|
 The nine justices will hear a one-hour argument over a challenge
to a Massachusetts law aimed at ensuring access for patients at
clinics that offer abortions.
Anti-abortion protesters challenged the law, saying it violated
their freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution by preventing them from standing on the sidewalk and
speaking to those entering clinics. The protesters say their main
aim is to counsel women in an effort to deter them from having
abortions.
The 2007 law, which amended an existing statute, restricted conduct
outside abortion clinics by introducing a 35-foot (11-meter)
no-entry zone that allowed only patients, staff, passersby and
emergency services to enter.
The law was enacted in part because of safety concerns highlighted
by violent acts committed against abortion providers in the past. In
1994, two abortion clinic workers were killed outside a clinic in
Brookline, Massachusetts.
The case specifically concerns people who want to protest outside
three Planned Parenthood facilities that offer abortions in addition
to other health services for women in Boston, Springfield and
Worcester.
The protesters have urged the Supreme Court to consider overturning
its 2000 decision, Hill v. Colorado, that upheld a similar law in
Colorado.
Steven Aden, an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a
conservative Christian group that backs the protesters, said the
state was targeting people for expressing a particular view.
"This case is about whether a government has the constitutional
ability to cordon off a large section of public space and make it a
First Amendment-free zone," he said.
Lawyers for the state of Massachusetts say the law was enacted to
deal with a potential public safety problem.
[to top of second column] |
Martha "Marty" Walz, who heads the Planned Parenthood operation in
Massachusetts, helped pass the law in her former role as a state
legislator.
She said in a call with reporters last week that the law was
carefully drafted not just to ensure safety of patients but also to
protect the First Amendment rights of protesters.
The law "applies equally to everyone" and does not prevent protests
from taking place, she said.
Just having the buffer makes a big difference because previously
protesters would block the way, right up to the doorway, and would
shout in people's faces from close proximity, she said.
Two other states, Montana and Colorado, have similar laws. Municipal
ordnances and court injunctions have also been used in various
states to create similar buffer zones.
A ruling is expected by the end of June.
The case is McCullen v. Coakley, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-1168.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; editing by Will Dunham and Douglas
Royalty)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
