Reading the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Massachusetts buffer zone case, you might get the idea that free speech in the form of protests and handing out literature about social and political issues is practiced without restriction in the United States. But that is not the case.
I have seen countless women reduced to tears and shaking, just for trying to access the health care to which they are constitutionally entitled. That isn’t peaceful assembly. That is harassment, hiding behind the First Amendment.
I don’t remember ever seeing the word “gentle” used to describe queer activism in the ’90s, anti-war marches in the 2000s, or the Occupy movement in 2011, even though those activists have a much more “gentle” record than anti-choice protesters do.
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.
According to the Roberts Court, Massachusetts had not shown that it tried to address clinic protests in a less restrictive means than enacting a fixed 35-foot buffer zone.
The high court hasn’t yet ruled on buffer zones or Hobby Lobby, but it did say a legal challenge to an Ohio elections law can proceed.
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.
The Susan B. Anthony List wants to be able to run ads claiming the ACA supports taxpayer funding for abortion, and today the Roberts Court took them one step closer to being able to do so.
The unanimous ruling is the latest in the line of religious nonprofit challenges to the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act.
A conservative legal advocacy organization has asked the Roberts Court to review a federal appeals court decision reinstating portions of New York City’s truth-in-advertising law regulating crisis pregnancy centers.