Buffer Zone Law To Be Argued Before Supreme Court
A Massachusetts case has made its way to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, justices will hear McCullen vs. Coakley, a case that challenges a 2007 Massachusetts law requiring a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics.
Anti-abortion protesters say the law inhibits their right to free speech, and that public sidewalks have historically been the most common forum for public debate. But supporters of the buffer zone say the law prevents protesters from harassing patients. They also point to the need for public safety. In 1994, John Salvi walked into two Brookline Planned Parenthood clinics with a rifle and opened fire, killing two people and wounding five others.
WBUR’s Meghna Chakrabarti spoke with Philip Moran, a Salem-based lawyer and one of the four attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the buffer zone Supreme Court case.
WBUR’s Anthony Brooks also spoke with Attorney General Martha Coakley about her argument in favor of the buffer zones.
Philip Moran, Salem-based lawyer and one of the four attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the buffer zone Supreme Court case.
- “Legal analysts say the court will have a specific task in reviewing the Massachusetts law: It will have to weigh free speech rights against the state’s ability to enact what it considers a public safety regulation, citing years of intimidation and harassment by protesters.”
- “In 1994, John Salvi III shot and killed two abortion clinic workers and wounded five others during attacks on two separate Planned Parenthood clinics in Brookline.”
Other stories from this show:
- Listen: Weekdays, 3 p.m. on 90.9 FM
- Live Call-In: (800) 423-TALK
- Listener Voicemail: (617) 358-0607