

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A seminal case for safe access to reproductive health care services is before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

In McCullen v. Coakley--the court is hearing a suit brought by an anti-choice protester trying to overturn a Massachusetts law that establishied a 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances to reproductive health care facilities.
Proponents of the buffer zones, which were enacted in the state in 2007, say they provide crucial protection from intimidation, harassment, and violence that reproductive health care providers, staff, and patients face daily.
However, plaintiff Eleanor McCullen argues the buffer zones violate her First Amendment rights but women's health and pro-choice advocates strongly disagree.
"To characterize buffer zone laws as nothing more than an infringement on the rights of concerned, sweet little old ladies is to erase over 4,700 incidents of clinic violence and over 140 clinic blockades that have taken place since 1995," Michelle Kinsey Bruns, a Virginia-based activist who's done clinic escorting in eight different states, told ThinkProgress. "It's a slap in the face to the victims of those attacks, and it puts others at risk for still more violence."
The National Abortion Federation, which tracks incidents of violence at abortion clinics, has documented 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 181 arsons, and thousands of other incidents of criminal activities.
The Massachusetts law was in no small way a direct result of this history of violence.
In 1994, two employees of an abortion clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts -- Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols -- were killed and five people injured when an abortion opponent went on a shooting rampage at the clinic.
A similar buffer-zone law in Colorado was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2000 decision. Montana also has a similar state law as do municipalities across the United States which have been upheld by judicial review. Today's hearing, however, is receiving audience with a much more conservative Supreme Court.
The ruling on the Massachusetts case is expected by the end of June, Reuters reports.
_____________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A seminal case for safe access to reproductive health care services is before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

In McCullen v. Coakley--the court is hearing a suit brought by an anti-choice protester trying to overturn a Massachusetts law that establishied a 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances to reproductive health care facilities.
Proponents of the buffer zones, which were enacted in the state in 2007, say they provide crucial protection from intimidation, harassment, and violence that reproductive health care providers, staff, and patients face daily.
However, plaintiff Eleanor McCullen argues the buffer zones violate her First Amendment rights but women's health and pro-choice advocates strongly disagree.
"To characterize buffer zone laws as nothing more than an infringement on the rights of concerned, sweet little old ladies is to erase over 4,700 incidents of clinic violence and over 140 clinic blockades that have taken place since 1995," Michelle Kinsey Bruns, a Virginia-based activist who's done clinic escorting in eight different states, told ThinkProgress. "It's a slap in the face to the victims of those attacks, and it puts others at risk for still more violence."
The National Abortion Federation, which tracks incidents of violence at abortion clinics, has documented 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 181 arsons, and thousands of other incidents of criminal activities.
The Massachusetts law was in no small way a direct result of this history of violence.
In 1994, two employees of an abortion clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts -- Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols -- were killed and five people injured when an abortion opponent went on a shooting rampage at the clinic.
A similar buffer-zone law in Colorado was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2000 decision. Montana also has a similar state law as do municipalities across the United States which have been upheld by judicial review. Today's hearing, however, is receiving audience with a much more conservative Supreme Court.
The ruling on the Massachusetts case is expected by the end of June, Reuters reports.
_____________________
A seminal case for safe access to reproductive health care services is before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

In McCullen v. Coakley--the court is hearing a suit brought by an anti-choice protester trying to overturn a Massachusetts law that establishied a 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances to reproductive health care facilities.
Proponents of the buffer zones, which were enacted in the state in 2007, say they provide crucial protection from intimidation, harassment, and violence that reproductive health care providers, staff, and patients face daily.
However, plaintiff Eleanor McCullen argues the buffer zones violate her First Amendment rights but women's health and pro-choice advocates strongly disagree.
"To characterize buffer zone laws as nothing more than an infringement on the rights of concerned, sweet little old ladies is to erase over 4,700 incidents of clinic violence and over 140 clinic blockades that have taken place since 1995," Michelle Kinsey Bruns, a Virginia-based activist who's done clinic escorting in eight different states, told ThinkProgress. "It's a slap in the face to the victims of those attacks, and it puts others at risk for still more violence."
The National Abortion Federation, which tracks incidents of violence at abortion clinics, has documented 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 181 arsons, and thousands of other incidents of criminal activities.
The Massachusetts law was in no small way a direct result of this history of violence.
In 1994, two employees of an abortion clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts -- Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols -- were killed and five people injured when an abortion opponent went on a shooting rampage at the clinic.
A similar buffer-zone law in Colorado was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2000 decision. Montana also has a similar state law as do municipalities across the United States which have been upheld by judicial review. Today's hearing, however, is receiving audience with a much more conservative Supreme Court.
The ruling on the Massachusetts case is expected by the end of June, Reuters reports.
_____________________