On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review McCullen v. Coakley, a case that challenges the constitutionality of the Massachusetts law that keeps protesters out of the designated “buffer zones” around abortion clinics.
The zones were created with the intention of keeping protesters from “enter[ing] or remain[ing] on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of any entrance, exit or driveway of a “reproductive health care facility,” according to the case.
According to SCOTUSblog, “petitioners claim that the Massachusetts law is ‘inescapably viewpoint-based’ because it permits clinic agents to enter the specified ‘no-entry zones’ with ‘impunity’ and speak at will so long as they are ‘there on clinic business.’ As such, the law permits speech that ‘will necessarily express the clinic’s view’ while excluding any speech that does not.”
Those in disagreement of the law feel that this is denying them their First and Fourth Amendment rights.
Petitioners are making their argument on the basis of the 2000 ruling of Hill v. Colorado, when it was deemed illegal to come within eight feet of anyone within 100 feet of a health-care facility with any intention of educating, protesting or counseling service consumers. The court made its 6-3 decision based on the belief that the law should provide protection from uncomfortable confrontation for those using the clinic services, while allowing for a content-neutral environment.
The people who are petitioning the McCullen v. Coakley ruling argue that the law specifically targets pro-life advocates, where the Hill case does not.
A source in support of the law from the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals told The Boston Globe in an interview after the original ruling in January that “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.”
Petitioners cited another similar case that was determined unconstitutional in a decision by the Ninth Circuit because of its favorability of clinic speakers and its content restrictions of pro-life advocates. The law was rejected under the First Amendment as the “epitome of a content-based restriction,” according to SCOTUSblog.
The fate of McCullen v. Coakley relies on the law’s ability to uphold the basic framework set forth in the Hill ruling.