Judicial Education Project Files Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari in McCullen v. Coakley

by JCN | April 24th, 2013

WASHINGTON, DC – The Judicial Education Project has filed a Supreme Court amicae curiae brief supporting the petition for certiorari in McCullen v. Coakley. The case involves whether a Massachusetts statute establishing a 35-foot fixed buffer zone around abortion clinics violates the First Amendment rights of pro-life counselors. The statute prohibits communications within the buffer zone for everyone except abortion clinic employees and agents, and thus impermissibly discriminates based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

Click here to read the Brief

The Judicial Education Project filed the brief on behalf of amicae curiae Molly White, Esther Ripplinger, Marlynda Augelli, and Dr. Alveda King, all women who regret their decisions to have an abortion. Amicae were all misled by abortion clinic staff members about facts of fetal development and the severe physical and psychological harms of abortion they later experienced. They believe they would have not aborted their children if they had been given accurate information about abortion and been made aware of help available to support them in their pregnancies.

The Massachusetts statute discriminates against pro-life counselors by blocking their speech but giving free rein to representatives of abortion clinics. The First Amendment prohibits the government from picking and choosing which viewpoint it wants to be heard on public sidewalks.

The effect of the buffer zone is that pro-life speakers can only attempt to communicate by shouting or using loudspeakers rather than having sensitive, caring conversations with women considering abortion. It also restricts the right of women who want to receive information about abortion by outlawing even consensual conversations with pro-life counselors within the buffer zone.

The Massachusetts buffer zone silences one side of what may be the profoundest and most deeply emotional, political, and moral debate of our day, and violates the very essence of the First Amendment. JEP encourages the Supreme Court to take up this issue and clarify that the First Amendment must apply equally to all speakers, regardless of viewpoint.

JEP and the Judicial Crisis Network are expanding their reach via social networking—follow us on Twitter (@judicialnetwork) and become a Fan on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/judicialnetwork. JEP’s website: www.judicialnetwork.com. If you would like to schedule an interview with a spokesperson from JCN or JEP, please contact Ammon Simon at [email protected]