‘You’ve Got Mail’: NYC Mayor Taunts Wealthy Homeowners as He Robs Them Blind...
Cory Mills Lashes Out at Claims That the DOJ Is Investigating Him
Secret Service Agent on JD Vance’s Detail Caught Leaking Travel Plans to Leftist...
'Edge of Chaos': NYPD Union Is Livid Over Mamdani's Call to Protest Netanyahu
Gavin Newsom Just Announced He's Going to Waste More Taxpayer Money on Fighting...
James Talarico Jumps on the 'Prison Is Violence' Bandwagon, and That'll Go Over...
Mamdani's Wife Raised $2000 for Palestine Charity, but Where Did That Money Go?
Madison Police Tried to Hold a Press Conference About Officer-Involved Shooting, Then This...
Why Isn't the Left Outraged About Nancy Armour?
Ro Khanna Was Just Humiliated Over His Praise of Obama's Iran Record
This Kentucky Newspaper Allowed Readers to Submit Threats Against the Trump Administration
Did the Smithsonian Really Say This About Benjamin Franklin?
As Protests Continue in Madison Following Police Shooting, It Turns Out Suspect Had...
Trump Meeting With Two Major World Leaders on Tuesday
New Tariffs Were Just Enacted. Here's Who They're Hitting.
Tipsheet

BREAKING: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abortion Clinic "Buffer Zone" Law

BREAKING: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abortion Clinic "Buffer Zone" Law

The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that required a 35-foot protest-free "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, saying that the statute violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley also has implications for municipalities that have imposed their own "buffer zone" laws around abortion clinics.

Advertisement

The 2007 law aimed to keep protesters least 35 feet from the entrances of abortion clinics to prevent confrontations, but the US Supreme Court ruled that it went too far and prevented the free speech of law-abiding abortion opponents who want to approach people going to the clinics.

The high court’s justices had indicated when they heard the case in January that the state needed to find other ways to address safety concerns and prevent the opponents from impeding access to clinics without limiting people’s free speech.

The opinion stated that the law was unconstitutional as it blocked free speech demonstrations on public roads and sidewalks, in addition to singling out abortion clinics as opposed to any other health facility. The Court affirmed that the law was far too broad and was a substantial burden on the free-speech rights of pro-lifers for what the law was intended to accomplish. Pro-life sidewalk counselors in Massachusetts were unable to have conversations with or distribute literature to women who were seeking abortions as a result of this law.

A state is not prohibited from creating laws that are tailored to a particular clinic, but the broad law challenged in this case was ruled to be unconstitutional.

Twitter had mixed reactions regarding the decision:

Advertisement

Being against abortion does not nullify one's freedom of speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Kudos to the Supreme Court for pointing out the obvious.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement