Speak Outs
Speak Out
Does an abortion-clinic law violate protesters’ free speech right?

By John Vettese, Student Voices staff writer

The debate over Roe v. Wade isn’t the only debate about abortion in the United States.

There’s also a question of free speech as it relates to the controversial issue. Protesters have a First Amendment right to publicly disagree with Roe, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that effectively made abortion legal. But how are these protesters speaking out? And could they be violating other people’s rights by doing so?

If there’s a Planned Parenthood office in your town, you might be familiar with these protesters. Often they say their piece in ways that are vociferous and emotional, but not physically obtrusive – they might sing hymns, pray or hold up signs. They might hand pamphlets to patients as they enter, saying things such as “Please don’t take your child’s life, let us help you.” Occasionally, however, they do more.

Earlier this year, the Associated Press reported that the Justice Department under President Barack Obama’s administration has filed more federal lawsuits against abortion protesters than it had under President George W. Bush. These include suits against:
  • A Florida woman who blocked a car from entering a West Palm Beach, Fla., clinic.
  • A Texas man who threw his body across the reception area in a San Antonio, Texas, clinic.
  • A Pennsylvania man who posted on his website the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions, urging his readers to kill them.
The federal government argues that the actions of these protesters violate the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (or FACE Act), a 1994 law signed by President Bill Clinton. The law prohibits the use of physical force to intimidate or interfere with patients or doctors at reproductive health clinics. Specifically, it does not allow protesters to block clinic entrances, vandalize cars entering clinic driveways, threaten violence against clinic employees, escorts or patients, or actually carry out violence against them.

But the extent to which the law is enforced depends on who occupies the White House.

According to a National Public Radio report, the Justice Department has filed eight civil cases against abortion protesters since Obama took office. By comparison, it filed only one case under the Bush administration. And the Justice Department under Clinton filed 17 cases.

Troy Newman, head of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, told NPR that the Justice Department uses the clinic-access law as “a political tool to shut them up, shut them down and make them go away.” He said that it overstepped the federal government’s authority and restricted his group’s First Amendment freedoms.

But the Justice Department says that enforcing the clinic-access law is of equal importance, since it, too, is an issue of freedom. The Roe ruling found that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives women the right to choose an abortion. In a press statement, Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said it “will continue to aggressively enforce the FACE Act against those who seek to violate the rights of their fellow Americans to safely provide or obtain [abortions].”

The trick is finding a balance that protects the First Amendment freedoms of the protesters and the 14th Amendment guarantees of the patients. This is something that both sides recognize. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department told NPR that it takes seriously its responsibility not to infringe upon First Amendment rights while Newman told NPR that he follows a simple rule as a protester.

“My rights and your rights end at where our nose begins. So in other words, I can swing my arms wildly on the street but as soon as I hit you in the nose, that’s a violation.”

What do you think?

Does the clinic-access law violate the First Amendment right of protesters? Should the Justice Department file lawsuits against those who violate the clinic-access law? How can it balance the 14th Amendment rights of patients with the First Amendment rights of the public to speak out? Join the discussion!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
5/11/2012
porterville
salinna
monache/smith
i think that they dont violate there free speech. There are just noisy people out there. Like its none of your business. its only there opions but it seemsas if there pushing morals rather than opion. also it violates the persons privacy. SInce most are being harmed on there way to the clinice. Thus, they dont violate there rights.

5/11/2012
Porterville, Ca
John
Smith/Monache
This law is not in violation of the right to free speech, since circumstances involving the intimidation of abortion clinic employees show present and imminent danger, thus such acts should be prohibited. And barring entry to such clinics is in violation of the patients' rights. The protesters can protest all they want, they just can't physically interfere.

10/26/2011
Watertown/MA
Rose
Mr. Rimas
I think that the clinic access law shouldn't violate the right of protesters but there's a line between protesters and harassing doctors or women who have to turn to getting an abortion for whatever their reason may be. When protesters go to the extremes that they go to and violate the privacy and personal space as a citizen their breaking the law, not the women getting abortions. If people have issues with the law they should go about it through the court not on the street and harassing people it never solves anything.

10/19/2011
Sidney, MT
Tyler
Faulhaber
I believe that it is a womans choice whether she has an abortion or not. I don't think the protestors should be scaring the women, or intimidating them into making a different decision. I guarantee the girl already has thought long and hard about her choice, and that was hard enough, she doesn't need to be intimidated. Thats cruel. Say all you want, but do it in a respectable manner and have some dignity.

10/7/2011
Sidney Mt
Baillie
Sidney High School
I think that it's your choice weather you have an abortion or not, I don't think it should be protested..If it was abandoned mothers would be in prison for the murder of their child, because they couldn't handle it. I don't think people should try to stop it. I believe if you are capable to get pregnet and not use a condom or birth control, you are responsible for your baby. Or adopt the child to a family who can handle it.

