On Monday, the Supreme Court refused a challenge to a New York City law governing crisis pregnancy center disclosures and a Denver law protecting abortion clinic access.
While witnesses on both sides of the issue claimed to be in favor of protecting women’s health, anti-choice witnesses relied heavily on debunked science and distorted interpretations of the bill to make many of their claims.
In striking a Massachusetts buffer zone law, the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically reframed the debate over balancing the rights of patients and providers with the rights of abortion protesters.
The Supreme Court has announced it will take up a case involving Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man convicted in 2010 under federal law for posting a series of threatening messages on his Facebook page.
Five years after the brutal murder of Dr. George Tiller, our political and legal climate has only made targeted clinic violence more likely.
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.
Attorneys for Mark Holick argue his “wanted” posters featuring a Wichita clinic operator were protected free speech, but a Kansas judge ruled a trial is necessary to decide.
The attorney of a pastor accused of handing out “wanted” posters for a Wichita clinic operator says the pastor is protected by the First Amendment.
The Department of Justice wants a federal appeals court to consider whether a letter promising explosives under an abortion provider’s car should be protected by the First Amendment.
A federal judge concluded that Angel Dillard’s letter to abortion provider Dr. Mila Means, which warned Means she should check her car for explosives, is protected speech, demonstrating the challenges in keeping clinics, staff, and patients safe.