The 35-foot buffer zones Massachusetts created to separate abortion clinic traffic and abortion clinic protestors went too far, literally.
Unanimous decision.
And of course in my view, the correct one.
Good.
PDF of the opinion, 52 pages.
Back to the drawing board, there has to be a way to allow speech while protecting other people exercising *their *rights from harassment, intimidation or bullying. The majority does seem to suggest that can be sought, while Alito seems to argue that the ruling must stand absolutely, but that’s just my very very cursory reading, can’t go in too deep right now.
Does this give the holier-than-thou the right to scream “baby killer” at women right up until they enter the facility? If so, that’s pretty sad and even sadder that some would cheer the ruling. Or would a 10 foot buffer be permissible?
how large a buffer would you support?
If you don’t allow them to scream “baby killer” at women right up until they enter the facility, you’re denying the protestors right to free speech.
In New Jersey they have to have volunteer escorts at the clinic. And I have seen protestors putting their hands on the women after being told NO.
I fully support the right of anti-choice misogynists to get within arm’s reach of their intended targets.
More from the syllabus of the opinion:
Essentially, the law had good purposes and was content neutral - but it was not narrowly tailored because the respondent could not show they attempted other methods to serve their purposes. It doesn’t mean that protesters are free to intimidate, assault, or otherwise harass, or that those activities could not be prohibited.
Seems like pretty sound reasoning and a victory for free speech, hateful as it may be.
I always wonder why this doesn’t go the other way.
There just aren’t enough people outside close minded churches picketing and harassing congregations. I guess we have better things to do.
It would be if SCOTUS were more consistent. Look at Wood v Moss that was decided unanimously last month.
So, some people-presidents apparently- are more special than others and deserve the ability to curtail opinions. What we can glean from this is that if you’re going to get an abortion, take a president with you so you can get some peace.
Apparently the Court’s issue is only with the size of the buffer zone.
I would hope it’s obvious that “forcing patients to squeeze by” is out of line. I would think the floating buffer goes back into effect in MA.
But there’s still a “valid, neutral justification”, isn’t there, Bricker?
That case was about qualified immunity - whether the agents involved enjoyed such protections, and whether there was a security implication to the actions of the agents in question. Not relevant to this case at all.
**
Which puts them in range of an impact weapon. In self-defense, of course.
Yeah, my bolded part from the opinion doesn’t address free speech at all. You’re totally right. Anything else?
I’m a little more concerned about the lives of the unborn children that the mothers are planning to kill, then about the feelings of the mothers. Just a little.
Sorry, not sorry.
Unborn children enjoy being yelled at?
Since people believe that reading to the fetus or playing classical music gives an advantage, that would prepare them for married life. 
I think if you want to be technical, the mothers are planning on having their unborn children killed. Passive voice. Since the mothers aren’t actually doing the killing, the doctors are. At least, that’s what I’ve been told unless you know something different.
It appears that you are saying the two cases in question, Wood and McCullen, are similar in some meaningful way and that the rulings were inconsistent with each other. If that is what you are saying, then you are wrong.
Is that what you were saying or were you trying to make some other point?
Is there any evidence that screaming hateful things at the mothers even achieves your goal of preventing an abortion?