphasised that states had many ways of protecting women entering abortion clinics from harassment – and that, in fact, the “buffer zone” law might make it more likely for a woman to encounter loud protests rather than “sidewalk counsellors”. Concluding that people like Eleanor McCullen looking to speak to women on the sidewalks around abortion clinics are “not protestors,” the Court’s main opinion said that “they seek only to inform women of various alternatives and to provide help in pursing them. [They] believe that they can accomplish this objective only through personal, caring, consensual conversations.”
“It is no answer,” the Chief Justice wrote, “to say that [abortion counselors] can be seen and heard by women within the buffer zones. If all that the women can see and hear are vociferous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively stifled [the] message [of counseling].”
Four other judges said that the ruling did not go far enough in ruling against Massachusetts attempt to silence anti-abortion speech in particular, with Justice Samuel Alito pointing out that the law would have allowed a member of the clinic staff to speak to a woman and offer her information, but not a pro-life “sidewalk counsellor”.
The ruling’s implications for other state laws is unclear, as while laws of similar design to the Massachusetts one will now be open to constitutional challenge, other laws, such as those creating “floating” buffer zones around people approaching abortion clinics, were not directly mentioned in the majority opinion.
Abortion-rights proponents said the ruling would give protesters freer rein to intimidate women. “This decision shows a troubling level of disregard for American women, who should be able to make carefully considered, private medical decisions without running a gauntlet of harassing and threatening protesters,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
