2 candidates, 2 reactions to abortion clinic buffer-zone ruling

Listen to this article

The two major party candidates for Maryland attorney general had diverse reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down — on free-speech grounds — a 35-foot protest-free zone outside abortion clinics in Massachusetts.

State Sen. Brian E. Frosh, the Democratic nominee, said a buffer zone could appropriately serve the compelling governmental interest of preventing women from being harassed when exercising their right to terminate a pregnancy. But Frosh added he could not provide a specific minimum distance that could constitutionally be imposed that protects the competing rights to free speech and to medical care.

“Free speech, when it crosses the line of intimidation or harassment, has to give way to a person’s right to health care,” said Frosh, of Montgomery County. “Women ought to be able to get health care without being harassed.”

Jeffrey N. Pritzker, the Republican nominee, said protestors have no right to obstruct access to medical clinics but should be permitted to speak peacefully with the women before they get abortions.

The people in Massachusetts who challenged the 35-foot buffer “weren’t really protesters,” Pritzker said. “These were individuals who want an opportunity to speak with the women.”

The high court “held that their free speech was violated,” added Pritzker, a Baltimore County lawyer. “Just speaking with someone should be acceptable.”

A third candidate, Leo Wayne Dymowski, did not return telephone and email messages Thursday afternoon. Dymowski, also a Baltimore County lawyer, is the Libertarian candidate for attorney general.

Maryland law does not provide for a buffer zone but prohibits people from intentionally acting, “alone or with others, to prevent another from entering or exiting a medical facility by physically detaining the other; or obstructing impeding or hindering the other’s passage.” People who violate the law — Section 10-204 of the Criminal Law Article — are guilty of a misdemeanor and face a maximum penalty of 90 days in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler joined a brief filed by his New York counterpart, Eric T. Schneiderman, that had urged the Supreme Court to uphold the 35-foot buffer.

“There is no dispute about Massachusetts’ significant, indeed compelling, interest in ensuring safe and secure access to health care facilities, particularly when the constitutionally protected right to reproductive freedom is implicated,” stated the brief, which 11 other states and the U.S. Virgin Islands joined. “Although petitioners cannot stand directly in front of facility entrances, they may continue to engage in their preferred communication activities within the sight, hearing and presence of their target audience just outside the buffer zone.”

Gansler chose to forgo seeking a third term as attorney general in order to run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. He lost that primary race Tuesday to Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the high court, said authorities have less intrusive ways than a 35-foot buffer to deal with problems outside clinics and noted that most of the problems reported by police and the clinics occurred outside one Planned Parenthood facility in Boston and only on Saturdays, when the largest crowds typically gather.

“For a problem shown to arise only once a week in one city at one clinic, creating 35-foot buffer zones at every clinic across the Commonwealth is hardly a narrowly tailored solution,” Roberts said.

While the court was unanimous in the overall outcome, Roberts joined with the four liberal justices to strike down the buffer zone on narrower grounds than the other more conservative justices wanted. In a separate opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized Roberts’ opinion for carrying forward “this court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents.”

Scalia said state and local governments around the country would continue to be able to “restrict antiabortion speech without fear of rigorous constitutional review.”

Still, abortion rights advocates lamented the decision and said it compromised the safety of women seeking abortions.

“This decision shows a troubling level of disregard for American women, who should be able to make carefully considered, private medical decisions without running a gantlet of harassing and threatening protesters,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Mark Rienzi, who represented the protesters at the Supreme Court, said: “The government cannot reserve its public sidewalks for Planned Parenthood, as if their message is the only one women should be allowed to hear. Today’s decision confirms that the First Amendment is for everyone and that the government cannot silence peaceful speakers.”

The buffer zone case began when Boston-area grandmother Eleanor McCullen and other abortion opponents sued over the limits on their activities at Planned Parenthood health centers in Boston, Springfield and Worcester. At the latter two sites, the protesters say they have little chance of reaching patients arriving by car because they must stay 35 feet not from the clinic entrances, but from the driveway to those buildings’ parking lots. Patients enter the building through the parking lots, which are private property.

Planned Parenthood provides health exams for women, cancer screenings, tests for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control and abortions at its clinics.

The organization said that the buffer zone has significantly reduced the harassment of patients and clinic employees. Before the 35-foot zone went into effect in 2007, protesters could stand next to the entrances and force patients to squeeze by, Planned Parenthood said.

Before 2007, a floating buffer zone kept protesters from approaching unwilling listeners any closer than 6 feet if they were within 18 feet of the clinic. The floating zone was modeled after a Colorado law that the Supreme Court has upheld. That decision was not called into question in Thursday’s ruling.

Clinic officials said they are most concerned about safety because of past incidents of violence. In 1994, a gunman killed two receptionists and wounded five employees and volunteers at a Planned Parenthood facility and another abortion clinic in nearby Brookline. The most recent killing was in 2009, when Dr. George Tiller, who performed abortions, was shot in a church in Wichita, Kan.

Abortion protesters said that other state and federal laws already protect health center workers and patients, as well as access to clinics.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.