The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to hear arguments in two pivotal cases concerning "buffer zone" ordinances that aim to protect access to abortion clinics. These cases, originating from Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey, involve local laws designed to maintain an 8-foot distance between individuals and clinic entrances. This decision comes amid ongoing debates over the balance between free speech and safe access to reproductive health services.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), a federal law, underpins these ordinances by criminalizing vandalism and obstruction at reproductive health clinics. Abortion providers have long relied on FACE for protection against harassment and violence. Over the past fifty years, abortion clinics have faced significant threats, including more than 40 bombings and 200 arsons, according to the National Abortion Federation. These incidents underscore the critical need for buffer zones around healthcare facilities.
In Englewood, New Jersey, the ordinance prevents individuals from approaching within 8 feet of healthcare facility entrances unless they are patients, employees, or passersby. Similarly, in Carbondale, Illinois, a similar rule restricts anyone from coming within 8 feet of another person near healthcare facilities. Anti-abortion activists challenge these ordinances, claiming they infringe on First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear these cases leaves unresolved tensions surrounding free speech and the right to peaceful protest. However, the justices did not provide an explanation for their refusal. Notably, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed a desire to review the cases. Justice Thomas articulated his position in a dissent, highlighting a perceived inconsistency with previous rulings.
"I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill," – Clarence Thomas
"Following our repudiation in Dobbs, I do not see what is left of Hill. Yet, lower courts continue to feel bound by it. The court today declines an invitation to set the record straight on Hill’s defunct status." – Clarence Thomas
While the Supreme Court declined these particular cases, it remains poised to address other significant abortion-related issues this term. In April, the court will hear a case involving South Carolina's attempt to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding. This reflects the court's ongoing engagement with abortion rights following its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The refusal to review the buffer zone ordinances highlights a broader hesitation within the Supreme Court concerning newer abortion cases post-Roe v. Wade. This reluctance leaves abortion providers and their supporters in a state of uncertainty as they continue to defend buffer zones as essential safeguards against clinic violence and harassment.
Anti-abortion activists have persistently sought to dismantle such protective measures. However, the enduring threat of violence at clinics reinforces their necessity. The intersection of legal principles and public safety remains a contentious issue as both sides grapple with the implications of free expression versus access to healthcare.