McCullen v. Coakley

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.