WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case challenging the constitutionality of so-called “buffer zones” surrounding abortion facilities that restrict access by pro-life sidewalk counselors and protesters. The decision not to take the case comes despite the fact that the complaint was supported by 14 attorneys general and a group of pro-life and Christian organizations.
On Monday, the nation’s highest court declined to hear a case brought by the conservative law firm Becket on behalf of pro-life Catholic mother and sidewalk counselor Debra Vitagliano, The Hill reported.
Vitagliano, an occupational therapist and advocate for the unborn, had argued that a Westchester County law passed last year violated her First Amendment rights.
The law established a buffer zone around abortion facilities and provided criminal penalties for pro-life advocates who “knowingly” cross the boundary with the intention of discouraging abortion by protesting, counseling, or educating people going into abortion facilities.
Violators can be charged with a misdemeanor and hit with a fine or punished with jail time, including up to a year behind bars for repeat offenders.
The part of the law creating an eight-foot zone around individuals entering abortion facilities was repealed in August, though other provisions restricting the speech of pro-life advocates outside abortion facilities remain.
WATCH: UK Catholic woman fined again for silently praying outside abortion center
The Westchester County law is protected by over two decades of precedent.
In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Hill v. Colorado that such “buffer zones” were constitutional. The Hill decision has faced criticism from the conservatives on the court.
“Legal scholars and judges have long criticized Hill, and last year, five justices of the Supreme Court stated that Hill was a major departure from our nation’s protections of free speech,” Becket said in August, LifeSiteNews reported.
“Debra’s case presents an ideal opportunity for the Supreme Court to right Hill’s wrong and protect all those who want to serve abortion-vulnerable women,” the legal group said.
In Vitagliano’s complaint, she argued that protesting abortion is protected speech under the First Amendment and called on the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier decision.
“If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects the right to engage in peaceful, face-to-face conversations about important matters on a public sidewalk,” attorneys with Becket wrote in a statement to the Supreme Court.
Vitagliano was supported in her appeal by numerous pro-life organizations and over a dozen conservative attorneys general.
Catholic News Agency reported at the time that the attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia had signed onto an amicus brief supporting the lawsuit.
In addition, Christian and pro-life groups, including Christian Legal Society, the Knights of Columbus, and Students for Life of America, supported Vitaglinao’s case, The Hill noted.
READ: 14 states urge Supreme Court to strike down bubble zone laws stifling peaceful pro-life activism
Regardless, on Monday the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. Numerous outlets have reported that no dissents were recorded despite criticism of the underlying precedent by the conservatives on the Court.
Reacting to news of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the case, Vitagliano said in a statement to Fox News Digital that “[a] pregnant woman in need deserves to know that she and her child will be loved, defended, and supported.”
“Westchester County threatened to put me in jail for over a year, just for speaking a message of hope to women outside abortion clinics,” she said. “No government official should try to outlaw compassionate conversations on a public sidewalk.”
Meanwhile, this isn’t the first time this week the Supreme Court has bowed out of a case of importance for conservatives.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday also declined to take up a First Amendment case concerning Washington state’s prohibition on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors, i.e., therapy that seeks to guide young people struggling with gender confusion to align their feelings and desires with their God-given biological reality.
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that Washington state had “silenced one side of” a “fierce debate over how best to help minors with gender dysphoria” and predicted that the issue will come before the Supreme Court again in the future.