Free speech is a tenuous right, constantly threatened by those who would seek to push the boundaries of good taste and proper etiquette. But never is it more important to protect this right than at a time when someone is most offended, most shocked by what someone else has to say or how they choose to say it.
Such is the case in the abortion clinic buffer zone debate, which was decided by the Supreme Court just a few weeks ago. The court found that Massachusett’s 2007 law to create a 35-foot “buffer zone” near the entrance to abortion clinics, to keep protesters away from the entrance, was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. Portland, Maine was among the cities and states awaiting this ruling as it considered its own buffer zone provision.
We agree with the Supreme Court’s decision on the side of free speech, even as we understand the valid concerns of those who are seeking and providing treatment at these clinics. Of course, no woman should be harassed and intimidated to the point that they choose not to seek health care services from a clinic ”“ which notably provide much more than abortions. Laws are already in place, however, to prohibit behavior that crosses the line.
The federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was voted into law in 1994 in response to concerns about violent protesters at abortion clinics. It prohibits the use or threat of physical force, as well as physical obstruction of anyone who is seeking to obtain reproductive health services.
If protesters are engaging in that type of behavior, it’s already illegal. If they’re simply holding signs and yelling out their beliefs about abortion to those entering the clinic, it’s free speech. No, it’s not a nice situation to be greeted with images of mutilated unborn fetuses and loud protesters when attempting to enter a medical clinic, but so long as the protesters are on public property, not physically harming anyone, and not impeding entrance to the clinic, they are within their rights.
The only appropriate counter to free speech is more free speech. Rather than seek to strip these protesters of their rights, women’s advocates should take a page from another recent free speech battle: The Patriot Guard’s revving engines regularly drowned out the Westboro Baptist Church’s disparaging protests at the funerals of soldiers, after the church’s actions were deemed to be constitutionally protected. Can’t those who support women’s reproductive rights be present at these clinics’ entryways to escort them in, display their own signs and slogans, or “buffer” patients from protesters?
It is particularly disturbing to see the blatant disregard for free speech and the Supreme Court ruling in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
A bill recently given initial approval by the Massachusetts Senate and House would fly in the face of the Supreme Court decision by creating a temporary buffer zone provision, stating that if two or more people are deemed to be blocking access to the clinic, they would be ordered to stay 25 feet away from the entrance for eight hours. Violating the provisions would be punishable by a penalty of up to three years in prison and a fine of $50,000. In addition, the bill would allow those who feel they are victimized by protesters to file a civil action suit and would label the “offenders” as criminals.
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, the attorney general says its new law that went into effect July 10 is constitutional because of its flexibility. This law provides for a zone of up to 25 feet, and would vary by location and need.
These amended buffer zone provisions offer no improvement over the 35-foot zone that was struck down by the Supreme Court. No matter what one feels about abortion, it’s clear these buffer zone provisions are in violation of free speech rights, and we’re glad to see the Supreme Court has set a precedent with its vote to help keep this issue from bleeding into other situations. It’s worth noting, too, that an eight-hour wait is not going to stop protesters from speaking their minds, so it won’t do much to solve the problem.
Free speech isn’t always pretty, but we already have laws in place that at least keep it safe. Anti-abortion protesters feel their message is most needed and most likely to be heard at these clinics, and they have a right to speak there, if nothing else.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
