Get 40% Off
💰 Buffett reveals a $6.7B stake in Chubb. Copy the full portfolio for FREE with InvestingPro’s Stock Ideas toolCopy Portfolio

Challenge to abortion clinic 'buffer zone' law rejected by US court

Published 06/21/2023, 02:34 PM
Updated 06/21/2023, 02:51 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Anti-abortion activists and protesters shout at patients arriving outside of Bread and Roses Woman's Health Center, a clinic that provides abortions in Clearwater, Florida, U.S. February 11, 2023.  REUTERS/Octavio Jones/ File Photo

By Daniel Wiessner

(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday upheld a New York county's law barring anti-abortion activists from approaching people outside abortion clinics, teeing up potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law adopted last year by Westchester County, New York, was valid under a 2000 Supreme Court ruling that rejected a challenge to a similar law in Colorado.

The court said it was bound to follow that ruling unless the Supreme Court expressly overturns it.

Lawyers for the plaintiff, "sidewalk counselor" and devout Catholic Debra Vitagliano, acknowledged that their challenge was foreclosed by the Supreme Court ruling. But they have said in court papers that they intend to ask the high court to overrule that decision and strike down "buffer zone" laws.

The Westchester County law makes it illegal to get within eight feet of another person for the purpose of “oral protest, education, or counseling” within a 100-foot zone around a reproductive health facility. At least three U.S. states and several cities and counties have similar restrictions.

Lawyers for Vitagliano and Westchester County, which is just north of New York City, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Vitagliano is represented by Becket Law, a conservative nonprofit that describes itself as advocates for religious freedom.

Vitagliano claims the Westchester County law is preventing her from approaching pregnant women outside of abortion clinics to discuss their options, in violation of her right to free speech under the U.S. Constitution.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

In the 2000 case, Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that a nearly identical law was not a regulation on speech but "a regulation of the places where some speech may occur."

In Wednesday's case, Vitagliano has argued that Hill was wrongly decided and that it clashes with more recent precedent.

The Supreme Court in a 2014 case struck down a Massachusetts law establishing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, but the court did not mention the Hill decision.

Last year, an Ohio-based U.S. appeals court temporarily blocked a Kentucky county's 10-foot buffer zone, citing the 2014 Supreme Court decision. A Philadelphia-based appeals court is currently considering a challenge to a 20-foot buffer zone adopted by Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.