Just in from the Supreme Court: despite a request from Attorney General Martha Coakley to deny review, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to a 2007 Massachusetts law that expanded the previous “floating” buffer zone law to a larger, fixed 35-foot buffer zone in and around abortion clinics. The party seeking review asked the Court not only to review the MA law, but also to overrule Hill v. Colorado, an earlier buffer zone case, and the Court has agreed to consider that request. So, this is a potentially very big deal that will extend well beyond Massachusetts. The case is called McCullen v. Coakley.
The Court also agreed to hear an extremely important case regarding presidential recess appointments. The case, called NLRB v. Noel Canning, is expected to resolve questions that have arisen recently as to whether the practice of presidential recess appointments during relatively short recesses – which has been going on for well over a hundred years – is constitutional. This case has the potential to significantly realign the balance of power between the president and Congress. I’d expect both McCullen and Noel Canning to be argued next fall and decided next winter or spring.
News of today’s opinions is just starting to filter in now. I’ll update later as necessary.
UPDATE: Planned Parenthood of MA has issued a statement in response to the Court’s decision to hear McCullen. The statement is on the flip.
President and Chief Executive Officer of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (PPLM), Martha (Marty) Walz, responded to the announcement that the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Massachusetts Buffer Zone Law in the next session with this statement:
“People seeking health services should be able to do so without fear of violence, harassment or intimidation. The Buffer Zone Law is necessary to ensure the privacy, dignity, and safety of women who seek health care at Planned Parenthood and other medical facilities. That’s why I was a lead sponsor of the 2007 Buffer Zone Law when I served in the House of Representatives. As CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, I’ll keep fighting for this law on behalf of our patients and staff.
“Courts across the country have upheld the constitutionality of buffer zone laws. All of us at Planned Parenthood are grateful for the work of Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is a champion of our state’s Buffer Zone Law, and we are confident she will successfully defend the Buffer Zone Law before the Supreme Court.”
BACKGROUND
First passed in 2000 and expanded in 2007, the Buffer Zone Law in Massachusetts creates a 35-foot, fixed buffer zone around the entrances and driveways of reproductive health care facilities, including Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts health centers in Springfield, Worcester, and Boston.
I still don’t understand why they decided to hear the case in the first place. Did they have an opening with the 2007 changes?
I would think that this decision could also be used to allow buffers in other circumstances, like the Westboro Baptist loons.
This needs to be about balancing free speech (outside the buffer) against the right to privacy (inside) and not just about abortion.
35 feet is way within frickin’ talking distance. Certainly within sign reading distance.
As someone who has been to the Boston location of Planned Parenthood (I go to them when I can because the NH branch saved my ass when I could not afford ANY other health care, with their sliding fee scale, in my early marriage) I can tell you what it is like to have asshats breathing their “free speech” down your neck. And I was there for a regular GYN appointment. I have felt bodily threatened by such people in the past.
If they overturn this, it’ll TRULY be an activist judiciary, and one that gives shit all about women.
Just offering something to be mindful of. If this falls I also wonder about buffer zones around polling locations. I think these laws fall well within traditional time, place, and manner allowances.
I have no problem with the buffer zone.
What I AM suggesting is that it should be applied more widely, not an abortion-only rule. Many pro-life people who might be unsympathetic to a PP zone might feel differently if they could ALSO rely on a buffer during a military funeral.
Broadening the appeal doesn’t mean opposition. Unless you WANT this to be only about abortion for some reason?
there’s no doubt that women often feel physically threatened when attempting to enter health clinics surrounded by (one or more) anti-abortion advocates.
While the behavior of the WBA et al at funerals is offensive, I wonder: does anyone feel threatened by them, or merely frustrated? I think there is probably a difference between the two, though I’m not sure if that line should be a differentiating factor or not.
P.S. I ride my bicycle past a clinic and accompanying protesters most days of the week. I find it to be a strange site, all-told.
A woman is just as likely to feel pissed off as threatened if confronted entering a clinic. Or indifferent, or amused, or devastated. The common thread is the attempt to intrude upon the legitimate and private business of another person for purposes of aggressive advocacy. As Christopher says, electioneering laws are similar in some ways.
A buffer is a brake upon absolute free speech, and IMO, a legitimate one.
I have, several times, had to pass through gauntlets of anti-abortion protesters to enter and leave church on Sunday morning (Episcopal, in Brookline) — some extremist group was unhappy that my parish assisted the Brookline Planned Parenthood organization after the murders there.
While the protesters disgust me, I viewed the action as an expression of their freedom of expression. I also took the opportunity have a candid and frank exchange of views with several of them.
I have often been tempted to express myself in a similar fashion outside a Roman Catholic church before and after Sunday mass, regarding the institution’s abuse of gay and lesbian individuals and regarding the institution’s enabling and protection of clergy sexual predators. Even though I’ve not yet done so, I would like to preserve my right to express my disgust and outrage at the behavior of the institutional Roman Catholic church. A “buffer zone” around a church is, in my view, an overreach.
Given the murder at the Beacon Street Planned Parenthood location, I think it’s reasonable to adopt a different standard for the clinics themselves than for more general expressions of belief. Women who enter a Planned Parenthood clinic have good reason to feel intimidated — I don’t believe that the Westboro church has actually killed anybody. I’m not even sure they’ve glued any doors or burned any buildings.
I have a much harder time supporting any restrictions outside churches, I think the women’s clinic buffer zone is an extreme measure that is unfortunately needed, and seems to work.