Supreme Court skeptical of abortion clinic buffer-zone law

U.S. Supreme Court justices raised questions Wednesday about the scope of a Massachusetts law that created 35-foot buffer zones around clinics that perform abortions, suggesting the court will likely strike down the law as unconstitutional.

Anti-abortion protesters have challenged the law, saying it violates their freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by preventing them from standing on the sidewalk and speaking to those entering clinics.

A majority of the justices expressed concerns during a one-hour argument before the high court that the 35-foot no-entry zones around clinics are overly broad.

One of the main concerns raised by justices was that the 2007 law does nothing to distinguish between protesters seeking to disrupt a clinic's work and people who wish to quietly counsel women and persuade them not to have abortions, which would be protected as free speech.

It is not clear if the court would have the votes to go further than striking down the Massachusetts law and possibly overturn a 2000 Supreme Court precedent that upheld a similar buffer-zone law in Colorado.

Of the current nine justices, five were on the bench when that case, Hill v. Colorado, was decided.

The Massachusetts law was enacted in part because of safety concerns highlighted by violent acts committed against abortion providers in the past. In 1994, two abortion clinic workers were killed outside a clinic in Brookline, Mass.

Among those critical of the Massachusetts law was Justice Elena Kagan, from the liberal wing of the court, who at one point commented that the law "does have its problems." Her main concern appeared to be the 35-foot length, which she seemed to think was too broad.

Kagan's remarks, and similar questions from another liberal justice, Stephen Breyer, made it appear likely that there are enough votes to at least strike down the Massachusetts law on narrow grounds. That could potentially give the state the opportunity to enact a revised version.

Breyer pressed the state's lawyer, Jennifer Miller, over ways to distinguish between people who wish to conduct "calm conversations" and those who are more disruptive.

Justice Antonin Scalia in particular seemed sympathetic to the plaintiffs in the case, who he said should not be described as "protesters" because they desire only to speak quietly to women entering a clinic.

"This is not a protest case," he said. The zone "might not be so bad" if it only addressed protesters, he added.

Not all the justices appeared as skeptical about the Massachusetts law.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg focused mainly on the history of violence at abortion clinics and previous state efforts to stop disruptions, which the state says had not worked. She noted that the state "doesn't know in advance" which people encroaching on the buffer zone are likely to be disruptive.

The case specifically concerns people who want to protest outside three Planned Parenthood facilities that offer abortions in addition to other health services for women in Boston, Springfield and Worcester.

A ruling is expected by the end of June and could have an impact on a similar law in Montana, as well as the Colorado one.

The court has defended the First Amendment rights of controversial protesters in recent rulings.

In a 2010 case, Snyder v. Phelps, the justices ruled 8–1 that the anti-gay picketers from pastor Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church were entitled to protest at the funeral of a U.S. soldier who died in Iraq.

“What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in the majority opinion.

Al Jazeera with wire services