A brighter line at clinics
IN 2000, Masachusetts adopted a law establishing a buffer zone to shield patients entering reproductive health clinics from the chanting, shouting, praying protesters who "counsel" women they think are seeking abortions. The law was a creaky compromise necessary to appease Tom Finneran, then House speaker, who had blocked the proposal for years. But that compromise law is so vague as to be nearly unenforceable. The state needs clear legislation to protect the free speech rights of protesters while ensuring that women can exercise their own rights to reproductive healthcare.
A woman's decision to have an abortion is painful enough without having oversized pictures of mangled fetuses shoved in her path, or photographs taken of her license plate, or the clinic door blocked by protesters. All these things happen regularly at the 10 freestanding women's health clinics in the state, even with the existing buffer zone law.
The problem is the vague wording of the law, which creates a "floating" zone of 6 feet, within a larger radius of 18 feet, inside which no one may approach a patient entering a clinic without her consent. But what constitutes consent? Is eye contact consent? And if protesters plant themselves in front of the clinic door, it is the patient who is doing the approaching, not the protesters. This is how abortion opponents have fought the two cases that attempted to enforce the law since 2000. Both were thrown out of court for the vagueness of the statute.
Last Tuesday the Senate adopted a new bill that would create a fixed 35-foot buffer zone around clinic entrances and eliminate the vague consent language. Is it any surprise that four of the five senators who rose to speak for the bill - not to mention the Senate president - are women? The bill also enjoys support of Speaker Sal DiMasi, Governor Patrick and Attorney General Martha Coakley. We hope it will be swiftly adopted by the House when it comes up for debate this week.
Opponents have argued that buffer zones infringe on their right to free speech. But the state Supreme Judicial Court and even the more conservative US Supreme Court have ruled that fixed buffer zones pass constitutional muster. The Constitution affords a right to political speech; there is no requirement that everyone has to stop and listen. Indeed, most voters are familiar with the similar 150-foot buffer zone around polling places that prohibits supporters or opponents of particular candidates from approaching voters.
No one, including the protesters, is helped by a law that is so unclear it is hard to obey or enforce. Boston police district Captain William Evans testified in favor of the bill on just those grounds. The bill protects public safety, medical privacy, and free speech. It is a reasonable balance that reasonable people will support. 