Supreme Court rejects challenges to abortion clinic 'buffer zone' laws that restrict protesters

[Jose Garcia]

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider overturning a 25-year-old precedent that upheld "buffer zone" laws limiting how close protesters can get to abortion clinic entrances.

In a setback for abortion opponents, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority hostile to abortion rights, opted against weighing whether such laws violate the free speech rights of protesters under the Constitution's First Amendment.

At issue in the two related cases were buffer zone laws in Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey.

In the 2000 ruling in a case called Hill v. Colorado, the court upheld a buffer zone law in that state. A wave of such measures were enacted following violence connected to anti-abortion protesters, including a 1994 case in which two clinic workers were killed in Massachusetts.

Read more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna180658

[Timeflyer]

1. Good news, for a change.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Good

There's a difference between "first amendment rights to protest" and actually being allowed to assault (and even kill) people as part of a protest.

[exboyfil]

3. And buffer zone for other things like nuclear power plants

Military bases, arms manufacturers, and other questionable industrial activites?

Ok to protest in the park 3 miles from the entrance gate to these facilities. Also consider courts and legislative/executive bodies. Also churches and other meeting locations (political conventions, etc).

I think the SC is playing the long game on this one. Be prepared to a further constriction to the right to exercise your 1st amendment right to protest.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

4. I'm stunned.

[SunSeeker]

5. They had to uphold buffer zones, since they set one up around the Supreme Court building after Dobbs.

You can't get near the SCOTUS structure now, it's all fenced off.

[Owens]

8. I hope a lawsuit challenges this

They opened the door! Let's see how fast they close it

[et tu]

10. but wouldn't the kremlin

object if the sc doesn't comply???

[tinymontgomery]

12. Most first thought was about their personnel homes

Hard to say you can't be protected but I can. Well, it is the supreme court so I guess they could and not feel
any shame about it.

[cstanleytech]

6. Maybe because the buffer around SCOTUS itself would be illegal?

[Owens]

7. But protestors can't protest near their homes

All of them are HYPOCRITES!!

[slightlv]

9. They, themselves, may be afraid of protestors

but at least they kept this ruling intact.

Do you think they might have caught on that we've figured out their game... and decided to play it safe for a time?

Or... are they allowing us some celebration and breathing room before allowing trump to bring it all down into a trash pile?

[Deminpenn]

13. SCOTUS had a lot at stake

I'm sure they all recognize the courts have no real power to enforce any of their orders. Today it's an attack on cabinet departments and civil servants, tomorrow it's court personnel and judges.

[Hekate]

11. Some history: The "right" to harass abortion clinic patients by screaming, shoving, blocking access...

…has gone back and forth in the courts since the 1990s.

Anti-abortion protests then and now go way beyond praying, as doctors and clinic workers have been murdered, a clinic employee was severely mutilated when she opened a nail-bomb that came in the mail, and so forth. Employees, medical and otherwise, have been stalked, as have their children. One doctor was killed in his home, another in his church, others …

Santa Barbara was spared the worst, but as the local protesters grew ever more aggressive and wound up (and as the news from across the nation grew worse) Santa Barbara’s then-Mayor Helene Schneider and the City Council legislated a buffer zone around Planned Parenthood, which was the target.

Protestors had to stay on the sidewalk across the street— no more jamming the parking lot in front of the building — no more shoving people who wanted to enter the building — no more screaming in their faces. The protestors had (and have) a First Amendment right to express their opinion as loud as they want from across the street — and people wanting to enter the building have the right to do so without interference and without fear of their lives.

Very simple, one would think. However, this was the beginning of the clinic buffer zone’s first trek to the SCOTUS.

The current SCOTUS seems to have just upheld the idea of buffer zones for clinics yet again. But given who they are, I seriously doubt it was done in a spirit of fairness to abortion providers, and I wonder which case they are really waiting for. As Rachel says: watch this space.

Just felt it was time to review a little history, since I lived in SB County next door to SB city for almost 40 years.