Free speech collides with abortion rights

[downtoearth]

UPDATE - Thursday...looks like this decision will not likely go MA's way.  See update blog post from SCOTUSblog on page 2.

-------------------------------------------------

I have to admit that I'm not sure which way this will go or which way I want it to go.  On first cut, it seems very reasonable to put a limit on approaching and targeting people near an abortion clinic for the safety and mental health alone of patients.  But, if I turn the tides and think about someone protesting on a public sidewalk outside of a chemical plant or a human-trafficking area, I'm thinking it should be allowed.  But I also feel like the medical professionals and workers, not to mention the patients at Planned Parenthood clinics do actually get harassed and targeted for hateful "free speech." 

WDYT?

Article from SCOTUS blog:

Free speech and abortion rights collide: In Plain English

Tomorrow, the Court will hear the case of Eleanor McCullen, a seventy-seven-year-old Massachusetts grandmother who has spent over fifty thousand dollars of her own money to help pregnant women who decide not to get an abortion. All McCullen wants, she tells the Court, is to stand on a public sidewalk to provide information and offer help to women entering an abortion clinic, but a state law prohibits her from doing so. Based on the Court’s past track record on First Amendment cases, she may well soon get that chance. Let’s talk about McCullen v. Coakley in Plain English.

Federal laws provide some protection for women seeking access to abortion clinics. But some states have gone farther and enacted their own laws intended to provide women with additional protection. In 2000, in a case called Hill v. Colorado, the Court upheld a Colorado law which drew a line one hundred feet around health care facilities and made it illegal for anti-abortion protesters to go within eight feet of anyone within that buffer zone to counsel, educate, or protest.

The law, the Court reasoned, struck the right balance between protecting the clinic’s patients from unwanted attention and the need to allow protesters to protest.

At the oral argument tomorrow, the Court will be considering a challenge by McCullen and other anti-abortion protesters to a Massachusetts law that makes it a crime to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of the entrance, exit, or driveway of an abortion clinic. The law carves out an exception, however, for employees of the clinic. McCullen argues that, by creating such an exception, the Massachusetts law — unlike the law at issue in Hill — discriminates based on the views of the person who is speaking: employees of the clinic can go into the buffer zone and say anything related to their jobs, but protesters cannot. In fact, McCullen emphasizes, the law even applies to conduct that is “entirely peaceful,” like prayer or holding an anti-abortion sign. Another problem, McCullen points out, is that she and her fellow protesters don’t have any real alternatives to get their message across at some clinics. Shouting at women within the buffer zone from thirty-five feet away doesn’t work, but on the other hand it is difficult for her to talk to women outside the buffer zone because it’s hard to tell who is going to the clinic and who is just walking down the sidewalk. Finally, she suggests, if the Court were to uphold the Massachusetts law based on its ruling in Hill, the Court should simply overrule that decision.

Massachusetts paints a very different picture in its brief, which it begins by listing examples of conduct by (mostly) anti-abortion protesters that led the Massachusetts legislature to first pass a law modeled on the one upheld by the Court in Hill. But, the state explains, that law ultimately proved both ineffective at maintaining safe access to the clinics and difficult for police to enforce – prompting the legislature to adopt the law at issue in this case. The new law, the state continues, is intended to keep clinic entrances “open and clear of all but essential foot traffic, in light of more than two decades of compromised facility access and public safety.” With this goal in mind, the law doesn’t “directly regulate speech” and instead only targets conduct. Moreover, the state argues, the legislature didn’t adopt the law because it “disagreed with any underlying message”; it notes that not all of the protesters whose actions it is trying to regulate opposed abortion.

Addressing some of McCullen’s other arguments, the state contends that it doesn’t matter that the law only applies to abortion clinics, because those were the only places where the problems occurred. Nor does it matter that the law doesn’t apply to clinic employees: the law needed to have some kind of exemption for the people who were going in and out of the clinics, because otherwise they too would violate the law whenever they set foot in the buffer zone. And the law still “limits” the conduct of clinic employees, allowing them to “get on with their jobs” but nothing more. Finally, the state emphasizes that the thirty-five-foot buffer zone was a solution that it reached after extensive trial and error, and that it was the only solution that would provide safe access to clinics while still allowing protesters to express their views.

