GOOD NEWS: Judge strikes down California law against pro-life presence at abortion clinics

A law in the US state California, which would have prohibited pro-lifers the right to protest outside abortion clinics in the state, has been struck down by a federal judge on the basis that it goes against the First and Fourteenth amendments.

According to Live Action, the SB 742 bill was supposedly aimed at COVID-19 vaccination facilities, and sought to provide a 100-foot buffer zone. It also banned anyone from approaching a person within 30-feet if they were standing within the buffer zone. The bill was proposed in order to protect frontline workers and patients accessing the facilities from protesters and harassment. However, the bill defined “harassment” as standing or approaching someone “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counselling with, that other person in a public way or on a sidewalk area.”

Pro-lifers expressed concern over this law as shortly before the law was proposed, Planned Parenthood announced that they would provide the COVID-19 vaccine, making them eligible for protection under this law. Although the bill had originally stated the restrictions would be only “in connection with vaccination services”, the statement was removed due to the restriction of free speech only being allowed if the content is neutral. Therefore, this could lead to any form of protest outside Planned Parenthood being interpreted as criminal, including pro-life vigils and sidewalk counselling.

After the bill was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2021, pro-lifers sued the law which was then temporarily blocked in November 2021, where the judge ruled that the 30-feet rule was too restrictive.

Last week, pro-life organisation, Life Legal Defense Foundation, announced that a federal judge had struck down on the law. They said that the court upheld that “the prohibition on ‘harassing’ in the statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” noting that “[T]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

“We are pleased that the court emphasized the unconstitutionality of the legislature’s shameless abuse of the term ‘harassing’ to encompass protected speech and activities,” said Life Legal’s Katie Short, who litigated the case before the court. “At a time when all manner of liberties is in jeopardy, pro-lifers – even in California – can be assured that federal courts have not wholly abandoned fundamental First Amendment principles.”

In Ireland, moves which would criminalise entirely peaceful pro-life vigils at abortion centres have been described as being motivated by malice by the Life Institute who point out that an Gardaí Síochána say that the protests are law abiding.