Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE US SUPREME Court has unanimously struck down the 35-foot protest-free zone outside abortion clinics in Massachusetts, declaring it an unconstitutional restraint on the free-speech rights of protesters.
Authorities have less intrusive ways to deal with potential confrontations or other problems that can arise outside clinics, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Roberts noted that most of the problems reported by police and the clinics in Massachusetts occurred outside a single Planned Parenthood facility in Boston, and only on Saturdays when the largest crowds typically gather.
“For a problem shown to arise only once a week in one city at one clinic, creating 35-foot buffer zones at every clinic across the Commonwealth is hardly a narrowly tailored solution,” Roberts said.
He wrote the majority opinion after asking no questions, exceedingly rare for him, at the argument in January.
Roberts noted that no other state has a similar law and that he is aware of only five cities that have created fixed buffer zones around abortion clinics.
The ruling also left intact a high court decision from 2000 that upheld a floating buffer zone in Colorado.
While the court was unanimous in the overall outcome, Roberts joined with the four liberal justices to strike down the buffer zone on narrower grounds than the other, more conservative justices wanted.
In a separate opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia criticised Roberts’ opinion as carrying forward “this court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents.”
Scalia said state and local governments around the country would continue to be able to “restrict anti-abortion speech without fear of rigorous constitutional review.”
Still, abortion rights advocates lamented the new ruling and said it compromised the safety of women seeking abortions.
“This decision shows a troubling level of disregard for American women, who should be able to make carefully considered, private medical decisions without running a gantlet of harassing and threatening protesters,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Reaction to the buffer-zone ruling was predictably mixed.
Mark Rienzi, who represented the protesters, said, “The government cannot reserve its public sidewalks for Planned Parenthood, as if their message is the only one women should be allowed to hear. Today’s decision confirms that the First Amendment is for everyone, and that the government cannot silence peaceful speakers.”
Massachusetts officials who backed the buffer zone said they would try to re-craft the law to address the high court’s concerns.
“The fight is just beginning again,” said state Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office had argued before the justices.
Roberts suggested that Massachusetts could enact a state version of the federal law that prohibits people from blocking abortion clinic entrances.
The buffer-zone case began when Boston-area grandmother Eleanor McCullen and other abortion opponents sued over the limits on their activities at Planned Parenthood health centres in Boston, Springfield and Worcester.
At the latter two sites, the protesters say they have little chance of reaching patients arriving by car because they must stay 35 feet not from the clinic entrances but from the driveway to those buildings’ parking lots. Patients enter the building through the parking lots, which are private property.
Planned Parenthood provides health exams for women, cancer screenings, tests for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control and abortions at its clinics.
The organization said that the buffer zone has significantly reduced the harassment of patients and clinic employees. Before the 35-foot zone went into effect in 2007, protesters had been able to stand next to the entrances and force patients to squeeze by.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
You can get some dodgy fifty euro notes in the south. This is old news, to me anyhow.
You are dead right Paul. You earn the money you decide how to spend it. If I lived closer to the border I would definitely shop north. The biggest reason for higher prices here is “rip off”. And to all the red thumb merchants. B******s.
Dead right, I buy Irish goods from Irish suppliers and English goods from English suppliers. Why should I buy English goods at inflated prices from an Irish middle man? Only exception I make is on the rare occasion when I have bought Irish goods in England cheaper than in Ireland. Now that’s wrong pricing somewhere surely! Source of origin on food labels is misleading and almost impossible to ascertain. For instance a food product can be imported from abroad and repackaged with a local suppliers ID labelling, so the country of origin is lost to the consumer.
Why tell them that? They are worse than the TD’s stealing from the people. People who shop in the north should go live up there and earn their living up there. If they ever need an ambulance , fire brigade, police, etc go and call the services up north as that is what you are doing by shopping up there. If you want to keep the few people who have jobs in work in the south ie your neighbour or family member than stay and pay a little towards their employment. Dare I suggest you reduce your purchases by 10% in the south and everybody would be better off. When I see the fat people from the south pushing trolled in the stores up north I think they could do with a lot less shopping.
I go up north and do some shopping. I did it last weekend actually! I spent 170 euro on beer, and a net book. Everything else was more or less the same price or cheaper down south. But I didn’t go up north to save money ( although I did ) I went up for the day out. I can’t afford holidays anywhere. I stay at my house for my holidays. I work and have practically zero left ( some months less than zero left) each month. I pay way more than my fair share of taxes and I am entitled to spend 175 euro while I am on my ( holidays).
I assume that you holiday at home, buy only Irish products every week?
Don’t judge me, you don’t know me! Besides, I believe in a United Ireland. Our government has cross border trade and governmental institutions set up. If our government says by it’s actions that it is ok then it’s ok by me. And another thing, the majority of the civil construction tenders are awarded by our government departments to northern construction companies because of price, so cop on and grow up.
I use PayPal for everything
Interesting that you judge me – I may be disabled for all you know! Construction workers are loosing jobs to northern contractors you say – I rest my case. When you are directly impacted it is wrong yet when our retailers and producers are impacted it is not a concern to you. It makes the case for the government shopping up north for cheaper contractors. I think it is wrong yet I am on my own on this I think.
We have plenty of fake banknotes down here. They are called “euros”.
Just use a credit card for shopping And pay it off in full, easiet way.
have your say