Share “Supreme Court strikes down protest buffer...”

Supreme Court strikes down protest buffer zones at abortion clinics

by Juliana Keeping Modified: June 26, 2014 at 11:33 pm •  Published: June 26, 2014
Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the free speech rights of abortion opponents Thursday by striking down a Massachusetts law that kept protesters at least 35 feet away from that state’s clinics.

The unanimous ruling likely will have limited impact on protests at Oklahoma’s three licensed abortion clinics in Norman, Warr Acres and Tulsa. Oklahoma has no such restrictions regulating speech near clinics. Oklahoma protesters stay off private property and keep to public sidewalks, an area the Supreme Court has held is a free-speech zone. Violators are subject to trespassing or disorderly conduct tickets.

Less clear is how Thursday’s 9-0 ruling will affect buffer zones and public protest zones elsewhere — such as at funeral services, political conventions and polling places.

In 2011, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a law barring protesters from coming within 1,000 feet of a soldier’s funeral two hours before or after each service.

The ruling does not eliminate all buffer zones, said Joseph Thai, a constitutional scholar and professor at the University of Oklahoma. Instead, Thai said the court found that buffer zones in front of abortion clinics, schools, or other potential confrontation spots for protesters can only be big enough to ensure access and preserve public safety.

“It cannot go much further without violating the First Amendment,” Thai said.

McCullen v. Coakley

In Thursday’s ruling, the court reviewed a challenge of a Massachusetts law that established a 35-foot protest-free zone outside of that state’s reproductive health centers. Some states have adopted similar laws designed to ensure women safe access to services and prevent confrontations with protesters.

In the Massachusetts case, McCullen v. Coakley, opponents of the buffer zone law argued it violated free speech and prevented quiet conversation on a public sidewalk. Proponents defended the measure as a reasonable way to deal with violence and disruptions seen at clinics in the Boston area and elsewhere.

Advocates of the Massachusetts law noted that it was enacted after decades of violent acts aimed at abortion providers, their staffs and patients.

Hundreds of facilities have been bombed, burned and blockaded and physicians and workers have been killed and maimed, according to a brief filed jointly in the case by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.

Continue reading this story on the...

by Juliana Keeping
Enterprise Reporter
Juliana Keeping is on the enterprise reporting team for The Oklahoman and NewsOK.com. Keeping joined the staff of The Oklahoman in 2012. Prior to that time, she worked in the Chicago media at the SouthtownStar, winning a Peter Lisagor Award...
+ show more


Trending Now


AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    This film with Oklahoma ties is already generating Oscar buzz
  2. 2
    Madeleine Albright Burns Conan O'Brien in Hilarious Twitter War
  3. 3
    NYPD officers seen discarding gloves, masks into garbage can near Ebola patient's apartment
  4. 4
    Senate Midterm Elections
  5. 5
    (NEW PHOTOS) Jennifer Lawrence buys 'romantic' home that Jessica Simpson sold last year
+ show more