Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down a rather surprising decision, disallowing the eight foot buffer zone around the entrances to Massachusetts women’s health centers that perform abortions. I understand that it may well be Constitutionally correct, but from a practical point of view the decision could have tragic ramifications. I do not understand why a much larger exclusion zone that protects the four Justices of SCOTUS and the five Injustices of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD) is not also unconstitutional. The plaintiff claimed that they just wanted to have “quiet conversations” with their neighbors and fellow citizens.
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests, counseling and other speech near abortion clinics.
“A painted line on the sidewalk is easy to enforce, but the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a majority opinion that was joined by the court’s four-member liberal wing.
The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.
The Massachusetts law was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion who said they sought to have quiet conversations with women entering clinics to tell them about alternatives. “Petitioners are not protesters,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
The court was unanimous about the bottom line but divided on the reasoning, with Chief Justice Roberts writing a narrow opinion. The law blocked too much speech, he said, “sweeping in innocent individuals.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
I can understand their point that it is not Constitutional to exclude people with no intent to violate the women’s rights and innocent passers by, who may be transiting the zone for reasons that have nothing to do with the clinic. Of course the problem, is that Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christians are fanatical believers in a right to life that begins at conception and ends at birth. They do not believe that abortion providers and others who assist women to exercise their rights have the right to life. We know this, because they have murdered several. If you believe that the extent of their “speech” will be those “quiet conversations”, see me about the wonderful bridge I am selling. The one plus is that the decision leaves the door open to similar legislation that does not “block too much speech”.
The best coverage I have seen on this subject is from Rachel Maddow. Sadly I cannot take credit for the added portrayal of Scalia at the beginning.
That covers it well. I do not have a quick solution for this dilemma, but I do have an idea. Someone needs to file a suit claiming that the exclusion zone around the Supreme Court violates the Consxtitution, because it “blocks too much speech” and is “sweeping in innocent individuals”. Then we can see if the Justices and the Injustices think they should get to have “quiet conversations” with crazed wing-nuts with guns.
13 Responses to “Bye Bye Buffer Zone”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Spot on, TC – There are lots of buffer zones out there and what's good for the goose, should also be good for the gander. I sadly suspect the Supreme Court is going to live to regret this one ~ the fanatical, loosie-goosies who protest outside clinics are not rational people and they do not have "quiet conversations".
Much as it pains me, I have to admit that this decision is at least consistent with the decision on Westboro Baptise Church. Alito dissented then, but it was on the ground that he believed the Westboto attacks were directed at private persons rather than public policy, and clearly these despicable protests are not targeted at any particular woman, so his change in vote is also consistent. Westboro is still at it, by the way, they have a protest scheduled for July 6 in Eudora, KS.
Unfortunately many of not most of the techniques which have helped to lower the Westboro profile will not work in this situation. It looks to me like it's going a lot of warm bodies to surround patients, especially patients who don't have any warm bodies of their own support (bless you, Gene, for your support of your kids). And that is not going to be easy. But this won't bother those hard right conservative who think the poor have it easy because they get everything for free from the government. God (the real one) help us!
TC, I love your idea, but you are right it is not a quick fix! And it is going to take a lot of people willing to go to prison, and large chunks of them actually going to prison, to execute. And I'm not sure I'm willing to sacrifice progressives whose votes we need to do that. If only the wing nuts would take it upon themselves!
I think wing nuts WOULD take it on themselves.
How I hope you are right. I would live to see it. But to bring it about, doesn't SCROTUS have to hand down a decision that the wing nuts don't like? I'd hate to hold my breath waiting for that.
Loudly slinging an unrelenting chorus of filthy, vile epithets (MURDERER – WHORE – BABY-KILLER) at women who are entering legal businesses to receive constitutionally guaranteed services (and it should be noted only a small part of Planned Parenthood services involve abortion) is NOT a matter of "free speech" or First Amendment rights – it's harassment, plain and simple.
Rachel Maddow gives an excellent account in the video. Have a listen.
The Supreme Court Technically Has Its Own 252-Foot Buffer Zone
Attorney General Martha Coakley notes that the court struck down buffer zones outside of abortion clinics when the justices get to enjoy a sprawling buffer zone outside of their own building. http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/06/26/supreme-court-buffer-zone-regulations/
Supreme Irony? Court Has Own Buffer Zone
The U.S. Supreme Court, which Thursday struck down a Massachusetts law that established a 35-foot buffer around abortion clinics, enjoys its own protest-free zone. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/26/supreme-irony-court-has-own-buffer-zone/
According to guidelines that were tweaked by the Supreme Court in June 2013, it’s unlawful for protesters to demonstrate on Supreme Court building grounds. The rules state:
The term ‘demonstration’ includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services, and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.
This is a 68 page .pdf read of the court’s updated regulations in response to a lawsuit filed by a college student who was arrested by police two years prior, while standing on the plaza, for carrying an anti-racism sign that took aim at officers. The history begins at page 12: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Hodge-ruling.pdf
Another bad decision by the SCOTUS and hypocritical as well. There is a huge buffer zone around the supreme court. No freedom of speech there at all!
Are we all waiting, with bated breath, to see the first and next act of violence… harassment… assaults… 'Stand your Ground'… invasion of privacy…
Thanks for the links, Jim. These articles make it clear that SCOTUS made a ruling to satisfy the right wing, nothing more.
Excellent links, Jim.
This ruling has to be changed, I don't know how but it does. None of these people are trying to have quiet conversations with the women entering these clinics. They are there to hound them and torment them. Until this Supreme court is out the door women can forget about any rights due to them, because they will rule against us every time.
While I can appreciate the strict constitutional view that the SCOTUS took in rendering their decision, history states that this buffer zone is not about freedom of speech, but is rather about limiting domestic terrorists . . . and that is what I consider these anti-abortionists who intimidate and kill. These terrorists see themselves as pro-life activists, but assaults and assinations are anything but pro-life.
Your rights end at the end of your nose, and mine end at the end of my nose.
Thanks all.
The reason I cannot complain about the decision itself is that the Court's job is not to determine what is just. It is to determine what is legal. The problem is simply that the buffer zone prevents people from exercising their rights, based on the assumption that they are going to commit a crime. Where the Supreme Court is violating the Constitution is in giving themselves a buffer zone. Until a better solution is found, pro choice activists need to provide women entering clinics with bodyguards to protect them, videographers to record evidence of Republicans committing crimes, and lawyers to sue the bastards.
Thanks SCOTUS (conservative) for nothing…. 🙄