How is this going to play out tomorrow? The Court decided Hill by a vote of six to three, but that was over thirteen years ago, and it’s now a very different Court. The only Justices left on the Court from the Hill majority are Justices Ginsburg and Breyer; two of the others – Sandra Day O’Connor and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist – have been replaced by the more conservative Justice Samuel A. Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, respectively. By contrast, all three of the dissenting Justices from Hill (Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy) remain on the Court, and we have no reason to think that their views have changed. So even if you assume that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan will vote to uphold the law, the state would still need a fifth Justice to prevail, and that vote could be hard to find. Throw in that the Roberts Court has yet to meet any controversial speech that it isn’t willing to allow – whether you are talking about movies showing animal cruelty, selling violent video games to children, protests at the funeral of a fallen soldier, or lying about receiving the Medal of Honor – and the Massachusetts law could be in jeopardy. Stay tuned . . . .we will be back to report on the oral argument in Plain English as well.

[msmerymac]

IMO, protesting outside a chemical plant or a store than sells fur, etc, is not impeding someone else's constitutional rights. A woman has a right to an abortion - she has the right to privacy, to make medical decisions about her own body. Getting into someone's face or personal space or mental space can impede on that right.

It's like any other limit we have on the first amendment - your rights end where another's rights begin. Like yelling "fire" in a theater. The potential injury to patrons outweighs your ability to say anything you'd like.

[cattledogkisses]

This is a tangent, but I just can't get over how condescending it is to assume that women seeking an abortion are uneducated and uninformed.

Grandma can go shove it.

[downtoearth]

Jan 15, 2014 14:21:20 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

IMO, protesting outside a chemical plant or a store than sells fur, etc, is not impeding someone else's constitutional rights. A woman has a right to an abortion - she has the right to privacy, to make medical decisions about her own body. Getting into someone's face or personal space or mental space can impede on that right.

It's like any other limit we have on the first amendment - your rights end where another's rights begin. Like yelling "fire" in a theater. The potential injury to patrons outweighs your ability to say anything you'd like.

But this Supreme Court has provided corporations "rights" like individuals, so I wonder if something like this ban will be okay under that or if a large corporation will say that environmental protesters are infringing on their rights and get a state law to stop people from interacting near plants. 

I agree that a woman has a right to a safe and legal abortion as she chooses, but I am wondering where her right starts...is it 100-ft from the clinic or is it everywhere she is, even 101 feet from the clinic?  I also have a tough time with freedom of speech b/c it's such a broad right, but can be limited for certain reasons, right?  So if I don't want to hear something anti-abortion and tell someone at 101 feet from the clinic, does my right to have an abortion at that distance still supersede the freedom of speech from a protester? 

[Velar Fricative]

I'll just ditto msmerymac but I have a bad, bad feeling about this decision.

[expatpumpkin]

Serious question: Why don't abortion clinics build high wooden fences like "massage parlors" do to hide the patrons' cars? And have the patients be dropped off right at or inside the gate?

I realize this isn't a "free speech" solution, but perhaps there would be less protesting if the protesters couldn't actually see or interact with the patients?

[ChillyMcFreeze]

I'm also sort of torn, but I lean toward MMM's POV. At the same time, I do see the viewpoint discrimination argument. OTOH, the buffer zone also applies to pro-choice picketers who might, for some reason, want to have a presence outside a clinic. (I need 6 hands for weighing this issue.) The employees argument is a silly one. Chemical plant employees can enter their work site and exercise free expression to an extent, but that doesn't mean I can wander the halls just because.

[msmerymac]

Jan 15, 2014 14:33:30 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Jan 15, 2014 14:21:20 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

IMO, protesting outside a chemical plant or a store than sells fur, etc, is not impeding someone else's constitutional rights. A woman has a right to an abortion - she has the right to privacy, to make medical decisions about her own body. Getting into someone's face or personal space or mental space can impede on that right.

It's like any other limit we have on the first amendment - your rights end where another's rights begin. Like yelling "fire" in a theater. The potential injury to patrons outweighs your ability to say anything you'd like.

But this Supreme Court has provided corporations "rights" like individuals, so I wonder if something like this ban will be okay under that or if a large corporation will say that environmental protesters are infringing on their rights and get a state law to stop people from interacting near plants. 

I agree that a woman has a right to a safe and legal abortion as she chooses, but I am wondering where her right starts...is it 100-ft from the clinic or is it everywhere she is, even 101 feet from the clinic?  I also have a tough time with freedom of speech b/c it's such a broad right, but can be limited for certain reasons, right?  So if I don't want to hear something anti-abortion and tell someone at 101 feet from the clinic, does my right to have an abortion at that distance still supersede the freedom of speech from a protester? 

