Breaking Down the Buffer Zone Ruling

On Thursday the United States Supreme Court handed down the ruling that the 35 foot buffer zone outside abortion clinic entrances in Massachusetts is unconstitutional. I was in the lovely Registry of Motor Vehicles when I saw the news- as if being in the RMV isn't enough to ruin ones day, I was heavily disappointed but not as surprised as I thought I would be. Once I saw that the decision was unanimous I was a bit more upset and it wasn't until later on when I had the time to really look at the ruling that I understood why and began to further comprehend what the court was saying. Should you be interested in reading the ruling yourself, all 52 pages of it, you can find it HERE.

Though it is never easy to read legal text or briefings or even summaries of theses things, I read through enough of the ruling to actually understand what it was saying for those of us without degrees in constitutional law. Don't get me wrong, I am furious and disappointed that the SCOTUS failed to see the need for the buffer zone around abortion clinics and why there should be SOME exceptions to where people may physically exercise their right to free speech. However, it could have been worse.

Mind you, the actual Supreme court building has its own buffer zone. Yes, you read that right- the Supreme court has a buffer zone much larger than 35 feet buffer zone at question and they ruled that the 35 foot abortion clinics buffer zone was unconstitutional. Isn't it IRONIC?

The majority ruling in this case was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, also signing on to the majority opinion was Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elana Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor. While the ruling was unanimous in deciding that the zones were unconstitutional the reasoning behind this decision was split. The five previously mentioned judges held the majority, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia held the opposing opinion and Samuel Alito was the lone opinion in his own dissent from the other judges.

The Court determined that the Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment, mostly because the buffer zones include public areas like sidewalks. The Court calls for more targeted responses to specific incidents (of harassment, stalking and or threatening behavior) and is stating that the buffer zone law is not "narrowly tailored," the burden the state government must meet when dealing with laws that encroach upon first amendment rights. States can address specific cases of obstruction but broader restrictions are not permitted National Journal. The majority opinion decided that the buffer zone law was content neutral because while it did limit where the protestors could exercise their right to free speech it did not encroach upon what it is that the protestors were saying. Scalia ardently opposed that decision.

While it may seem that the liberal judges sided with the conservatives in the ruling, when considering the breakdown of the majority and minority opinions it looks more like a standard 5-4 decision with the twist being that Roberts joined the liberals. The judges all agreed that the law as written is unconstitutional but the majority opinion leaves room for the State to take other actions. The practical result is Massachusetts state officials still have some room to write laws designed to shelter abortion clinic workers and patients from protest without the strict scrutiny incurred by the First Amendment. What those laws will be and how they will be enforced remains to be seen.

The minority opinion basically stated that the buffer zone law was unconstitutional AND the very core of the law was not content neutral because they believe it unfairly gives an advantage to abortion supporters. There were four exemptions included in the buffer zone law as to who could physically be in the 35 foot space without violating the law. One was for people who were entering and exiting the facility itself, the second exemption included clinic employees and the third exemption was for law enforcement, ambulance, firefighting,construction, utilities, public works and other municipal employees. The fourth exemption was for individuals who were walking through the zone to get to another location. In the case of the last instance clinic protestors have been known to walk up and down the sidewalk thus evading breaking the law as long as they kept moving.

Scalia, of the minority opinion stated that Roberts preserved “the ability of jurisdictions across the country to restrict antiabortion speech without fear of rigorous constitutional review." Scalia also stated that "The provision is thus unconstitutional root and branch and cannot be saved, as the majority suggests, by limiting its application to the single facility that has experienced the safety and access problems to which it is quite obviously not addressed."FORBES.

As of right now there is a big question as to what Massachusetts state officials will be able to do now that the law has been ruled unconstitutional. In Worcester and Springfield the Planned Parenthood buildings have private parking lots which protestors will still not be able to enter for the purpose of protesting. The 35 foot buffer zone at the entrances to those parking lots are a different story. It is still a crime to prevent anyone from entering a reproductive health clinic as the Freedom to Access of Clinic Entrances Act is still applicable (FACE ACT).

The location in Boston unfortunately, does not have a private lot and the entrance is right on the sidewalk. Protestors will no longer be forced back 35 feet from the entrance. This is where the law being overturned will have the most direct effect on patients. Boston has been recruiting extra clinic escorts in the past several weeks and will most likely have them out during the week now as opposed to just on Saturdays. I encourage anyone who may be interested in volunteering to visit the website. PPLM

Buffer Zone Law overturned in Massachusetts

While the Massachusetts state buffer zone law was unanimously ruled unconstitutional today by the SCOTUS, the outcome was not shocking and could have been worse. Chief John Robert's wrote the majority decision that the buffer zone violated the first amendment but left open the possibility for States to utilize other means in order to protect patients and clinic employees from harassment. While the decision was unanimous the majority opinion (5-2-1) held that other avenues could be explored.

Court Rejects Zone to Buffer Abortion Clinics

It is incredibly disappointing to hear the ruling come down from the Supreme Court where they themselves have a protected buffer zone of 100 feet.

Waiting with Baited Breath

Any day now the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is going to be handing down its rulings on two cases that are especially important to women and reproductive freedom. The first is what has become known as The Hobby Lobby case. This is huge because a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would allow for profit corporations to refuse to cover birth control in there insurance plans and not pay for it under the guise of religious freedom. Original Post HERE.

The second case has to do with the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Buffer Zone law. Will the courts uphold that protestors must stay at least 35 feet away from clinic entrances? More information on the case can be found at McCullen v. Coakley.

I am optimistic that the rulings will come down the against Hobby Lobby and for Massachusetts. This wait has been intense and it's time for it to be over.

Louisiana Signs off on Admitting Privileges

Bobby Jindal, Republican Governor of Louisiana signed into law on Thursday an admitting privileges bill that could leave the whole state of Louisiana with one or two abortion clinics. Louisiana is the latest state to fall prey to the unnecessary and politically motivation admitting privileges laws. In order for clinics to operate under the new law, a Doctor from each clinic needs to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles from the clinic. Sure, you may say, that sounds reasonable...right? Well, it isn't. Primarily the problem starts with the fact that a women who needs to be transferred to an emergency room or hospital with abortion complications has nothing to gain by having the doctor who performed the abortion having admitting privileges. All admitting privileges mean are that the Doctor has a "relationship" to the hospital. The patient will not be turned away or disadvantaged in anyway if her Doctor doesn't have a relationship with the hospital. Consider then that even if a Doctor applies for admitting privileges to a hospital the hospital can deny the request for any reason. Recently a hospital in Texas tried to revoke the admitting privileges they granted to two Doctors after being pressured by anti-abortion individuals who threatened to stage protests at the hospital. The Doctors won the right to maintain their admitting privileges after suing the hospital.

The five clinics in Louisiana have approximately two months to comply with these requirements being having to close.