Lately, pro-life speech in front of abortion clinics has been in the news. Here at LifeSiteNews.com, we reported last week that Pennsylvania state senator Larry Farnese introduced legislation that would provide a 15-foot buffer around all abortion clinics in the state. Also last week, in Washington, the Supreme Court heard arguments about a 35-foot buffer around clinics in Massachusetts.
When it comes to the First Amendment, it can seem as though protest and activist speech is well respected across America. However, beneath the surface is a disturbing trend against social conservatives, and especially pro-life activists.
Again, in most of the country, things are fine and dandy. In New Hampshire, where I'm from, presidential candidates collect like flies every four years. In 2007, one no-name candidate came to campaign at my alma mater, Plymouth State University. He stood literally inches from the edge of the college's property, harassing students going from the main campus to the cafeteria in Prospect Hall. Police told me they couldn't do anything because he was on public property.
Similarly, union protesters regularly stand in front of businesses make their opinions heard. I used to regularly see union protesters chanting, holding signs, and the like in front of the Sheraton in Arlington, Virginia – and police did nothing, because protesters were on public property.
And who can forget that the Supreme Court correctly verified that even the hateful Westboro Baptist group has the right to stand on public property in accordance with local zoning laws?
So why are pro-lifers treated differently? It's a question LifeSiteNews.com posed to Farnese's spokesperson, Cameron Kline:
In response to a question about why pro-life activists are being targeted with this bill when political protestors, unions, and all other legal protests and activists are allowed on public property to the edge of private property, Kline said the bill is “not singling out any particular side. If any pro-choice groups want to protest, they are free to rally. He just wants to provide breathing room for women who are going to access services in these health clinics that are guaranteed by law.
“This could be anyone who's rallying. It's not just pro-life activists.”
In other words, a bill that targets pro-life activists in its practical application applies – in theory – to everyone. This is a stretch of the equality claim, to be certain, and according to Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) President and Executive Director Dana Cody, a stretch that is often ignored.
“LLDF client Rev. Walter Hoye served time in jail pursuant to such an ordinance in Oakland, California,” Cody told me in an e-mail. “[Eventually,] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals told the district court that the city must apply the ordinance equally or an injunction stopping enforcement could be considered by the appellate court. This is what Justice Scalia calls ‘the abortion distortion’ – any other group can protest, but life-affirming speech is penalized.”
The big question now is whether the Supreme Court will uphold the right to First Amendment speech for pro-life activists. Cody pointed out that there is actually no need for the Massachusetts buffer, or the proposed one in Pennsylvania. “Every city and state in the USA has penal codes should unlawful conduct exist. If someone is engaging in repeated unlawful conduct then an injunction can be sought. [Yet,] without any showing of unlawful conduct pro-life speech can be limited if you are inside the buffer zone.”
On its surface, the case in front of the Court looks pretty cut-and-dry; it's not necessary, it infringes upon the First Amendment with no injury proven, and it specifically targets pro-life activists. However, not only was the Massachusetts law upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, but pro-abortion lawmakers have precedent on their side. The 2000 Supreme Court decision, Hill v. Colorado, said a law limiting interactions within 100 feet of a hospital was valid, since the First Amendment infringements were applied equally and a valid government interest was found. The target of the law was pro-life activists.
From a purely objective standard, the pro-abortion effort to limit the speech of pro-lifers has been as effective as it has been insidious. We must hope and pray the Supreme Court pushes back on this decades-long violation of the First Amendment rights of pro-life activists – not for our sakes, but those of women, their unborn children, and the others whose scars from abortion are less visible.