10/7/2011
Sidney, Montana
Candace
Ms. Fontana
Every woman has the right to get an abortion if they want to some woman jus cant deal with bein pregnant at the time or having a baby that doesnt make them bad people for doin it. If people want to protest they can cause its their right to freedom of speech to do so but really its up to those woman whether they are goin to go through with it or not...its not the protesters choice what she gets to do with her body or not.

10/7/2011
Sidney Montana
Derian
Sidney High School Fontana
I think that every women has a right to an abortion. People can talk about it all they want but it shouldn't ruin peoples rights and freedoms. I don't think it violates it. Even though I think its not right to do but it is the womens choice. People should worry about their own lives and nobody elses.

10/7/2011
Sidney, Montana
Julie
Fontana
Freedom of speech is one thing but harrasement is another. A woman should have her own choice on what she wants to do with her body and should not be made out to be a bad person or that she is doing something wrong by protesters. It's something that the woman will have to deal with her entire life but that's exactly the point it's the womans life who is making this choice not anyone elses. Protesters should stay out of it.

9/22/2011
Sidney, Montana
Tori
Faulhaber Sidney High School
I feel that every women has the right to an abortion. People can protest day after day after, as long as they dont interfere with other peoples freedom. In the end its the woman's choice wheither she wants to get an abortion and those who disagree need to stick to their own lives and not worry about what other people are doing with theirs.

9/22/2011
Irivng/TX
Kirstin
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think the clinic access law violates the First Amendment rights of the protesters because it does not say they can not speak or say what they wants. The clinic access law says they can not prevent someone from entering the clinic or physically harming the other party. I think law suits should be filed against those who are violating the law because in some cases they are putting other people in danger as well as themselves.

9/22/2011
Sidney, Montana
Marcus
Faulhaber
I think people should stay in their own business. Its the womans decision to get an abortion, and they should stay out of it. the 1st amendment says people have the freedom of speech, but if they start to get violent, it should be recognized. Especially when the 14th amendment says women have the right to choose an abortion.

9/22/2011
Sidney, Montana
Brett
Mr. Faulhaber Sidney high school
no I feel that a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she wants to. I feel people can protest it all they want unless they start harassing them or theatening them.

9/22/2011
Irving/Texas
Shelby
Bradley/Nimitz
The clinic access law to me personally does not violate the first amendment considering the clinics are also apart of America and the people who work and go into that clinic should not be put down because they are dong what they have to do. If people are physically getting into other peoples way then the government should step in and say that they are violation other peoples first amendment. The 14th amendment says that patients should be able to do things without being patronized.

9/21/2011
Dallas
Lauren
Bradley
No because people will always protest against abortion and some will always be for abortion. That's why in the United States we are given the right to have freedom of speech. Without it then many of us would be in jail for expressing our opinions or feelings.

9/19/2011
Irving, TX
Ali
Nimitz/Bradley
The right to petition is clearly given to US citizens in the Bill of Rights. This allows Americans to protest when they believe something is wrong; Americans are given the opportunity to make a difference. Nevertheless, protesting that involves physical or violent action is not included within our given rights. Nowhere in the Constitution is violence ever permitted aside from cases of war or defense, which is why protests that become violent typically lead to deaths, injuries, and/or arrests. When physical protests occur, it almost never helps the cause anyway, especially in this case of abortion in which any act of violence would be counteractive and hypocritical.

9/19/2011
Irving/TX
Rocio
Bradley/Nimitz
Personally, I'm against abortion. If I saw a woman going into a clinic to get an abortion, I would probably try to physically stop her too.; however, I wouldn't want to risk getting in trouble with the law. What these protesters fail to realize is that they can't force a woman to have a baby if she doesn't want to. Their right to protest is not being violated, it's just being put to a limit. They need to respect and leave the women and doctors alone and continure protesting peacefully OUTSIDE of the clinic.

9/18/2011
Irving/Tx
Azaria
Bradley/Nimitz
People have a right to protest about what they believe to be is wrong. The First amendment protects our freedom of speech, however, doing things like blocking a car from entering a clinic is not speech, that is an action - an action that violates other peoples rights. What if someone who read that Pennsylvanian man's post, the one where he encourages others to kill doctors that do abortions, and that person really does go out there and kills one of those doctors? Could you count the Pennsylvanian man as an accomplice to that murder? Is it right that someone should be able to do that? That man is free to say whatever he wants to of course, but should we really allow someone who encourages murder like that to go without punishment? If we do, what does that say about our society, that we don't care that someone out there is saying that it is right to murder anyone. The FACE Act should be enforced for the safety of the people, and as long as your protests are peaceful, not going to be harming anyone in any way, and not harassing or bulling women who do choose to get an abortion, then you will have nothing to worry about.

9/16/2011
Irving/TX
Luz V.
Bradley/Nimitz
Despite the controversy associated with it, abortion is legal and people just have to deal with it – a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy but those who believe she is wrong in doing it are guaranteed their right to voice their opinion, but they do not have the right to stop a woman from undergoing the procedure and they certainly do not have the right to use physical force to assert their beliefs. A woman has the right to terminate her unwanted or life-threatening condition if she so chooses, and once she does she should be able to undergo the procedure without fear of retaliation or physical harm. Once protesters go beyond chanting and holding up signs and begin threatening and preventing people from doing things they go beyond their rights, their malicious protesting threatens the well-being of women, doctors, nurses, and surrounding businesses. Every woman has the right to safely undergo a procedure which they believe will better their lives in a safe place just as much as every protester has the right to voice their opinion despite people disagreeing with them.

9/16/2011
Irving/TX
Tambra B
Bradley/Nimitz
It seems rather naive of peaceful protestors for any cause to believe that there aren't people fighting for the same cause, but doing so violently. The FACE Act does not prohibit anyone from speaking, advertising or generally protesting abortion clinics, and it does not prohibit people from publishing whatever truths they'd like to about abortion. The FACE Act does NOT prevent individuals from exercising their first amendment rights in any way; it merely prevents people from violently infringing on the right to privacy and personal property and safety of others. In spirit, the FACE Act is not even about promoting abortion or specifically protecting abortion, it’s about protecting the rights of individuals and generally smaller factions of the US populated from infringement by a louder, more aggressive and more numerous group of people, something James Madison claimed to be a goal in the creation of the Constitution. Laws are made to be enforced, so YES, the Justice Department has a RESPONSIBILITY to prosecute violators, since they are endangering or threatening personal safety, property or privacy of another individual, when they could reasonably make their point in a non-violent way, and because physical violence toward an individual is NOT one of the forms of speech protected by the First Amendment, this is not an issue of rights infringement as much as an issue of safety, for the protestors and the protested. So, balancing right it’s even really an issue here. The protestors just need to be reminded that freedom of speech does not include freedom to threaten or perform physical violence, though very ideologically aggressive campaigns are perfectly legitimate.

9/15/2011
Irving, Tx
Diana
Bradley/Nimitz
I totally disagree with abortion. No matter how small the baby is or if it is still a fetus, that is still killing a human being. I agree with Newman; people cannot be accused of anything until someone lays hands on them. On the other hand, I think the protestors are going too far. I understand that they are trying to prevent abortions but they are violating the Constitution. Every one has freedom of speech, but they should not be doing it physically in front of clinics. There are other ways of protesting and giving your opinions. Violence should not be an option because instead of helping the cause it creates more problems in society. I think both amendments are fair, it is just people that cannot follow the rules and cannot do things the right way.

9/15/2011
Irving/Tx
Jennifer J.
Bradley/Nimitz
I disagree with Newman. My rights end in a place where I feel safe. The clinic and all those who work, visit, and get consultations there should be like any other doctor's office -- or even any public place: it should feel safe. While not all protesters are violent or endangering the well being of those who get/participate in abortions, there are those occasional cases. And because of these violent and obstructive actions, all protesters are put at a distance. I completely agree with the FACE Act because, while it may restrict protesters First Amendment, it protects the well-being of others. In order of importance, well-being is far above the allowance to express one's opinion.

9/14/2011
beeville tx
Henry
Mrs. thorton/ acj
i believe that abortion is a benefiting situation for women not ready for a child. and could not deal with the hardship of going through with the pregnacny full term. so terminating the fetus is a logical procedure to undergo.

9/14/2011
beeville t.x
april
acjones
i dont really go for this i dont think this is right once your pregnant your pregnant

9/14/2011
Beeville TX
bethany
A C Jones higschool
no i dont think it violates the first amendment rights of the protesters and yes i do believe that those who break the law (clinic - access law) should be punished

9/12/2011
Irving/Texas
Marcus A.
Bradley/Nimitz High School
We will all never agree on one thing. Therefore, this country needs laws that will ensure the safety of our citizens and their protestors. The clinic-access law completes this task, though it does not violate the First Amendment of such protestors. I used to view abortion as an immoral action, but I forgot to regard certain circumstances in which that decision deems perfectly understandable. Sometimes we become victims of rape attacks or mothers’ lives become at stack when pregnancy complications occur. We never know the true story behind every closed door. So, we should be able to walk into any building, any office, and any room with the mentality that, unless our intentions are corrupt, we can do anything. The Justice Department, consequently, should file lawsuits against those who violate the clinic-access law, because there is no reason to humiliate or harm others for their choices. Nobody truly recognizes our situations except us. After the Roe v. Wade case, the 14th Amendment legalized abortion before the first trimester. However, some people feel that his or her First Amendment is violated simply because they are banned from “stating their opinions” to the public. We tend to overlook the detrimental side effects of this excuse until we find ourselves blocking others from entering abortion clinics or even parking in that area. These “opinions” turn out to be more than mere expression of thought. What may start out as a seemingly innocuous battle against pro-life and pro-choice campaigners may result in an indelible human destruction if we don’t control ourselves. The law is a good place to begin the end of this monstrous controversy.

Related News
Related Resources
Share