Dear SCOTUS: A reaction to the buffer zone opinion

This blog is not a political blog. However, yesterday the Supreme Court handed down a decision striking down buffer zones outside of abortion clinics in Massachusetts. As a former Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts intern, this touches me a bit more deeply. I had some feelings that I needed to express, and a pithy Facebook update was just not enough. So I invite you to read this post, or invite you to not read it. I promise that I’ll resume some normal semi-regular content shortly.

I admit that I did not read the full text of the decision, linked below, as I am not fluent in legalese. But I did read the analysis from the venerable SCOTUSblog (link above), which is much easier to understand. I reiterate that these are my opinions, but I tried to base them in fact as much as possible.

 

From NARAL America: A Clinic Buffer Zone vs. SCOTUS’ Buffer Zone

Dear SCOTUS:

I find your opinion on McCullen v. Coakley to be outrageous, and allege that it will have great ramifications for women’s health in the years to come. I understand that this is a first amendment issue for you; that it was almost semantic in the idea of counselors versus protesters. Perhaps it was even about public safety. But as someone who walked through that buffer zone four times a week for months, I can tell you that your opinion misses a few important points.

• Those “counselors” are still protesters

Your delineation between “counselors” and protesters is really mincing words here, judges. Most of the people outside are holding anti-abortion signs. Not everyone on the line tries to counsel women who are headed into the building on their options. What constitutes a counselor anyway? Does s/he have to try to counsel everyone? If someone tries to counsel just one person in the day, does that mean s/he is not a protester? Even armed with options and literature, these people are still protesters, through and through.

• Those “counselors” can be heard, just not as much as they want to be

That being said, those counselors/protesters can be heard by passersby and people entering the building. They have plenty of room to stand (although, admittedly it’s a little weird at the Brookline/Boston Planned Parenthood, given that the building is on a corner), and they could talk to women. They just can’t get to enough of them, and that’s why they have this problem. The first amendment isn’t about getting adequate access to free speech (or apparently to counseling for birthing options), but to allow for it at all. These buffer zones definitely allowed for it. Trust me, I saw them bright and early each week. Someone wanted to talk to me that first day, but I glared at him and the group left me alone after that.

• This decision enables “counselors” to be more confrontational

Now, I cannot claim that all counselors/protesters will suddenly become more aggressive as the space between them and the building shrinks. However, a reduction in space between where the counselor/protester can stand and where people enter the building allows for greater chance of confrontation and conflict. This is just asking for increases in violence. Now isn’t this the real threat to public safety?

• This also presupposes that these counselors are the only counseling options available for women

Hey judges, did you know that Planned Parenthood has a family planning clinic that goes over all of a woman’s options? Including all of those that the “counselors” outside do? And these actual counselors in the clinic will likely provide more sound, non-judgmental, medically accurate advice than a politically motivated layperson outside. While those “counselors” outside should certainly have the opportunity to offer advice and counsel, it should not be at the detriment to women who need wise advice and counsel.

• The buffer zones were thought up and enforced to protect EVERYONE going inside the building, not just women having abortions

Hey SCOTUS, I am sure you are aware that these buffer zones were instituted to help keep everyone safe inside, right? Because of past incidents? Don’t want to make too fine a point on this, but they are there for a reason.

• This decision will likely prevent some women from receiving the CRITICAL care they need

And SCOTUS, what I feel is your biggest lapse in judgment is the reverberating impact that this will have on women’s health. You see, many of these “abortion clinics” are actually Planned Parenthoods or similiar health centers that provide care, cancer screenings, and other important services for women. Not just abortions. In fact, they mostly do not perform abortions. The reduction of these buffer zones is more likely to prevent some women from going to or getting into these clinics to receive the care they need, either out of fear, embarrassment, or aggravation. Many women rely on Planned Parenthood for their care, and if they no longer feel safe or comfortable going to the clinic, how can their receive their care? It is bad enough that some Planned Parenthoods are outfitted with metal detectors out of necessity, but if one can’t get a cancer screening without being harassed outside by a pro-life activist, then the future is really grim.

 

SCOTUS, you’ve done some damage to women’s health today. I know you can’t take it back, but perhaps a future court will realize the error of your ways and allow for some more breathing room. Hopefully it is not at the expense of anyone’s lives or well-being, but I fear that may be the case.

---