From the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014:
[….]
In 2007, Massachusetts amended its Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act, which had been enacted in 2000 to address clashes between abortion opponents and advocates of abortion rights outside clinics where abortions were performed. The amended version of the Act makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a “public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any “reproductive health care facility,” defined as “a place, other than within or upon the grounds of a hospital, where abortions are offered or performed.”[….]
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.
A Massachusetts statute makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a “public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any place, other than a hospital, where abortions are performed. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 266, §§120E½(a), (b) (West 2012). Petitioners are individuals who approach and talk to women outside such facilities, attempting to dissuade them from having abortions. The statute prevents petitioners from doing so near the facilities’ entrances. The question presented is whether the statute violates the First Amendment.
[….]
Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks—sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history. Respondents assert undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on those same streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities. But here the Commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes. The Commonwealth may not do that consistent with the First Amendment.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Today, at the United States Supreme Court:
ABC News @ABC
A new, imposing eight-foot-high fence was erected overnight at the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of protests over a bombshell draft opinion on abortion.
[….]
1:16 PM · May 5, 2022
Apparently the First Amendment doesn’t apply.
“…Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks—sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history…”
“…by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes…”
Apparently the First Amendment doesn’t apply to criticism of the Supreme Court. Snowflakes.
“Choice is Freedom”
Previously:
Stare decisis don’t mean shit (May 2, 2022)
Into the streets (May 2, 2022)
Gleeful handwringing (May 3, 2022)
It’s the GOP’s world, now you just get to live in it (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 2 (May 3, 2022)
A statement (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 3 (May 3, 2022)
BREAKING NEWS: Pearl-clutcher clutches pearls (May 3, 2022)
Heartland POD: SCOTUS Abortion Case (May 3, 2022)
Into the streets, part 4 (May 4, 2022)
Into the streets, part 5 (May 5, 2022)
