Supreme Court: abortion clinic ‘buffer-zones’ violate the First Amendment

The Supreme Court struck down Thursday a Massachusetts law that barred protesters from entering a 35-foot "buffer zone" around abortion clinics in the state.

The justices ruled unanimously that the buffer-zone law, which barred non-employees of the clinic from entering public sidewalks within 35 feet of an abortion clinic, violated the first Amendment rights of those who wished to offer counseling to patients entering the facility.

"The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth's asserted inter­ests," Roberts writes in his majority opinion. "The 
Commonwealth has too readily forgone options that could serve its interests just as well, without substantially burdening the kind of speech in which petitioners wish to engage."

Massachusetts had defended the law as necessary to defend public safety and patient access to health care, as protesters regularly gather outside of abortion clinics. The court ruled that, while public safety is a "legitimate" interest of a state government, it does not, in this case, outweigh the "serious burdens" imposed on free speech.

Some observers noted an irony in the ruling: last year, the Supreme Court issued regulations that barred protests in the plaza area outside its courtroom, an area much larger than the buffer-zone in the Massachusetts law. NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, a pro-choice group, put out this graphic comparing the two areas:

The Supreme Court decision will likely have a ripple effect into other states. Massachusetts was one of three states with a buffer zone law, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the others being Colorado and and Montana. Massachusetts began moving towards its law to restrict access to the space around clinics in 1994, when there was a national wave of violence against abortion providers. It's likely that Colorado and Montana will have to re-evaluate their own restrictions in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via