Meet the New Buffer Zone, Same as the Old Buffer Zone

by Roxeanne De Luca | July 16th, 2014

Readability

Meet the New Buffer Zone, Same as the Old Buffer Zone

By Rox­eanne DeLuca:

In McCullen v. Coak­ley, the Supreme Court ruled that a 2007 Mass­a­chu­setts statute that restricts speech out­side of abor­tion clin­ics is uncon­sti­tu­tional. (Opin­ion here.) In fact, it so ruled, unan­i­mously. The only dif­fer­ence of opin­ion was whether the statute was content-​neutral and sub­ject to inter­me­di­ate scrutiny, or if it was a content-​based restric­tion on speech and sub­ject to strict scrutiny. Regard­less of the stan­dard of review, the statute was found to not be nar­rowly tai­lored, i.e. it did not use the least restric­tive means nec­es­sary to accom­plish the state’s goal of enabling preg­nant women to access abor­tion clinics.

Unde­terred by a nine-​nothing smack­down, the pro­gres­sives on Bea­con Hill have filed a new buffer zone bill that they claim will meet con­sti­tu­tional muster. (State House News Ser­vice.) Accord­ing to the bill’s proponents,

The Supreme Court gave us a road map of what this bill should say and we are fol­low­ing that road map with very nar­rowly tai­lored new tools for the police and the attor­ney gen­eral,” said Marty Walz, the pres­i­dent and CEO of Planned Par­ent­hood of Massachusetts.

Megan Amund­son, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the NARAL Pro-​Choice Mass­a­chu­setts, said in a state­ment, “It pro­vides addi­tional tools to ensure that all women can access health care free from harass­ment and intimidation.”

This leg­is­la­tion care­fully bal­ances pub­lic safety and access with free speech rights. We urge the Leg­is­la­ture to quickly take up this bill and ensure that it passes before the end of the leg­isla­tive ses­sion to pro­tect safe access to clin­ics,” Amund­son said.

With respect to Ms. Walz and Ms. Amund­son, they could not be more wrong. Let’s com­pare what the Supreme Court said and what the bill (SD2106) actu­ally does.

In the opin­ion, pp 2425, the Court writes,

The Com­mon­wealth points to a sub­stan­tial pub­lic safety risk cre­ated when pro­tes­tors obstruct dri­ve­ways lead­ing to the clin­ics. See App. 18, 41, 51, 8889, 99, 118119. That is, how­ever, an exam­ple of its fail­ure to look to less intru­sive means of address­ing its con­cerns. Any such obstruc­tion can read­ily be addressed through exist­ing local ordi­nances. See, e.g., Worces­ter, Mass., Revised Ordi­nances of 2008, ch. 12, §25(b) (“No per­son shall stand, or place any obstruc­tion of any kind, upon any street, side­walk or cross­walk in such a man­ner as to obstruct a free pas­sage for trav­el­ers thereon”); Boston, Mass., Munic­i­pal Code, ch. 1641.2(d) (2013) (“No per­son shall solicit while walk­ing on, stand­ing on or going into any street or high­way used for motor vehi­cle travel, or any area appur­tenant thereto(including medi­ans, shoul­der areas, bicy­cle lanes, ramps and exit ramps)”).

All of the fore­go­ing mea­sures are, of course, in addi­tion to avail­able generic crim­i­nal statutes for­bid­ding assault, breach of the peace, tres­pass, van­dal­ism, and the like.

The response of Planned Par­ent­hood and NARAL has been to craft a bill (SD 2106) that has oner­ous, vague reg­u­la­tions and dra­con­ian penal­ties. The police are empow­ered to dis­perse any gath­er­ing (pro­vided they record a few state­ments of fact); gath­er­ings that are improp­erly dis­persed have no rem­edy. Despite that, a defen­dant who loses a case is liable civilly, crim­i­nally, and for the attorney’s fees of the Com­mon­wealth of Mass­a­chu­setts and/​or any pri­vate party plaintiff.

The attor­neys’ fees in the McCullen case are likely to be well in excess of a mil­lion dol­lars. As any side­walk coun­selor who chal­lenges the new buffer zone bill in the court sys­tem would owe the Com­mon­wealth a sim­i­lar amount of money if she lost, the obvi­ous goal of this part of the statute (i.e. the new Sec­tion 1) is to pre­vent Eleanor McCullen from get­ting it into her head that she can chal­lenge the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of this law. I’m unclear as to where in the McCullen opin­ion the Roberts court said that bla­tant retal­i­a­tion was accept­able, but per­haps Marty Walz or Megan Amund­son could point me to the rel­e­vant pages.

The law sounds good, if one does not read it too closely: it enables the police to dis­perse gath­er­ings that sub­stan­tially impede access to the clinic. Aside from the fact that the dis­per­sal will never be applied to a Planned Par­ent­hood employee, the law does not require any sort of due process prior to the dis­per­sal order and leaves no means for aggrieved side­walk coun­selors to chal­lenge an inap­pro­pri­ate dis­per­sal order. (For fun, the dis­per­sal zone is a mere twenty-​five feet away from the entrance. One won­ders why Walz didn’t just write a bill with a 3411″ buffer zone.) “Lack of due process” and “nar­rowly tai­lored” don’t usu­ally go together.

Through­out the opin­ion, the Court held that the Peti­tion­ers wanted to coun­sel preg­nant women, and that, while protests could be ade­quately car­ried out with a buffer zone, per­sonal and car­ing com­mu­ni­ca­tion could not. (See slip opin­ion, pp 2022.) The new law fails to dis­tin­guish leaflet­ting, hand­billing, and one-​on-​one dis­cus­sions from protests. In fact, one-​on-​one dis­cus­sions are arguably out­lawed (or at least sub­jected to the whims of the police who enforce the law): the law applies to a “gath­er­ing,” which is defined as “2 or more indi­vid­u­als.” “[Two] or more indi­vid­u­als” can be a side­walk coun­selor and a will­ing lis­tener. Way to miss the point, Bea­con Hill.

Lastly, what is not banned is often just as impor­tant as what is banned. There is noth­ing in the statute that pre­vents Planned Par­ent­hood employ­ees from harass­ing or bait­ing pro-​lifers, nor is there any­thing that would ensure that a way­ward clinic employee can­not get side­walk coun­selors “dis­persed” merely by stand­ing near them. The only log­i­cal peo­ple against whom the crime can apply are pro-​lifers.

By Roxeanne DeLuca:

In McCullen v. Coakley, the Supreme Court ruled that a 2007 Massachusetts statute that restricts speech outside of abortion clinics is unconstitutional.  (Opinion here.) In fact, it so ruled, unanimously. The only difference of opinion was whether the statute was content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny, or if it was a content-based restriction on speech and subject to strict scrutiny.  Regardless of the standard of review, the statute was found to not be narrowly tailored, i.e. it did not use the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish the state’s goal of enabling pregnant women to access abortion clinics.

Undeterred by a nine-nothing smackdown, the progressives on Beacon Hill have filed a new buffer zone bill that they claim will meet constitutional muster. (State House News Service.) According to the bill’s proponents,

“The Supreme Court gave us a road map of what this bill should say and we are following that road map with very narrowly tailored new tools for the police and the attorney general,” said Marty Walz, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.

Megan Amundson, executive director of the NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said in a statement, “It provides additional tools to ensure that all women can access health care free from harassment and intimidation.”

“This legislation carefully balances public safety and access with free speech rights. We urge the Legislature to quickly take up this bill and ensure that it passes before the end of the legislative session to protect safe access to clinics,” Amundson said.

With respect to Ms. Walz and Ms. Amundson, they could not be more wrong.  Let’s compare what the Supreme Court said and what the bill (SD2106) actually does.

In the opinion, pp 24-25, the Court writes,

The Commonwealth points to a substantial public safety risk created when protestors obstruct driveways leading to the clinics. See App. 18, 41, 51, 88–89, 99, 118–119. That is, however, an example of its failure to look to less intrusive means of addressing its concerns. Any such obstruction can readily be addressed through existing local ordinances. See, e.g., Worcester, Mass., Revised Ordinances of 2008, ch. 12, §25(b) (“No person shall stand, or place any obstruction of any kind, upon any street, sidewalk or crosswalk in such a manner as to obstruct a free passage for travelers thereon”); Boston, Mass., Municipal Code, ch. 16–41.2(d) (2013) (“No person shall solicit while walking on, standing on or going into any street or highway used for motor vehicle travel, or any area appurtenant thereto(including medians, shoulder areas, bicycle lanes, ramps and exit ramps)”).

All of the foregoing measures are, of course, in addition to available generic criminal statutes forbidding assault, breach of the peace, trespass, vandalism, and the like.

The response of Planned Parenthood and NARAL has been to craft a bill (SD 2106) that has onerous, vague regulations and draconian penalties.  The police are empowered to disperse any gathering (provided they record a few statements of fact); gatherings that are improperly dispersed have no remedy.  Despite that, a defendant who loses a case is liable civilly, criminally, and for the attorney’s fees of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and/or any private party plaintiff.

The attorneys’ fees in the McCullen case are likely to be well in excess of a million dollars.  As any sidewalk counselor who challenges the new buffer zone bill in the court system would owe the Commonwealth a similar amount of money if she lost, the obvious goal of this part of the statute (i.e. the new Section 1) is to prevent Eleanor McCullen from getting it into her head that she can challenge the constitutionality of this law. I’m unclear as to where in the McCullen opinion the Roberts court said that blatant retaliation was acceptable, but perhaps Marty Walz  or Megan Amundson could point me to the relevant pages.

The law sounds good, if one does not read it too closely: it enables the police to disperse gatherings that substantially impede access to the clinic.  Aside from the fact that the dispersal will never be applied to a Planned Parenthood employee, the law does not require any sort of due process prior to the dispersal order and leaves no means for aggrieved sidewalk counselors to challenge an inappropriate dispersal order.  (For fun, the dispersal zone is a mere twenty-five feet away from the entrance.  One wonders why Walz didn’t just write a bill with a 34’11” buffer zone.) “Lack of due process” and “narrowly tailored” don’t usually go together.

Throughout the opinion, the Court held that the Petitioners wanted to counsel pregnant women, and that, while protests could be adequately carried out with a buffer zone, personal and caring communication could not.  (See slip opinion, pp 20-22.)  The new law fails to distinguish leafletting, handbilling, and one-on-one discussions from protests.  In fact, one-on-one discussions are arguably outlawed (or at least subjected to the whims of the police who enforce the law): the law applies to a “gathering,” which is defined as “2 or more individuals.” “[Two] or more individuals” can be a sidewalk counselor and a willing listener. Way to miss the point, Beacon Hill.

Lastly, what is not banned is often just as important as what is banned.  There is nothing in the statute that prevents Planned Parenthood employees from harassing or baiting pro-lifers, nor is there anything that would ensure that a wayward clinic employee cannot get sidewalk counselors “dispersed” merely by standing near them. The only logical people against whom the crime can apply are pro-lifers.

Comments are closed.

Buy My Book!

Buy My Book!

Hit DaTipJar and Support Conservative Journalism & Opinion




Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 4,147 other subscribers

DH Gate Dot Com, Online Shopping

Cheap ecigarette from China - DHgate

Best Grassroots Blogs

Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Catholic CD of the Month

Know your Catholic Faith

Da Pages

Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Donald Trump Calls on DaTechGuy Worcester MA

 
%d bloggers like this: