Supreme Court hears abortion zone case, declines 20-week ban

Last updated on: January 17, 2014 at 9:07 am by CNA Daily News

Supreme Court hears abortion zone case, declines 20-week ban 2014-01-17T09:07:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., Jan 17, 2014 / 02:07 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Supreme Court will rule this year on a case involving “buffer zones” outside abortion clinics, but it has declined to hear a case on state abortion bans after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

On Jan. 15, the court heard oral arguments in McCullen v. Coakley, a case challenging a Massachusetts state law requiring a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, in which protestors and pro-life counselors may not enter to speak with patients.

Supporters of the law say it is a matter of safety and unobstructed access to clinics, while opponents argue that it infringes upon freedom of speech and unfairly targets those who hold pro-life viewpoints.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case in June.

The state's brief on the case argues that the law is “justified solely by legitimate government interests in public safety and health care access.”

However, pro-life challengers to the law say that it infringes upon their constitutionally-protected First Amendment right to the freedom of speech. They have argued in a legal brief that the law “indiscriminately criminalizes even peaceful, consensual, non-obstructive conversation and leafleting” and that it unfairly targets certain kinds of speech, namely, pro-life counseling and views.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the buffer law in January 2013, ruling that the First Amendment does not guarantee an audience “available at close range,” and arguing that pro-life counselors still have access to women seeking abortions, even with the 35-foot buffer zone in place.

Pro-life organizers from around the country have questioned the ruling.

“Though the Massachusetts law in question certainly has to do with abortion, and the risk to thousands of innocent human lives is severe, this is a First Amendment issue first and foremost,” said Lila Rose, president of the pro-life investigative organization Live Action, in a Jan. 14 statement.

“The Constitution of the United States does not become void as one gets close to an abortion facility. The Court has a crucial opportunity today to defend our nation's foundational commitment to freedom of speech.”

Dana Cody, president and executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation, called for the “Supreme Court to put an end to these perverse attempts to silence pro-life speakers.”

“Massachusetts is grasping at straws and its 'bubble zone' law flies in the face of the very notion of Freedom of Speech,” she said.

The oral arguments in the Massachusetts case were heard two days after the Supreme Court announced that it would not be hearing an appeal from the state of Arizona which seeks to re-instate its law barring most late-term abortions.

Enacted in April 2012, the Arizona law prohibited most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, measured by the date of the woman's last menstrual period. About a dozen other states have similar restrictions, although they generally measure from fertilization – about two weeks later than the Arizona law. Several other states ban abortion at 24 weeks, the point of fetal viability.

Advocates of the Arizona law point to evidence that unborn babies can feel pain at 20 weeks of development and argue that late-term abortions pose a greater risk to the mother.

In May 2013, a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional, saying that Arizona's limits on late-term abortion violated previous Supreme Court rulings that expanded access to abortion, including the landmark 1973 “Roe v. Wade” case.

Appeals court judges also dismissed arguments based on the unborn baby's ability to feel pain, saying that the state of Arizona can instead handle this problem by “requiring anesthetization of the fetuses about to be killed.”

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, offering no comments on its decision. This allows the ruling from the appeals court to stand, overturning the regulation. Other state laws will not be affected.

Previous Post

January 17, 2014

Haiti encounters hope, challenges four years after devastation

Next Post

January 17, 2014 LA immigrant kids implore Pope to help detained parents

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I am the final plague that caused Pharaoh to finally let the Israelites go. What am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The plague of blood Death of the firstborn The plague of locusts The plague of darkness