According to About Pro-life Guide Christina Dunigan, the Supreme Court's decision was all about abortionists' protecting their profits, under the guise of safety.
Dateline: 6/28/00
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to impose certain restrictions on constitutionally-protected speech outside of medical facilities, including abortion clinics. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said that the Colorado "Bubble" law's restrictions on speech-related conduct furthered a legitimate government interest - to protect the health and safety of its citizens - and did not violate the constitutional free-speech rights of the protesters. Concurring were Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Dissenting were Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.
The 1993 Colorado law stated that, within 100 feet of a health care facility's entrance, no one may distribute leaflets, display signs or engage in sidewalk counseling within eight feet (2.4 meters) of another person without first getting the person's permission. A violation of the law is a misdemeanor, with a maximum possible punishment of six months in jail or a $750 fine.
The law was challenged by three individuals, Leila Jeanne Hill, Audrey Himmelmann, and Everitt W. Simpson, Jr., who had in the past displayed signs and a model of a fetus, handed out literature and sought to converse with patients entering abortion clinics.
The Court primarily focused on the question of whether the First Amendment rights of the speaker are abridged by the protection the statute provides for the unwilling listener.
In a previous ruling, Ward v. Rock Against Racism, the Court had held constitutional a statute that "imposed content-neutral time, place, and manner" restrictions on free speech which were "narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest." In that case, the regulation involved a restriction against excessive noise, which the concert held by Rock Against Racism was found to have violated.
The petitioners argued that the statute was not content-neutral for two reasons:
1) The content of the speech must be examined to determine whether it "constitutes oral protest, counseling and education" as stated in the law. As support for this view, they offered the scenario that "an individual near a health care facility who knowingly approaches a pedestrian to say "good morning" or to randomly recite lines from a novel would not be subject to the statute's restrictions."
2) They also argued that the statute is "viewpoint-based" because the statute "makes it likely that prosecution will occur based on displeasure with the position taken by the speaker."
The Court responded with three reasons that the Colorado Law passes the Ward content-neutrality test:
1) It is a regulation of places where some speech may occur, not a "regulation of speech."
2) It was not adopted because of disagreement with the message of any speech. Most importantly, the State Supreme Court unequivocally held that the restrictions apply to all demonstrators, regardless of viewpoint, and the statute makes no reference to the content of speech.
3) The State's interests are unrelated to the content of the demonstrators' speech.
The petitioners also argued that argued that the statue was invalid because it amounted to prior restraint by requiring protesters to obtain permission to engage in constitutionally protected speech. The Court rejected this argument by saying that no form of speech was prevented or banned, the "permission" requirement in the statute only applied to the place where the speech took place (whether it was more or less than eight feet away).
A previous "bubble law" case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y., held that an injunctive provision creating a speech-free floating buffer zone with a 15-foot radius violated the First Amendment, both because the "buffer zone" was too large, and because it "floated" with the patient, requiring a protester to actively retreat to maintain the 15 foot zone.
Today's ruling would indicate that "bubbles" are ok, as long as they apply to everyone, aren't too big, and don't float.
More Supreme Court News: Abortion Ban Struck Down
Articles On This Case
"Bubble-Zone" Ruling Should Boost Sales
According to About Pro-life Guide Christina Dunigan, the Supreme Court's decision was all about abortionists' protecting their profits, under the guise of safety.
Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Protest Limits
Reuters/Yahoo! report on the Court's ruling that states may require anti-abortion demonstrators to stay away from anyone entering or leaving medical facilities.
Supreme Court Dispatch: Bubbles
Regardless of how you feel about abortion, the case turns on whether you would privilege the rights of the protesters to pray and/or shriek, or the rights of the clients to not be prayed and/or shrieked at, says Dalia Lithwick in this Slate Dispatch.
Relevant Supreme Court Opinions