Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, April 25, 1994 TAG: 9404250065
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: The Washington Post
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
They erected ladders along the clinic's fence, shouting to people on the grounds. They trailed doctors and staff, calling them "baby killers."
So Judge Robert McGregor in April 1993 created a large buffer zone around the ranch-style building in Melbourne. He said anti-abortion groups could not chant, picket or otherwise demonstrate on the public sidewalks, streets and grounds within 36 feet of the clinic.
Now the Supreme Court is being asked to decide for the first time whether such court orders violate the free-speech rights of protesters.
"We're there [at the clinics] on a mission of mercy," said Judy Madsen, who was among those accused of disrupting the clinic's business. "We want to come across as just friends [to women seeking abortions]. And I can make a difference by being in front of the clinic."
"Do not be lulled into thinking they are prayerful or peaceful," countered clinic operator Patricia Baird-Windle, saying the protesters deal in "guilt-tripping . . . intimidating, blood-dripping literature."
As with all things abortion-related, conflicts run deep. In fact, the two courts that reviewed the Melbourne order, the Florida Supreme Court and a federal appeals court, differed on whether it was constitutional.
"While the First Amendment confers on each citizen a powerful right to express oneself," said the Florida Supreme Court, "it gives the picketer no boon to jeopardize the health, safety and rights of others. No citizen has a right to insert a foot in the hospital or clinic door and insist on being heard - while purposefully blocking the door to those in genuine need of medical services."
In an opinion is under review in the U.S. Supreme Court case to be heard Wednesday, said the Melbourne restrictions target not what can be said, but when, where and how it may be said. Separately, the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals, based in Miami, ruled that the McGregor order was impermissibly based on the content of the protesters' speech.
The order is not being enforced while the case is pending. A ruling by the Supreme Court on the order's validity would be important throughout the country.
Tensions at abortion clinics continue to simmer, and state and federal judges acting independently have created buffer zones around clinics they believe under siege. Florida has been the scene of an inordinate amount of strife; physician David Gunn was killed at a Pensacola clinic in March 1993.
The Clinton administration, through Solicitor General Drew Days III, is siding with the Melbourne clinic, Aware Woman Center for Choice. Days has told the Supreme Court that its ruling would affect the validity of legislation pending in Congress that would give the Justice Department the power to criminally charge protesters who physically interfere with people seeking or providing abortions.
Disputes over blockades and general access to abortion clinics are part of a new round of abortion cases at the Supreme Court.
The basic constitutional right to end a pregnancy was affirmed by a court majority two years ago, leaving abortion-rights supporters and their opponents now to fight over how easy it should be to exercise that right. Also, earlier this term, the court ruled that a federal anti-racketeering law could be used against those who engage in violence at abortion clinics.
Although the parties in this new case cast it in terms of health care or free speech, depending on their interest, it still comes down to abortion. Many of the "friend-of-the-court" briefs filed in the case are from organizations passionately on one side or another of the abortion debate.
At issue in Madsen vs. Women's Health Center Inc. is an order barring Madsen and members of Operation Rescue and Rescue America and all persons working "in concert" with them from entering, congregating and demonstrating within 36 feet of the clinic; from physically approaching persons seeking clinic services within 300 feet of the clinic unless invited to do so; and from approaching or congregating within 300 feet of the residences of clinic employees.
The order is broad enough to cover the most aggressive anti-abortion protesters as well as those activists who may have no record of physically blocking entrances.
While the original lawsuit brought by the clinic names Madsen and other individuals, there is no evidence in the record that they specifically obstructed access to clinics.
by CNB