That Time MSNBC Ripped an NHL Player for Not Accepting an Obama White...
Teens Say AI Is Now Part Of Everyday Life–Many Parents Have No Idea
Joy Behar Thinks the SAVE Act Will Help Republicans Cheat in November
The Left Wants a Nuclear Family Meltdown
Tim Walz's Paid Medical and Family Leave Law Is Already Being Abused
Grand Rapids Mayor: People Should Be Made to Feel Shame for Having Guns
Dear, Gavin Newsom: Stop Using Dyslexia As a Shield
The Legendary Ending to President Trump's State of the Union
President Trump Just Responded to Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib's Outbursts at the...
JD Vance Reveals What He Saw From Democrats During the State of the...
Mamdani's NYC Flirts With Chaos
Moreno Unveils Bill to Fine Welfare Recipients $100K for Sending Money Overseas
Feds Freeze $259M in Medicaid Funds to Minnesota Over Alleged Fraud
Florida Man Sentenced to 6 Years in Nationwide Bank Fraud Scheme
Memphis Woman Sentenced to Federal Prison for $560K COVID-19 Fraud Across 20 States
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