This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-challenged-in-us-supreme-court

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Abortion clinic buffer zones challenged in US supreme court Abortion clinic buffer zones challenged in US supreme court
(about 5 hours later)
It has been years since a patient has arrived at the door shaken and in tears, since the words “baby killer” have been screamed at her outside her place of employment, or since her colleagues have reported being stalked, followed and threatened by those who oppose their work.It has been years since a patient has arrived at the door shaken and in tears, since the words “baby killer” have been screamed at her outside her place of employment, or since her colleagues have reported being stalked, followed and threatened by those who oppose their work.
For Teresa Roberts, a staff nurse with 14 years' experience at Planned Parenthood's Boston clinic, a 2007 Massachusetts law that created a buffer zone outside state abortion clinics to protect patients and staff from harassment has calmed the chaos and made her job easier. The law forced anti-abortion protesters to stay at least 35 feet from the clinic's entrance, making it a criminal offence to venture closer.For Teresa Roberts, a staff nurse with 14 years' experience at Planned Parenthood's Boston clinic, a 2007 Massachusetts law that created a buffer zone outside state abortion clinics to protect patients and staff from harassment has calmed the chaos and made her job easier. The law forced anti-abortion protesters to stay at least 35 feet from the clinic's entrance, making it a criminal offence to venture closer.
But in a case that is being closely watched by freedom of speech campaigners and other US states and cities that have similar provisions, the US supreme court will hear a challenge to the law in an hour of oral argument on Wednesday.But in a case that is being closely watched by freedom of speech campaigners and other US states and cities that have similar provisions, the US supreme court will hear a challenge to the law in an hour of oral argument on Wednesday.
The case is being brought by seven Massachusetts anti-abortion protesters, who have demonstrated outside the state's three abortion facilities in Boston, Springfield and Worcester. They say the buffer zone is unconstitutional and violates their right to free speech.The case is being brought by seven Massachusetts anti-abortion protesters, who have demonstrated outside the state's three abortion facilities in Boston, Springfield and Worcester. They say the buffer zone is unconstitutional and violates their right to free speech.
Eleanor McCullen, 77, the principal plaintiff in the case and a regular outside the Boston clinic where Roberts works, has said the law has hampered her ability to engage in “sidewalk counselling” with women entering the clinic. She said that before the buffer zone came into effect she and the others filing the challenge dissuaded “hundreds” of women against having abortions by offering support and help with bills.Eleanor McCullen, 77, the principal plaintiff in the case and a regular outside the Boston clinic where Roberts works, has said the law has hampered her ability to engage in “sidewalk counselling” with women entering the clinic. She said that before the buffer zone came into effect she and the others filing the challenge dissuaded “hundreds” of women against having abortions by offering support and help with bills.
Protesters can talk freely to anyone approaching the facility outside a yellow painted line marking 35 feet, but once a patient or member of staff enters the zone they can not follow. Patients and staff can access the zone to enter the building and people can lawfully pass by on their way to businesses next door. Protesters can talk freely to anyone approaching the facility outside a yellow painted line marking 35 feet, but once a patient or member of staff enters the zone they can not follow. Patients and staff can access the zone to enter the building and people can lawfully pass by on their way to businesses next door. 
McCullen, who is represented by Mark Rienzi, a Catholic University law professor, said the 2007 law was overly broad, more intrusive than previous laws and went beyond a need to protect individuals because it was more than a no-approach measure. The plaintiffs argue that the law singles them out, totally excluding them from the area while allowing those who take part in performing abortions or are sympathetic to abortions to be in the zone. They say they need to talk to people eye-to-eye, in a conversational tone, rather than have to raise their voices to carry 35 feet.McCullen, who is represented by Mark Rienzi, a Catholic University law professor, said the 2007 law was overly broad, more intrusive than previous laws and went beyond a need to protect individuals because it was more than a no-approach measure. The plaintiffs argue that the law singles them out, totally excluding them from the area while allowing those who take part in performing abortions or are sympathetic to abortions to be in the zone. They say they need to talk to people eye-to-eye, in a conversational tone, rather than have to raise their voices to carry 35 feet.
America's highest court will have to weigh free speech rights versus the state's duty to protest public safety against years of intimidation and harassment from protesters.America's highest court will have to weigh free speech rights versus the state's duty to protest public safety against years of intimidation and harassment from protesters.
In 2000 the supreme court upheld a different buffer zone, in Colorado, in a decision that some free speech advocates, who also support abortion rights, heavily criticised. Floyd Abrams, a prominent first amendment lawyer, recently described the decision in Hill v Colorado as "what may well be the most indefensible first amendment ruling so far this century". The three dissenting justices in that case — Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — remain on the court. Since then they have been joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who may provide the two additional votes the protesters need to win their case.In 2000 the supreme court upheld a different buffer zone, in Colorado, in a decision that some free speech advocates, who also support abortion rights, heavily criticised. Floyd Abrams, a prominent first amendment lawyer, recently described the decision in Hill v Colorado as "what may well be the most indefensible first amendment ruling so far this century". The three dissenting justices in that case — Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — remain on the court. Since then they have been joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who may provide the two additional votes the protesters need to win their case.
The Massachusetts law, which evolved from previous state laws, has been unsuccessfully challenged in federal court in Massachusetts several times. A previous, less restrictive measure in 2000 created an 18-foot “bubble” around patients once they approached the clinic but was complicated and difficult to enforce, supporters say.The Massachusetts law, which evolved from previous state laws, has been unsuccessfully challenged in federal court in Massachusetts several times. A previous, less restrictive measure in 2000 created an 18-foot “bubble” around patients once they approached the clinic but was complicated and difficult to enforce, supporters say.
The 2000 law was the response to harassment and intimidation of the 1990s in Massachusetts, a state with a history of violence and intimidation at abortion clinics, including a shooting rampage in 1994 that left two staff dead.The 2000 law was the response to harassment and intimidation of the 1990s in Massachusetts, a state with a history of violence and intimidation at abortion clinics, including a shooting rampage in 1994 that left two staff dead.
Roberts worked for the agency in 1994 when John Salvi went on a murderous rampage, shooting dead two workers at two different abortion clinics in Brookline, outside Boston. Roberts worked for the agency in 1994 when John Salvi went on a murderous rampage, shooting dead two workers at two different abortion clinics in Brookline, outside Boston. 
Shannon Lowney, a receptionist murdered by Salvi, was a friend of Roberts, who returned to the clinic in 2003 after a period of leave. Such violence is extreme and, Roberts points out, would not be stopped by a buffer zone.Shannon Lowney, a receptionist murdered by Salvi, was a friend of Roberts, who returned to the clinic in 2003 after a period of leave. Such violence is extreme and, Roberts points out, would not be stopped by a buffer zone.
But she believes the zone has played a major role in changing the atmosphere outside the clinics. “Since 2007 there are still demonstrators or protesters but the tone is dialled down,” said Roberts. “There's less yelling, more talking. It is a lot calmer. It's a very different feeling when people are 35ft away from when they were right at the door. It is less tense. They are communicating their opinions rather than aggressing patients and staff.”But she believes the zone has played a major role in changing the atmosphere outside the clinics. “Since 2007 there are still demonstrators or protesters but the tone is dialled down,” said Roberts. “There's less yelling, more talking. It is a lot calmer. It's a very different feeling when people are 35ft away from when they were right at the door. It is less tense. They are communicating their opinions rather than aggressing patients and staff.”
In her brief to the court the Massachusetts attorney general, Martha Coakley, the respondent in the case, said the buffer zone created by the 2007 law had struck the right balance between public safety and first amendment rights. In a brief filed to the court she defended the constitutionality of the law. It was, she said, “a legitimate legislative response to the unique record of regular, targeted protest at Massachusetts facilities, involving primarily – although not exclusively – pro-life advocates: that is, the weekly scrum in front of facility entrances, in which protesters crowded doorways, blocked driveways, surrounded cars, impersonated police officers and jostled protesters and facility employees.”In her brief to the court the Massachusetts attorney general, Martha Coakley, the respondent in the case, said the buffer zone created by the 2007 law had struck the right balance between public safety and first amendment rights. In a brief filed to the court she defended the constitutionality of the law. It was, she said, “a legitimate legislative response to the unique record of regular, targeted protest at Massachusetts facilities, involving primarily – although not exclusively – pro-life advocates: that is, the weekly scrum in front of facility entrances, in which protesters crowded doorways, blocked driveways, surrounded cars, impersonated police officers and jostled protesters and facility employees.”
Only two other states, Colorado and Montana, have similar statewide buffer zones for abortion facilities but in recent years many municipalities, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, have created similar protections.Only two other states, Colorado and Montana, have similar statewide buffer zones for abortion facilities but in recent years many municipalities, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, have created similar protections.
More than 30 organisations have filed “friends of the court” briefs on either side. Marty Walz, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and one of the lead sponsors of the 2007 law in the state legislature, said she was concerned that if the law was overturned it would mark a return to the days of aggression, acrimony and harassment outside the state's abortion clinics. “If the law is overturned I'm very concerned about how we will make certain outside our healthcare facilities are safe,” said Walz. “I remain hopeful that the supreme court will follow precedents and uphold the law.” More than 30 organisations have filed “friends of the court” briefs on either side. Marty Walz, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and one of the lead sponsors of the 2007 law in the state legislature, said she was concerned that if the law was overturned it would mark a return to the days of aggression, acrimony and harassment outside the state's abortion clinics.
“If the law is overturned I'm very concerned about how we will make certain outside our healthcare facilities are safe,” said Walz. “I remain hopeful that the supreme court will follow precedents and uphold the law.”
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.