Cities drop bubble zone laws after Supreme Court ruling

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | Wed Jul 2, 2014 - 7:08 pm EST | Beh Johnson

[topher]

BURLINGTON, VT – The cities of Burlington, Vermont, and Madison, Wisconsin have opted to suspend enforcement of their laws requiring pro-life sidewalk counselors to stay away from abortion facilities.

Burlington City Attorney Eileen Blackwood said today the Supreme Court's ruling last week striking down a similar Massachusetts law convinced her that Burlington's ordinance – which requires counselors to stay 35 feet away from abortion facilities – violates the Constitution.

[topher]

It is important to note that McCullen v. Coakley did not overturn a Colorado floating buffer zone of 8 feet...

[topher]

I guess these entities could be sued for their laws, and may have dropped them for that reason...

[Viennacon]

Yes! now time to shut down these murder mills for good

[Balding_Eagle]

Roughly, how does that floating zone work?

[topher]

If someone is walking into an abortion clinic in Colorado, there is an eight foot floating zone around the person.

There is also a buffer zone 100 feet from the entrance of the abortion clinic (but not around the abortion clinic).

So if the abortion clinic has parking by the entrance, that would be part of the 100 foot buffer.

SCOTUS struck down a buffer zone AROUND the abortion clinic, not from the ENTRANCE of the abortion clinic.

I will see if I can find a source for this. I am pretty sure it is from SCOTUSblog.com...

[topher]

Here is a quote from an article on SCOTUSblog.com:

[The article calls the floating buffer zones BUBBLE ZONES...] Article:

Opinion analysis: A broader right to oppose abortion [By Lyle Denniston]

his, then, was a ruling about “buffer zones.” The Court’s main opinion did not consider the continuing validity of a prior case about anti-abortion protests, dealing with the somewhat separate issue of “bubble zones.” In its decision in 2000 in Hill v. Colorado, the Court had upheld a state law that limited close contact with persons entering or leaving an abortion clinic, by setting up a ”buffer zone” and, within that zone, making it illegal to approach a person closer than eight feet (a “bubble zone”) without that person’s consent, to engage in counseling or literature distribution.

[topher]

Basically, the pro-life person could approach (staying outside of 8 feet of the person) and talk to the person.

If the person (entering the abortion clinic) wanted literature, then the pro-lifer could get within 8 feet of the person and hand them the literature -- IF THEY HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE PERSON.

[topher]

Finally, there is an article that asks What is left of Hill v. Colorado. I have not read this article, but it will discuss and perhaps give additional information on this topic.

Article:

What is left of Hill v. Colorado? [By Kevin Russell]

You can email directly Kevin Russell or Lyle Denniston if you have questions.

They provide their email addresses with their articles on SCOTUSblog.com