As lawsuits over early abortion laws spring up across the country, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a different kind of abortion challenge — this one involving free speech.
The court will consider a case challenging a Massachusetts law that bans demonstrations within 35 feet of entrances and driveways of abortion clinics. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in January sided with the state in McCullen v. Coakley, ruling that the law strikes the right balance between protecting free speech and patients’ rights.
“The nation is sharply divided about the morality of the practice and its place in a caring society,” the 1st Circuit wrote in its decision. “But the right of the state to take reasonable steps to ensure the safe passage of persons wishing to enter health care facilities cannot seriously be questioned.”
(PHOTOS: 21 landmark SCOTUS rulings)
The so-called buffer zone laws were established in Massachusetts after two women were killed and five people were injured in a 1994 attack at abortion clinics in Brookline, just outside Boston. Legal challenges to previous laws in Massachusetts were rejected almost a decade ago, but they were revived after Gov. Deval Patrick approved a 2007 law expanding the buffer zone from 18 feet to 35 feet.
The challenge is backed by anti-abortion activists who offer “sidewalk counseling” outside clinics. They claim the Massachusetts law creates a double standard for speech because abortion rights supporters are allowed within the buffer zone.
“The law also exempts, among others, clinic ‘employees or agents … acting within the scope of their employment.’ In effect, the law restricts the speech of only those who wish to use public areas near abortion clinics to speak about abortion from a different point of view,” they write in their petition to the Supreme Court.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, an abortion rights supporter named in the challenge, defended the law in a statement Monday.
“The Massachusetts buffer zone law strikes the appropriate balance to ensure a woman’s right to safe access to health care facilities while preserving First Amendment rights,” Coakley said. “We look forward to defending this vitally important legislation before the Supreme Court.”
A number of unrelated challenges to recent state laws banning abortions as early as six weeks are moving their way up lower courts. Supporters of abortion rights say the early state laws violate the precedent set in Roe v. Wade.
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNF6_E4EqwyKxLlKuZak6sy3mTedIA&url=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/supreme-court-to-take-up-mass-abortion-law-93293.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment