In the summer of 2000, Elanor McCullen would stand on the sidewalk right outside of a Planned Parenthood facility in Boston, Massachusetts. She knitted baby hats and lovingly counseled women outside of Planned Parenthood. Those who stood with her claimed that Elanor had “a real gift,” was “a saint,” and acted “like Mother Teresa.” She aspired to see mothers become parents and to see families grow and prosper. She stood outside counseling these women because she was strongly driven by her faith and sought it upon herself to outwardly express pro life values to these expecting mothers going into Planned Parenthood. Her goal was to make sure these women did not feel alone in their difficult journey, and they have a choice to make even if it doesn’t feel like it. She went as far as to provide resources like housing, medical care, sonograms, and food. She even would host baby showers from time to time. Although many appreciated her and what she did for the community, not everyone felt the same way about Elanor’s efforts. Later in the year 2000, the state of Massachusetts started imposing a series of laws that restricted Elanor from speaking freely about her religious pro life viewpoints.
In 2007, Massachusetts imposed what they called a buffer zone around their abortion clinics. This buffer zone took place 35-feet outside of every abortion clinic in the state, and prevented those outside from getting close to those trying to enter the clinics. This law was mainly for the mental and physical health of the women seeking their desired treatment. This is the law that prevented Elanor from having conversations with women on the sidewalk who were possibly seeking help and guidance before making an important decision. She was forced off the sidewalk and away from the clinic, sometimes even being forced into the middle of the street. Elanor brought this case to the Federal Court in 2008 where she was joined by a Catholic priest who also wanted to provide religious counseling and help to women in need, but was banned from doing so by these implemented laws. The first time she brought the case to trial in 2008 she lost. Then in 2009, the case was brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, but again lost. In June of 2014 the case was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court where they ruled a 9-0 decision in favor of Elanor McCullen, stating that “the government should not deprive people of the right to exchange information, ideas, and support on public sidewalks.” This case can be related to and analyzed through a similar lens as the events that happened in Rigdon v. Perry. In May 1996, the Catholic Church announced a pro life campaignin regards to the President’s veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Here, the Pentagon issued a gag order forbidding military chaplains of all faiths from preaching freely about legislation on important moral issues until the court decided that control by censoring sermons is unconstitutional. Every chaplain must be able to speak freely as their faith requires. This is the same logic that was applied to McCullen's case, it was her constitutional right to speak freely.
Regarding Elanor McCullen’s case, the salient issue regarding religion and constitutional law is deciding whether or not the laws established that required a 35-foot buffer zone around all abortion clinics in the state of Massachusetts was a violation of her First Amendment rights. The imposed laws in Massachusetts create a debatable issue on Elanor’s free exercise of religion. The Court argued that these buffer zones directly restrict one’s religious liberty and constitutional rights. Under the laws that were established, it would have been a crime punishable with possible jail time just for Elanor to stand on the sidewalk and say things as simple as, “good morning, Jesus loves you,” to a woman passing by. This issue importantly touches on the concerns of one's right to freely exercise their religion, as well as freedom of speech and expression regarding their religious beliefs. As for religious freedom, we as American citizens have a right to exchange our ideas and thoughts with others in a peaceful, non-violent manner. Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of religion and in this situation, Elanor’s rights are infringed upon with such restrictions. The same follows for her individual freedom of religion. She has the right to practice her faith in any way that she chooses without government interference regardless of whether it is in a public or private location.
I do agree with the decision that the Supreme Court made, I think that it is a violation of one’s constitutional First Amendment rights to establish a buffer zone and prevent people from freely speaking outside of abortion clinics. In terms of the court’s reasoning and considerations, I further agree that forming this buffer violates their freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Abortion can be a controversial topic, but our constitution allows everyone to be entiled to their own opinion and speak on behalf of their opinions. Speaking on behalf of your beliefs does not prevent another person from having their own beliefs, they choose to do what they wish with the information they hear. Elanor was a woman offering her own opinion and guidance, not an authority figure attempting to infringe on anyone else's rights. Not everyone has the same religious beliefs, but Elanor should be entitled to speak about hers and offer her insight to others if she wishes. Women seeking treatment are not required to listen or take her advice.
11 comments:
I agree with the Court's decision. It's fascinating that both the district and appellate courts ruled against this free speech claim. Divorcing my personal opinions on the morality, efficacy, or rationale of McCullen's efforts, a "buffer zone" around pregnancy care clinics that prevents speech on public land doesn't appear to have constitutional precedent. The concepts of "compelling governmental interest", for instance, don't necessarily apply when dealing with a free speech case, as opposed to a free exercise one. Free speech, as well as free exercise, protects that which may be objectionable to those in the majority. While I find the purpose behind McCullen's speech objectionable, I am troubled finding reason to prevent such speech.
Part of me disagrees with the court's ruling, as Elanor's manner of speech aims to directly coerce individuals into making a specific choice aligned with her religious beliefs. It is openly stated that her intent was to advance her pro-life beliefs and provide information that would, essentially, convince others to follow those beliefs as well. In this case, Elanor's speech is not neutral, particularly at such a targeted site in which women may be in a state vulnerable to coercion and could be convinced to make decisions that they otherwise wouldn't. If the court supported Elanor, it could be considered an endorsement of her religious beliefs and a violation of the Establishment Clause. At the same time, however, the timing of these laws also doesn't seem to be neutral and they directly target Elanor, seeking to shut down her freedom to exercise and her right to free speech, which I also believe would violate the First Amendment. Considering both sides that I have mentioned, I am conflicted as to whether I resonate more with the majority or dissent of this case.
I agree with the Court's ruling and have to disagree with Sofia, to the extent that individuals are coerced into making a specific decision based on Eleanor's opinion. I believe that even if Eleanor is standing outside of the clinic, women who do not want to engage with her don't have to. It is not as if she is approaching women and forcing them to not get an abortion by stating her perspective on the issue. Instead, Eleanor is standing outside the abortion clinic freely willing to talk to any women that needs guidance or is willing to listen. Because Eleanor's intentions are pure, I have to agree with the majority ruling of the court that this "buffer" zone was in fact in violation of Eleanor's First Amendment rights. Eleanor is not practicing her religion, but instead expressing it, which is ultimately supported under the constitution. Thus, by restricting her free speech and her free exercise clause, the buffer zone should be considered unconstitutional.
I find myself having a difficult time finding out where I stand with the outcome of this case. I understand the comments above and the author’s viewpoint that states that it is unconstitutional to delineate a space where people, specifically McCullen, cannot freely speak on their religious viewpoints. However, I find it hard to not sympathize with the decision to make a buffer for the patients who are seeking treatments at family planning facilities as the nature of these facilities is to help individuals make personal decisions regarding their own health.
Like Andrea, I also find it difficult to pick a side in this case. Putting my personal beliefs aside, I see how the buffer zone is restricting Eleanor's free exercise of her religion. Technically, the women walking into the clinic can just ignore Eleanor if they do not want her help; however, I find it hard to side with the Court's decision due to the well-being of the women going into the clinic. For many women, the choice to have an abortion is a very hard one and I do not think they should be subject to a woman telling them not to do it when they are on their way into their appointment. I also think that Eleanor continuing to speak her beliefs outside the planned parenthood may lead too future conflict either between her and a patient or her and a pro-choice group.
I agree with the courts decision. It is in line with precedent like Cantwell v. Connecticut that protects free exercise of religion in public settings. It is important to note here that McCullen is not acting in an aggressive fashion and is merely sharing her religious opinion freely in a public space. As long as her actions do not place an undue burden on the women trying to use Planned Parenthood, she should be allowed to freely express her beliefs and convince people to join her perspective. I do not however believe that McCullen should be constitutionally protected to go onto the private property of Planned Parenthood facilities or inside the buildings to conduct her speech. Furthermore, I disagree the the court is endorsing her perspective or endorsing a religious perspective in this case, the court is merely upholding the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision is also in line with well established precedents on abortion like Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
While I understand Eleanor's intentions to be good I don't know if I completely agree with the Court's ruling. While the Court is ruling on her freedom of speech I think it is also important to acknowledge why Massachusetts had this 35 foot buffer zone in the first place. Many women who go to Planned Parenthood regardless of whether they are seeking an abortion or not, which most aren't, are faced with protestors who threaten bodily harm as well as emotional attacks. While freedom of speech and religion are important the laws intents are meant to protect the freedoms of others at the same time.
I understand the Court's ruling and the potential danger of limiting Eleanor's free exercise after reading the author's interpretation. However, after reading the comments, I am swayed by Sofia and Lily, and feel conflicted in this case. While I do not believe the state can regulate the exercise in this area, I believe the 35 ft buffer zone can act as an extension to the clinic's property, and could therefore be justified to protect the people entering.
After reading through the comments I would say I would have to agree with the decision the Supreme Court made. I agree with Ava that it is a violation of one’s constitutional first amendment rights to establish a buffer zone that prevents people from freely speaking outside of abortion clinics. This buffer does violate their religion and freedom of speech. The fact that our Constitution states that people I have freedom to believe in whatever they want as one of the main points of the constitution so people should be entitled to speak about abortion no matter what they believe. In this case Elanor was not doing anything harmful or forcing anyone to listen to her opinion she was just stating what she thought and felt.
I agree with Mason that this case is difficult to navigate. However, I don't agree with the court's decision. Women who receive medical care from Planned Parenthood face potential dangers as many people do not agree with the abortions that doctors conduct there. While most women going to Planned Parenthood are not receiving abortions, many protesters assume so and threaten the women entering the building. I think Elanor had good intentions, but she still has to follow the law. She is not an exception and if the government allows her to share her ideas openly in front of Planned Parenthood, this will make other people want to do so. Some of them might not be as nice as Elanor.
I find myself agreeing with the court’s decision in this case. Although it may seem that Elanor’s convincing could be seen as religiously motivated coercion, I personally see it as someone expressing their own morales on public grounds. There are many religions that oppose abortion, and many non-religious people that oppose it too. I believe that the way that Eleanor went about her business that she was simply listening to the young women when they were in a time of need. This is why I personally believe that a buffer zone violated people’s first amendment rights.
Post a Comment