U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Pro-Life Freedom of Speech
Friday, June 27, 2014
 
In a historic victory for pro-life Americans, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law banning pro-life sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics. The justices ruled in McCullen v. Coakle that the law was unconstitutional, affirming pro-lifers' First Amendment rights.

 

The suit challenging the law was brought forth by 77 year-old grandmother Eleanor McCullen and other pro-life advocates who offer sidewalk counseling to women entering abortion clinics and was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom. Massachusetts' 2007 law on abortion clinic protest had created 35 feet "no pro-life speech zones", so-called "buffer zones" around abortion clinics, which extended onto public sidewalks. The policy targeted any form of protest to abortion, verbally or silently. Pro-life advocates wearing a pro-life t-shirt, holding a sign, or distributing pamphlets while in the "no pro-life speech zone" outside an abortion clinic could be arrested and convicted of criminal charges. The law both censored and discriminated against anyone expressing pro-life views while clinic employees could say whatever they wanted within the restricted zone.

 

The Court ruled unanimously that the Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment, noting, "By its very terms, the Act restricts access to 'public way[s]' and 'sidewalk[s],' places that have traditionally been open for speech activities and that the Court has accordingly labeled 'traditional public fora.'" However, Justices split on the reason why. The majority opinion, backed by Justices Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, found the law unconstitutional because its limits on speech were too broad. Meanwhile, the minority opinion, supported by Justices Scalia, Kenney and Thomas, said the law unfairly restricted pro-life speech but allowed abortion clinic employees to speak freely.

 

Justice Alito, concurring in judgment, called the Massachusetts law "blatant viewpoint discrimination" stating,    

 

"Consider this entirely realistic situation. A woman enters a buffer zone and heads  haltingly toward the entrance. A sidewalk counselor, such as petitioners, enters the buffer zone, approaches the woman and says, "If you have doubts about an abortion, let me try to answer any questions you may have. The clinic will not give  you good information." At the same time, a clinic employee, as instructed by the management, approaches the same woman and says, "Come inside and we will give you honest answers to all your questions." The sidewalk counselor and the clinic employee expressed opposing viewpoints, but only the first violated the statute.

 

Or suppose that the issue is not abortion but the safety of a particular facility.    Suppose that there was a recent report of a botched abortion at the clinic. A non employee may not enter the buffer zone to warn about the clinic's health record, but an employee may enter and tell prospective clients that the clinic is safe.   

 

It is clear on the face of the Massachusetts law that it discriminates based on viewpoint. Speech in favor of the clinic and its work by employees and agents is permitted; speech criticizing the clinic and its work is a crime. This is blatant viewpoint discrimination.

In this case, I do not think that it is possible to reach a judgment about the intent of the Massachusetts Legislature without taking into account the fact that the law that the legislature enacted blatantly discriminates based on viewpoint."

 

Lead counsel in McCullen v. Coakley, Mark Rienzi, professor of constitutional law at Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law, commented after the decision, "Americans have the freedom to talk to whomever they please on public sidewalks. That includes peaceful pro-lifers like Eleanor McCullen, who just wants to offer information and help to women who would like it. The Supreme Court has affirmed a critical freedom that has been an essential part of American life since the nation's founding." 

 

Pro-life handouts were an important part of the case. A historian testified to the Court on the use of pamphlets as an historic and important method of communication, extending back to the American Revolution: "Then, as now, it was seen that the pamphlet allowed one to do things that were not possible in any other form."

 

Then, pamphlets including Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776) and John Dickinson, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767), helped popularize arguments for freedom leading to the American Revolution and ultimately independence from tyranny.

 

Now, the simple pamphlet lets a woman know that she does not need to face an unexpected pregnancy alone and where she can go to receive emotional and practical support. The pamphlet shows her pictures of the development of a child in the womb and explains what milestones are taking place with her son or daughter. The pamphlet helps her make the decision to escape the 'tyranny' of abortion.  

 

PNCI applauds the Supreme Court decision.


 


Back