This did run through my mind and it's absolutely a good point. I mean, IMO, it's not a GOOD thing, but it's definitely something the SCOTUS has been known to decide - that corporations have the rights of individuals.

FWIW, if the woman in the article wants to stand in the center of town and hand out anti-abortion literature, whatever. I don't agree with her, but I'm fine with that. I think the buffer of 50 feet or 100 feet or whatever it is around an abortion clinic makes sense because if a woman is driving there, the parking lot will be on the property and she will not be disturbed by protesters. If a clinic is in a walkable neighborhood and the woman decides to walk there, 100 feet down the street is certainly far enough away to not know if she is heading toward the clinic or another business. 

[ESF]

Voting is a constitutional right. There are laws that prohibit campaigning and political statements within certain permiters of the voting precinct. I sure as shit hope that we don't think there should be exceptions for poll workers to advertise for political candidates in that perimeter while excluding everyone else.

Team speech.

[ESF]

Jan 15, 2014 15:29:29 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

I think that the law should not allow employees to speak about their job. If it only gave them the right to be on the buffer zone, we wouldn't have this issue of one-sided speech. Hopefully the ruling is narrow and allows for MA to just change its law to be more neutral.

Agreed.

Perimeters are good.  One sided preferences to a group within that perimeter are bad.This should be a nonissue, as far as I'm concerned.    The last thing we need is for churches that serve as voting precincts to let their employees "speak about their jobs" while people are voting.

[Deleted]

I'm not torn. Those assholes used to make it very intimidating to go get birth control at the PP on Comm Ave in Boston.

[cattledogkisses]

Jan 15, 2014 15:36:21 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jan 15, 2014 14:59:08 GMT -5 expatpumpkin said:

Serious question: Why don't abortion clinics build high wooden fences like "massage parlors" do to hide the patrons' cars? And have the patients be dropped off right at or inside the gate?

I realize this isn't a "free speech" solution, but perhaps there would be less protesting if the protesters couldn't actually see or interact with the patients?

Because this wouldn't address the problem.  Clinics can already ban protestors from their actual property.  And they do.  But then those protestors stand on the closest non-tresspassing property they can find and protest from there.  For clinics in Chicago, for example, this means they are standing essentially 15 feet away.  One of the clinics in Chicago doesn't have a "yard".  It just has a sidewalk in front and then the street - both areas that are public property.  So the issue, as I understand it, is whether these people can stand on public property and essentially attempt to engage people who absolutely do not want to be engaged.  Can they photograph them (which they do) or pretend to photograph them (which they also do)? Can they video them?  Yell at them? Yell TO them???  And then it's bigger than that because individual states can and have attempted to shut shit like that down by saying that non-patients or "protestors" or what have you have to stay so far away from the clinic doors (kind of like the don't smoke within X number of feet of this restaurant) and the protestors are saying, "Nope, Illinois, you can't do that.  I have a 1st Amendment right to stand 3ft away from a patient, videotape them, yell at them, photograph them, taunt them... and as long as I'm not trespassing on the clinic's property, you can't restrict it and neither can they."  

The clinic in Portland, ME is like this, and it's been a hot-button issue in the news lately.  IIRC, the city passed a 39 ft buffer zone, which is, of course, being challenged by the protesters.  But without the buffer zone, protesters could literally stand right next to the door of the clinic.

[suzyp]

Jan 15, 2014 15:43:33 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

Jan 15, 2014 15:36:21 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Because this wouldn't address the problem.  Clinics can already ban protestors from their actual property.  And they do.  But then those protestors stand on the closest non-tresspassing property they can find and protest from there.  For clinics in Chicago, for example, this means they are standing essentially 15 feet away.  One of the clinics in Chicago doesn't have a "yard".  It just has a sidewalk in front and then the street - both areas that are public property.  So the issue, as I understand it, is whether these people can stand on public property and essentially attempt to engage people who absolutely do not want to be engaged.  Can they photograph them (which they do) or pretend to photograph them (which they also do)? Can they video them?  Yell at them? Yell TO them???  And then it's bigger than that because individual states can and have attempted to shut shit like that down by saying that non-patients or "protestors" or what have you have to stay so far away from the clinic doors (kind of like the don't smoke within X number of feet of this restaurant) and the protestors are saying, "Nope, Illinois, you can't do that.  I have a 1st Amendment right to stand 3ft away from a patient, videotape them, yell at them, photograph them, taunt them... and as long as I'm not trespassing on the clinic's property, you can't restrict it and neither can they."  

