Why Abortion Clinics Need Buffer Zones ("You've only got to look to history")

[LanternWaste]

4. I think the question is about the existence rather than size of the zones.

The opening paragraph specifically states that the question being ruled on by the MA court is the very existence, rather than the size of the safety zone:

"Depending how the justices rule on McCullen v. Coakley, cities and states may no longer be allowed to enact buffer zones around reproductive health care facilities..."

Indeed, an article linked to from the original states that,"those protesters may soon have unlimited ability to “counsel” or even harass patients approaching women’s health clinics..."

As for any court required test, the article goes on to state that "McCullen hinges on two distinctions at the heart of First Amendment law. Laws that are “content-based” — that is, laws that single out speech about a particular topic for inferior treatment — and laws that engage in “viewpoint discrimination” — that is, laws that treat people who hold one set of views differently than people who hold opposing view.."

The plaintiffs for the case are arguing the Massachusetts law as one that engages in viewpoint discrimination because it permits clinic workers and their patients to enter and exit the buffer zones (and thus to enter and exit the clinic itself), without permitting abortion protesters to do so, rather that the zone being too large or too small.

In essence, they are arguing that the only reason anyone ever protests outside of a health clinic is because they oppose abortion, so *any* restrictions (i.e., the mere existence of a buzzer zone-- no matter how small) on protests outside of clinics should be treated as an impermissible restriction.