[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a case involving a Massachusetts law prohibiting people from protesting directly outside of abortion clinics. Lawyers for the petitioners, parties “who regularly engage in pro-life counseling” outside clinics, were appealing a July ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which held that the law, which creates a 35-foot buffer zone around entrances and exits of reproductive health clinics, was a reasonable response to a significant threat to public safety. Opponents of the law say that it violates freedom of speech while supporters say that it is necessary to ensure public safety and access to abortion clinics. The justices did not comment on the reason for denying certiorari, but the court may have found it unnecessary to review the law, when several portions of a nearly identical law were upheld in 1994 in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center.
\nThreats against abortion clinics and employees have been a longstanding concern, and the US courts of appeal have come to differing conclusions on the constitutionality of “buffer zone” laws meant to protect clinic patients and employees. In November, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down a City of Pittsburgh ordinance that created a layered zone structure to prevent protesters from gathering outside abortion facilities. US Attorney General Eric Holder enlisted the US Marshall Service last June to increase protection for at-risk people and facilities following the shooting of abortion doctor George Tiller. Last year, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the First Amendment protected an anti-abortion group’s right to display graphic pictures of early-term aborted fetuses outside of a California middle school.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a case involving a Massachusetts law prohibiting people from protesting directly outside of abortion clinics. Lawyers for the petitioners, parties “who regularly engage in pro-life counseling” outside clinics, were appealing a July ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which held […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4174,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-461186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/461186","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4174"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=461186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/461186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=461186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=461186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=461186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}