The clinic in Portland, ME is like this, and it's been a hot-button issue in the news lately.  IIRC, the city passed a 39 ft buffer zone, which is, of course, being challenged by the protesters.  But without the buffer zone, protesters could literally stand right next to the door of the clinic.

All of this - the clinics can keep the protesters off their private property, but not the public property.  The clinic in Houston used to have three parking lots - all of which were across the street from the actual clinic.  So the protesters could not enter the parking lots or the clinic property, but they would "meet" the patient at the exit to the lot and follow them across the street talking to them until they got on the clinic property.  Luckily, it was just this strip and the front door had a drive up so people could be dropped off - not all clinics are like this - especially ones in cities where it would allow protestors to basically stand at the front door.

I'm just getting irritated that somehow someone else's rights can impede on to mine.  I am a huge proponent of the 1st Amendment, and believe that annoying as they are, these people have every right to protest - but I have a HUGE problem with there being no perimeters to their rights to do so.

[sushi]

Jan 15, 2014 14:59:08 GMT -5 expatpumpkin said:

Serious question: Why don't abortion clinics build high wooden fences like "massage parlors" do to hide the patrons' cars? And have the patients be dropped off right at or inside the gate?

I realize this isn't a "free speech" solution, but perhaps there would be less protesting if the protesters couldn't actually see or interact with the patients?

Many do. But if they have the privacy slays in a fence the protestors remove them.

[downtoearth]

Jan 15, 2014 15:33:32 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jan 15, 2014 15:29:29 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

I think that the law should not allow employees to speak about their job. If it only gave them the right to be on the buffer zone, we wouldn't have this issue of one-sided speech. Hopefully the ruling is narrow and allows for MA to just change its law to be more neutral.

Agreed.

Perimeters are good.  One sided preferences to a group within that perimeter are bad.This should be a nonissue, as far as I'm concerned.    The last thing we need is for churches that serve as voting precincts to let their employees "speak about their jobs" while people are voting.

I'm confused.  Can you explain the law not allowing employees to speak about their job?  Do you mean while waiting to vote or while headed in to work at an abortion clinic? 

[ringstrue]

I don't see how providing information and offering help to women is free speech. It sounds most like solicitation.

[ESF]

Jan 15, 2014 16:17:12 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Jan 15, 2014 15:33:32 GMT -5 ESF said:

Agreed.

Perimeters are good.  One sided preferences to a group within that perimeter are bad.This should be a nonissue, as far as I'm concerned.    The last thing we need is for churches that serve as voting precincts to let their employees "speak about their jobs" while people are voting.

I'm confused.  Can you explain the law not allowing employees to speak about their job?  Do you mean while waiting to vote or while headed in to work at an abortion clinic? 

MA law - employees can speak publicly about their job within the 35 foot perimeter around the clinic, most/all of which is public property.  The rest of the public cannot.

Voting day - I believe it's a combo of federal and state laws, depending on what the election is for.  There's got to be some perimeter around the precinct where you can't campaign or make public statements.  For example, I have been asked to remove my visible Obama sticker while waiting in line.  This law applies equally to everyone, and covers private property (ie the inside of the precinct) on voting day.

If the MA law is found to be a valid government regulation, then arguably, a state, say, Texas, could say that employees can speak about their jobs within the anti-campaign perimeter.  That means that if a church was also a voting precinct, the priest or minister and other workers could sermonize about who would be going to hell while people were voting.

State restrictions on speech have to be content neutral.  The current voting perimeter rules are.  Most abortion clinic perimeters rules are. This one is not - it's letting one viewpoint monopolize public property while denying another viewpoint.  There is no way the government should be able to do that.  I don't like clinic protesters, but the regulation is wrong.

[NewOrleans]

Yeah. You don't have a right to talk to someone. You have only the right to state your message. You do not have the right to an audience for the message. And a doctor's office, which is not the government, should be shielded anyway because of patient privacy.

[NewOrleans]

Also, ditto publius and ESF on the exception.

But employees, in my experience, have no desire whatsoever to engage with protesters or counter-protest or even discuss the politics of abortion, lol. They just want to do their job.

[pt716]

Jan 15, 2014 16:31:20 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jan 15, 2014 16:17:12 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I'm confused.  Can you explain the law not allowing employees to speak about their job?  Do you mean while waiting to vote or while headed in to work at an abortion clinic? 

MA law - employees can speak publicly about their job within the 35 foot perimeter around the clinic, most/all of which is public property.  The rest of the public cannot.

Voting day - I believe it's a combo of federal and state laws, depending on what the election is for.  There's got to be some perimeter around the precinct where you can't campaign or make public statements.  For example, I have been asked to remove my visible Obama sticker while waiting in line.  This law applies equally to everyone, and covers private property (ie the inside of the precinct) on voting day.

If the MA law is found to be a valid government regulation, then arguably, a state, say, Texas, could say that employees can speak about their jobs within the anti-campaign perimeter.  That means that if a church was also a voting precinct, the priest or minister and other workers could sermonize about who would be going to hell while people were voting.

State restrictions on speech have to be content neutral.  The current voting perimeter rules are.  Most abortion clinic perimeters rules are. This one is not - it's letting one viewpoint monopolize public property while denying another viewpoint.  There is no way the government should be able to do that.  I don't like clinic protesters, but the regulation is wrong.

So if they remove the exception, would that affect employees abilities to speak about abortion inside the clinic? 

[ESF]

Jan 15, 2014 16:34:06 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Yeah. You don't have a right to talk to someone. You have only the right to state your message. You do not have the right to an audience for the message. And a doctor's office, which is not the government, should be shielded anyway because of patient privacy.

I can sort of see the other side of this though.  The First Amendment doesn't protect freedom from listening, so I can see why a person's right to be free of unwanted speech is less worthy of government protection than a person's right to be on public property and speak.

I realize you need buffer zones strictly for matters of public safety, and I find some of the protesting and attempts to convert to be completely abhorrent.  But I also see why this is a tough issue for courts.    

Can you imagine if we let states just ban demonstrations about gay rights or church cover up of sex abuse from 100 feet of a church because parishioners don't want to see or hear them?  Why do the parishioners rights more worthy of protection than those speaking?

[ESF]

Jan 15, 2014 16:40:18 GMT -5 pt716 said:

Jan 15, 2014 16:31:20 GMT -5 ESF said:

MA law - employees can speak publicly about their job within the 35 foot perimeter around the clinic, most/all of which is public property.  The rest of the public cannot.

Voting day - I believe it's a combo of federal and state laws, depending on what the election is for.  There's got to be some perimeter around the precinct where you can't campaign or make public statements.  For example, I have been asked to remove my visible Obama sticker while waiting in line.  This law applies equally to everyone, and covers private property (ie the inside of the precinct) on voting day.

If the MA law is found to be a valid government regulation, then arguably, a state, say, Texas, could say that employees can speak about their jobs within the anti-campaign perimeter.  That means that if a church was also a voting precinct, the priest or minister and other workers could sermonize about who would be going to hell while people were voting.

State restrictions on speech have to be content neutral.  The current voting perimeter rules are.  Most abortion clinic perimeters rules are. This one is not - it's letting one viewpoint monopolize public property while denying another viewpoint.  There is no way the government should be able to do that.  I don't like clinic protesters, but the regulation is wrong.

So if they remove the exception, would that affect employees abilities to speak about abortion inside the clinic? 

Inside the clinic is private property, and the clinic can do whatever it wants.  First Amendment doesn't go through its doors.

ETA - I should have kept reading.  @publius and I are sharing a brain today.

[MixedBerryJam]

Jan 15, 2014 14:21:20 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

IMO, protesting outside a chemical plant or a store than sells fur, etc, is not impeding someone else's constitutional rights. A woman has a right to an abortion - she has the right to privacy, to make medical decisions about her own body. Getting into someone's face or personal space or mental space can impede on that right.

It's like any other limit we have on the first amendment - your rights end where another's rights begin. Like yelling "fire" in a theater. The potential injury to patrons outweighs your ability to say anything you'd like.

I hope this common sense perspective is how SCOTUS views it, but my hopes are dim. Free speech is not without restrictions, and I would like to think that my right to privacy in obtaining medical care trumps your (general you) right to harangue me en route to said care. What some who oppose the law were saying this morning on NPR was that the buffer law isn't needed and as proof they offer the fact that no one's ever (in MA anyway) been prosecuted under it. I like to think that's because the law works!

I don't want to go back to the way it was. Truly.

[pt716]

Jan 15, 2014 16:43:33 GMT -5 @publius said:

Jan 15, 2014 16:40:18 GMT -5 pt716 said:

So if they remove the exception, would that affect employees abilities to speak about abortion inside the clinic? 

