High court case: abortion clinic protest-free zone

[discocrisco01]

Source: Associated Press

BOSTON (AP) — Eleanor McCullen clutches a baby’s hat knit in pink and blue as she patrols a yellow semicircle painted on the sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood health clinic on a frigid December morning with snow in the forecast.

The painted line marks 35 feet from the clinic’s entrance and that’s where the 77-year-old McCullen and all other abortion protesters and supporters must stay under a Massachusetts law that is being challenged at the U.S. Supreme Court as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. Arguments are set for Wednesday.

Outside the line, McCullen and others are free to approach anyone with any message they wish. They risk arrest if they get closer to the door.

With her pleasant demeanor and grandmotherly mien, McCullen has become the new face of a decades-old fight between abortion opponents asserting their right to try to change the minds of women seeking abortions and abortion providers claiming that patients should be able to enter their facilities without being impeded or harassed.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/01/11/high-court-case-abortion-clinic-protest-free-zone/zC3qP9WkMg6my85nzG3HKP/story.html

[cstanleytech]

1. To be honest I see nothing wrong with the law requiring them not to block the entrances

to the clinics and they are not being denied their rights by being required to do so.

[JDPriestly]

2. This should be interesting.

[davidpdx]

5. I don't either

The 35 foot rule seems reasonable. It is not impeding on their right to free speech, but still protects the clinic from people getting too close.

[DallasNE]

3. If The Supreme Court Overrules This

Then the limits set on electioneering at polling places goes out the window too. After all, if it is a speech issue than it is broad based and people waiting in line to vote could be harassed just like the women walking into a Planned Parenthood facility. Then there is also the distant limits on picketing/strikes and those would go out the window as well. It is hard to see how the Supreme Court would want to get into how many feet before the intersection between speech and safety collide.

[Politicalboi]

4. Can't they make it a safety issue

You can't block the door to any facility. And the clinic should be able to kick those assholes off the grounds for trespassing. If you have no business with them, you have NO right to be there. Fine these crazy fucks for trespassing.

[warrant46]

17. Its the Roman Catholic Church and their Posse the "Shield of Roses" that

Are responsible for these outrages when they shove photos of aborted fetuses, in the faces of women seeking reproductive information.

They are not engaging in free speech, they are terrorizing women who want personal care and information.

We'll soon see if the guy from Argentina is going to reign in these thugs.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. Why aren't they placed in a Protest Zone several blocks away

like those who wish to protest the President at a party national convention?

[bonniebgood]

7. Good none bucolic frolic. that was the first thing that came to my mind. It should have been done

years ago. The patients have rights not to be harassed too.

[Dustlawyer]

10. I would not want to use this argument to give them more cover for the protest free zones,

but I understand the sentiment.

[habu1968]

8. High court case?

So what makes these pinheads think that everyone who walks into a Planned Parenthood clinic is there for an abortion? Harassing people on private property isn't a free speech issue.

[Thor_MN]

9. The First Ammendment grants the right to free speech.

It does not guarantee one an audience. It does not allow you to harass an individual. People can say whatever they want, but they have no right to make anyone listen.

35 feet is a very short distance. Minnesota law, on election day, prohibits sloganeering in the polling place, 100 feet from the building or anywhere on the public property where polling takes place. There should be no reason to allow harassment of people anywhere.

[displacedtexan]

11. When I see those abortion protesters, i thank them.

I tell them that if they weren't there, I would never know that my daughter could get an abortion there!

You should see the looks on their faces.

[plantwomyn]

12. After the SCOTUS issued

Regulation Seven, it seems that it would be difficult for them to deny the same ability to regulate protests to states.

[santamargarita]

13. If we were protesting BP or Exxon, would they let us near the door?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Kick (nt)

[Lost_Count]

15. I'm not sure I understand the law as it relates to private property...

Ethically, which I think the law will play out, protestors should only be allowed on the public property and under no circumstances can they physically block, assault or batter anyone going in or out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Kick (nt)

[Judi Lynn]

18. Atlantic: In Abortion Case, Supreme Court Asks: How Far Is 35 Feet?

In Abortion Case, Supreme Court Asks: How Far Is 35 Feet?

The justices will likely strike down Massachusetts's "buffer zone" law. But they might need to consult a tape measure.

Garrett Epps
Jan 15 2014, 4:27 PM ET

On an ordinary day, Chief Justice John Roberts asks pointed questions of counsel and brief-slaps them if their answers don’t measure up. He also acts as kindergarten cop when his colleagues all speak at once. He is a formidable presence on the bench.

Except Wednesday during oral argument in McCullen v. Coakley, the Massachusetts case testing whether a state can establish a 35-foot “buffer zone” around clinics offering abortions so that patients can get inside without fighting their way through pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators.

There are two possible meanings to the chief’s silence. One is that he is genuinely undecided about a case that pits the rights of pregnant women against the rights of protest and advocacy on a public sidewalk.

That one’s not likely. Hamlet John Roberts is not. That’s particularly true in the First Amendment context, where he usually sides against government restrictions on speech.

More:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/in-abortion-case-supreme-court-asks-how-far-is-35-feet/283105/