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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.
_____________________