By James Vicini
WASHINGTON, Jun 28 (Reuters) - The US Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that
states may require anti-abortion demonstrators to stay away from anyone entering
or leaving medical facilities.
The high court, by a 6-3 vote, declared that a Colorado law designed to
protect the privacy rights of patients and staff members at clinics did not
violate the constitutional free-speech rights of the protesters.
The 1993 law stated that, within 100 feet (30 meters) of a health care
facility's entrance, no one may distribute leaflets, display signs or engage in
sidewalk counseling within eight feet (2.4 meters) of another person without
first getting the person's permission.
The justices affirmed a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court upholding the
law on the grounds that it does not place too great a burden on the First
Amendment rights of the demonstrators.
Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court majority that the law's
restrictions on speech-related conduct passed constitutional muster.
The ruling was an important victory for Colorado and the US Justice
Department, which defended the law as necessary to stop intimidation, threats
and verbal harassment as abortion-seeking women enter the clinics.
The law was challenged by three individuals who displayed signs and a model
of a fetus, handed out literature and sought to converse with patients. They
said the law unconstitutionally designated private citizens as censors of speech
on public sidewalks and streets. A violation of the law is a misdemeanor, with a
maximum possible punishment of six months in jail or a $750 fine.
Stevens said the state's police powers allow it to protect the health and
safety of its citizens, and may justify a special focus on access to health care
facilities and the avoidance of trauma to patients associated with
confrontational protests. He said the law dealt not with restricting a speaker's
right to address a willing audience, but with protecting listeners from unwanted
communication.
"Private citizens have always retained the power to decide for themselves
what they wish to read, and within limits what oral messages they want to
consider," he said in the 30-page opinion. "This statute simply empowers private
citizens entering a health care facility with the ability to prevent a speaker,
who is within eight feet and advancing, from communicating a message they do not
wish to hear," he said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a blistering dissent, accusing the majority
of contradicting more than 50 years of well-established First Amendment
principles. "For the first time, the court approves a law which bars a private
citizen from passing a message, in a peaceful manner and on a profound moral
issue, to a fellow citizen on a public sidewalk," Kennedy said.
Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent attacked the majority for expanding
its assault on the individual right of abortion opponents "to persuade women
contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong."
A number of states supported the Colorado law as an appropriate way to deal
with serious public safety issues.
Jay Sekulow, the attorney who represented the three demonstrators, said the
ruling was "troubling and damaging." He said it "restricts constitutional
rights" and suppresses freedom."
