Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
Supreme Court’s abortion clinic ruling hailed as win for women

Supreme Court’s abortion clinic ruling hailed as win for women

Last updated on: June 26, 2014 at 10:24 pm by CNA Daily News

Supreme Court’s abortion clinic ruling hailed as win for women 2014-06-26T22:24:00+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., Jun 26, 2014 / 04:24 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down a 35-foot buffer zone around Massachusetts abortion clinics is being praised as a victory not only for pro-life counsellors but for all women.

Jeanne Monahan, president of the March for Life, told CNA that the ruling “absolutely protects women.”

“Abortion is bad physiologically and psychologically for many, many, many women,” she continued, adding that the ruling supports counselling that “allows women to have informed consent.”

“Abortion can be the most important decision a woman makes in her life, and sometimes she rushes in there in a state of panic,” Monahan explained. “This allows her to put the brakes on, to think about it, to think about what’s actually happening inside of her.”

“So many women regret their abortions,” she lamented.

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Eleanor McCullen and other pro-life sidewalk counsellors in McCullen v. Coakley, striking down a Massachusetts law that placed a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, including on sidewalks and public streets.

McCullen’s lawyers argued that the law unconstitutionally violated freedom of speech and penalized only those with certain views – specifically pro-life views – from offering counselling and education to those entering the clinics, even if they do so peacefully.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the buffer zone regulations “burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests” of protecting access to health care.

“Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks,” he noted, specifically highlighting the significance of such public places as areas for discussion and exchange of ideas.

The decision means that “there is no abortion exception to the First Amendment, and it may very well mean the end to abortion buffer zones around the country,” Casey Mattox, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told CNA.

Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakle said in a June 26 press conference that the state and abortion officials were disappointed with the decision, seeing it as a blow against abortion access.

“The decision today is obviously a disappointment to us,” Coakley said, adding that she would work with law enforcement across the state to enforce portions of the law prohibiting “harassment,” such as “screaming” at abortion clinic employees, which still stand after the Supreme Court decision.

Catholic University of America law professor Mark Rienzi, who served as lead counsel in the McCullen v. Coakley case, praised the high court for affirming “a critical freedom that has been an essential part of American life since the nation’s founding.”

Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley of Boston, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, also welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the ruling “has affirmed the American tradition of basic constitutional rights for all.”

He criticized the overturned law, saying it discriminated against pro-life counsellors while exempting pro-abortion “clinic escorts.” This treatment, he continued, sought to “deny that their fellow Americans who seek to protect the unborn have the same rights as other Americans,” specifically “the right to participate in the public square and serve the vulnerable in accord with our moral convictions.”

Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, called the decision “wonderful news” not only “because it upholds our crucial First Amendment rights of free speech” but also “for women considering abortion because it frees sidewalk counselors at abortion facilities to be able to offer compassionate and caring alternatives.”

In a June 26 statement, she challenged those who honestly call themselves “pro-choice” to welcome the decision, asking them to “give the woman a chance at choosing life by presenting her options she may not even know about.”

“Sidewalk counselors can't stop women from having abortions, but they can offer information, resources, and just a listening ear to those young women who feel desperate and alone,” she added.

Ashley McGuire, senior fellow at The Catholic Association, called the ruling “a double victory for the First Amendment.”

“The Supreme Court has rightly held that it is unconstitutional to grant preferential legal status to the speech of pro-abortion activists while punishing pro-life speech,” she stated, adding that this protection of free speech allows for free discussion in public places.

“This was a victory for free speech, this was a victory for religious liberty and, by the way this was a victory for women,” McGuire continued, saying that because all of the women on the Supreme Court agreed in the unanimous decision, it cannot be viewed as anti-woman.

Previous Post

June 26, 2014

Pope: Jesus was a pastor, not a 'moralistic' power-seeker

Next Post

June 26, 2014 Vatican releases outline for October synod on the family

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

What physical affliction did Job suffer?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Painful boils Blindness Leprosy Broken bones