Posted on 06/26/2014 5:16:00 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that required a 35-foot protest-free "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, saying that the statute violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley also has implications for municipalities that have imposed their own "buffer zone" laws around abortion clinics.
The 2007 law aimed to keep protesters least 35 feet from the entrances of abortion clinics to prevent confrontations, but the US Supreme Court ruled that it went too far and prevented the free speech of law-abiding abortion opponents who want to approach people going to the clinics.
The high court’s justices had indicated when they heard the case in January that the state needed to find other ways to address safety concerns and prevent the opponents from impeding access to clinics without limiting people’s free speech.
The opinion stated that the law was unconstitutional as it blocked free speech demonstrations on public roads and sidewalks, in addition to singling out abortion clinics as opposed to any other health facility. The Court affirmed that the law was far too broad and was a substantial burden on the free-speech rights of pro-lifers for what the law was intended to accomplish. Pro-life sidewalk counselors in Massachusetts were unable to have conversations with or distribute literature to women who were seeking abortions as a result of this law.
A state is not prohibited from creating laws that are tailored to a particular clinic, but the broad law challenged in this case was ruled to be unconstitutional.
Twitter had mixed reactions regarding the decision:
Thanks be to God for Eleanor McCullen and @CatholicUniv and @TheBecketFund Mark Rienzi, who argued the buffer-zone case #scotus — Kathryn Jean Lopez (@kathrynlopez) June 26, 2014
I'm incredibly disappointed not only in the buffer zone decision, but also that it was unanimous. — amy tannenbaum (@grrrlrevolution) June 26, 2014
We Won! The Court holds that the Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment in a unanimous decision! #SCOTUS #ProLife — Matt Hanafin (@MattHanafin) June 26, 2014
We Won! The Court holds that the Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment in a unanimous decision! #SCOTUS #ProLife — Matt Hanafin (@MattHanafin) June 26, 2014
.@scotusblog "Court holds MA law violates 1st Amendment.... imposed 35' #bufferzone around #abortion clinics." Agn, UNANIMOUS! #Prolife — Jill Stanek (@JillStanek) June 26, 2014
Being against abortion does not nullify ones freedom of speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Kudos to the Supreme Court for pointing out the obvious.
Not really breaking. Cochran fraud is breaking. This is a morning victory
Both Supreme Court decisions today...unanimous.
What IS going on?
I heard the libs will try to pull your hair, taking a tiny sample.
Then they type of some really threatening letter, put your hair in, then mail it to someone important in the gummint.
Presto - “You” are the kook and are on permanent file.
They should have outlawed all “free speech” zones where they prohibit free speech or relegate you to the far side of town.
an excellent question
http://www.infowars.com/nevada-governor-blasts-feds-first-amendment-area-in-bundy-dispute/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.