# Abortion clinic "Buffer zones" in Massachusetts not legal, says unanimous SCOTUS **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698 "2014-06-26T14:58:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/1 "2014-06-26T14:58:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/2 "2014-06-26T15:02:03Z")
Good. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/3 "2014-06-26T15:05:59Z")
[PDF of the opinion](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf), 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. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/4 "2014-06-26T15:12:09Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/5 "2014-06-26T15:17:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. how large a buffer would you support? ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/6 "2014-06-26T15:19:40Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/7 "2014-06-26T15:22:27Z")
I fully support the right of anti-choice misogynists to get within arm’s reach of their intended targets. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/8 "2014-06-26T15:27:24Z")
More from the syllabus of the opinion: > [@](#): > > (2) The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than nec > essary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests. Subsection > (e) of the Act already prohibits deliberate obstruction of clinic en > trances. Massachusetts could also enact legislation similar to the > federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U. S. C. > §248(a)(1), which imposes criminal and civil sanctions for obstruct > ing, intimidating, or interfering with persons obtaining or providing > reproductive health services. Obstruction of clinic driveways can > readily be addressed through existing local traffic ordinances. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/9 "2014-06-26T15:31:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/10 "2014-06-26T15:32:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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. It would be if SCOTUS were more consistent. [Look at Wood v Moss that was decided unanimously last month.](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-115_gdil.pdf) > [@](#): > > (a) Government officials may not exclude from public places persons engaged in peaceful expressive activity solely because the government actor fears, dislikes, or disagrees with the views expressed.See, e.g., Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 96. \*\*The fundamental right to speak, however, does not leave people at liberty to publicize their views “ ‘whenever and however and wherever theyplease.’ \*\*” United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 177. In deciding whether the protesters have alleged violation of a clearly established First Amendment right, this Court assumes without deciding that Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, which involved alleged Fourth Amendment violations, extends to First Amendment claims, see, e.g., Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 675. 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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/11 "2014-06-26T15:35:26Z")
Apparently the Court’s issue is only with [the size of the buffer zone.](http://www.boston.com/news/2014/06/26/supreme-court-voids-mass-abortion-clinic-buffer/RcQy61FjlyDO7EXOECFz4K/story.html?p1=Topopage:Test_B:Main_headline) > [@](#): > > Before the 35-foot zone went into effect in 2007, protesters could stand next to the entrances and force patients to squeeze by, Planned Parenthood said. > > Before 2007, a floating buffer zone kept protesters from approaching unwilling listeners any closer than 6 feet if they were within 18 feet of the clinic. The floating zone was modeled after a Colorado law that the Supreme Court upheld. That decision was not called into question in Thursday’s ruling. 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**? > [@](#): > > Clinic officials said they are most concerned about safety because of past incidents of violence. In 1994, a gunman killed two receptionists and wounded five employees and volunteers at a Planned Parenthood facility and another abortion clinic in nearby Brookline. The most recent killing was in 2009, when Dr. George Tiller, who performed abortions, was shot in a church in Wichita, Kansas. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/12 "2014-06-26T15:38:29Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > It would be if SCOTUS were more consistent. [Look at Wood v Moss that was decided unanimously last month.](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-115_gdil.pdf) > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/13 "2014-06-26T15:40:30Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > 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. \*\* Which puts them in range of an impact weapon. In self-defense, of course. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/14 "2014-06-26T15:45:35Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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. Yeah, my bolded part from the opinion doesn’t address free speech at all. You’re totally right. Anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/15 "2014-06-26T15:46:10Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/16 "2014-06-26T15:48:15Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/17 "2014-06-26T15:51:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/18 "2014-06-26T15:55:10Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/19 "2014-06-26T15:59:33Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Yeah, my bolded part from the opinion doesn’t address free speech at all. You’re totally right. Anything else? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/20 "2014-06-26T15:59:48Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 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. Is there any evidence that screaming hateful things at the mothers even achieves your goal of preventing an abortion? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698.md?page=2)