It wouldn't. The ban deals with the public property around the building.

Thanks, that makes sense.

[ringstrue]

Jan 15, 2014 16:59:08 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jan 15, 2014 16:34:06 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Yeah. You don't have a right to talk to someone. You have only the right to state your message. You do not have the right to an audience for the message. And a doctor's office, which is not the government, should be shielded anyway because of patient privacy.

I can sort of see the other side of this though.  The First Amendment doesn't protect freedom from listening, so I can see why a person's right to be free of unwanted speech is less worthy of government protection than a person's right to be on public property and speak.

I realize you need buffer zones strictly for matters of public safety, and I find some of the protesting and attempts to convert to be completely abhorrent.  But I also see why this is a tough issue for courts.    

Can you imagine if we let states just ban demonstrations about gay rights or church cover up of sex abuse from 100 feet of a church because parishioners don't want to see or hear them?  Why do the parishioners rights more worthy of protection than those speaking?

But she's not asking to protest. She's asking to engage patients as they enter the clinic.

[debatethis]

Jan 15, 2014 14:31:00 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

This is a tangent, but I just can't get over how condescending it is to assume that women seeking an abortion are uneducated and uninformed.

Grandma can go shove it.

The plaintiff was just on the news bragging that she's "saved 80 babies" by being able to talk women out of having abortions. I wonder if she follows up with those women to see if they have adequate healthcare, housing, food, and clothing for themselves and their children after they're born.

[PinkSquirrel]

This may be helpful to get an idea of just how small the buffer zone is.  It's not large at all.

PPLM specifically tells their clinic escorts they are not allowed to discuss anything about the healthcare of the person being escorted, so they treat the buffer zone as somewhere they can not be trying to convince anyone one way or another as well.

Let's also not forget the amount of clinic violence that goes on at clinics throughout the country.  Women have a right to their privacy and to access medical care, if you want to yell you can do it from outside the buffer zone and easily be heard.

I have a lot of friends that work at the clinics in MA including PPLM, I sat in on a lot of the hearings years ago when they were planning the buffer zone.    The atmosphere at the hearings was just a general attitude that the buffer zone was a no brainer.  I really hope the SC upholds its.

[Alyssa]

What about people having the right not to have protesters in their face?

[PinkSquirrel]

Jan 15, 2014 19:10:38 GMT -5 @publius said:

Jan 15, 2014 19:03:22 GMT -5 PinkSquirrel said:

It doesn't really matter how the clinic treats the buffer zone. What matters is that the government is allowing some speech there and prohibiting others based on content.

Honestly, buffer zones have been held up as constitutional before. Even if SCOTUS strikes down the entire law because of the exception (which they might not even have to do. I don't see why they can't just invalidate the exception) MA can repass a new buffer zone law without the offending clause a second and a half afterwards.

I understand that and I imagine a new, adjusted law could definitely pass here.  Hell, we just got free abortions for anyone who applies for Mass Health/medicaid (they don't even need to qualify), so I feel like we can definitely get a tweaked version of the buffer zone passed

[NewOrleans]

Jan 15, 2014 16:59:08 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jan 15, 2014 16:34:06 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Yeah. You don't have a right to talk to someone. You have only the right to state your message. You do not have the right to an audience for the message. And a doctor's office, which is not the government, should be shielded anyway because of patient privacy.

I can sort of see the other side of this though.  The First Amendment doesn't protect freedom from listening, so I can see why a person's right to be free of unwanted speech is less worthy of government protection than a person's right to be on public property and speak.

I realize you need buffer zones strictly for matters of public safety, and I find some of the protesting and attempts to convert to be completely abhorrent.  But I also see why this is a tough issue for courts.    

Can you imagine if we let states just ban demonstrations about gay rights or church cover up of sex abuse from 100 feet of a church because parishioners don't want to see or hear them?  Why do the parishioners rights more worthy of protection than those speaking?

I agree with your first paragraph.  I am just saying that I'm not sure if you (they) can really argue that they're not being allowed to talk directly to people-- I don't think that right would be guaranteed and thus protected.

As for the last paragraph, I would be equally ^o) at those protestors.  But I believe that a medical facility differs from other organizations, and the state has an interest in patient privacy, and stopping people to converse might tread on FACE.

Not related to your quote, but a general contribution to the discussion-- there have been almost 5000 acts of clinic violence in less than 20 years.