Dana Cody |
The
Court affirmed the time-honored nature of public streets and sidewalks as
public fora, and held that the Massachusetts law was not narrowly tailored to
meet the government’s asserted interests. The Court made clear that requiring
peaceful sidewalk counselors to remain 35 feet from their intended audience is
too burdensome of their rights, and is not justified by any evidence of
unlawfulness on the part of the pro-life speakers.
Chief
Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court with Justices Scalia and
Alito writing separate concurring opinions, in which they urged that the Court
might have gone farther in affirming and protecting free speech rights.
From
the majority opinion in McCullen v. Coakley: “The buffer zones burden
substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted
interests.” The case was reversed and remanded back to the First Circuit for
further proceedings.
“We
are gratified that the Court saw how wrong the Massachusetts law is,” said Dana
Cody, president and executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation and a
frequent guest on Faith On Trial. “And while we wish the decision had
recognized the content-restrictions inherent in this type of law, this decision
is truly a victory for courageous, compassionate sidewalk counselors in
Massachusetts who have saved hundreds of lives through their quiet outreach
offering help and alternatives to women. The purpose of this law was to silence
the truth about abortion – it ends the lives of children and harms women. Roe
made abortion legal, not safe. With this ruling, pro-life speakers will be
enabled to share their life-affirming message.”
No comments:
Post a Comment