The lawsuit filed on behalf of an evangelical couple and their high school children argues the buffer zone unconstitutionally blocks their ability to “counsel” patients entering reproductive health-care clinics.
From Michael Dunn’s acquittal in the murder of Jordan Davis to a pending nominee to the federal bench, now more than ever our courts matter.
Despite the 3-2 committee vote against the patient safety zone, it could still pass in a floor vote because of New Hampshire’s unusual legislative process.
What relatively peaceful anti-choice protesters may not understand is that their behavior is relative: They’re a physical representation of threats that have already been made, and in some cases executed, in the past and online.
There’s a growing conflict between states that recognize a fundamental right to make end-of-life decisions and those that override those wishes only when a person is pregnant.
A state senate committee heard arguments this week for enacting a 25-foot patient safety zone, while several anti-choice bills have been introduced in the house.
The Roberts Court may be skeptical of buffer zones around abortion clinics, but the rest of the country doesn’t seem to be.
Ald. Lisa Subeck plans to introduce an ordinance that would create a buffer zone of 160 feet around health-care facilities in the city while banning protesters from being within eight feet of a person entering a clinic, punishable by a fine of up to $750.
In Supreme Court arguments over buffer zones and gun restrictions, the Roberts Court cut women victims out of the equation.
Though the fate of buffer zone laws now rests with the Supreme Court, New Hampshire legislators decided not to wait to try to protect patients.