Justice Thomas Condemns Supreme Court For Refusal To Hear Case On Abortion Buffer Zones
By Stefan J. Bos, Chief International Correspondent Worthy News
WASHINGTON (Worthy News) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has condemned the nation’s top court for declining to hear a case challenging buffer zones around abortion clinics that he says trample free speech rights.
Referring to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections, Thomas called the refusal an “abdication of our judicial duty.”
Monday’s case was Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, which began in Carbondale, Illinois, where officials prohibited protesters from getting within 8 feet (2.5 meters) of patients at an abortion clinic without consent.
Authorities cited a precedent-setting case when the Supreme Court in 2000 upheld a ruling in Hill v. Colorado allowing a Colorado “buffer zone” law to restrict protests near abortion clinics. Thomas was on the Supreme Court for Hill at the time and dissented in the 6-3 decision
Authorities say buffer zones are aimed at preventing harassment of women and girls seeking abortion.
Yet anti-abortion activists asked the Supreme Court to overrule its decision in the Hill case, arguing it violated their free speech rights granted under the “First Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution.
MANIPULATING COURT
Thomas seemed to agree and suggested to his fellow justices to revisit the matter, noting that the Supreme Court already ended the federal constitutional right to abortion in 2022.
The justice said the Hill case “manipulated this Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence precisely to disfavor ‘opponents of abortion’ and their ‘right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong.'”
He suggested the Supreme Court revisit Hill to give clarity to lower courts “who feel bound by it,” particularly after Roe v. Wade enabling nationwide abortion was overturned in 2022.
Yet the high court’s refusal to follow Thomas’ lead marked a loss for abortion opponents who claimed their First Amendment rights are violated by laws that limit demonstrations near clinics.
The Supreme Court majority did not explain its decision on Monday, finding that the rules followed the precedent set by Hill v. Colorado (2000).
In that case, the high court held that the restrictions on speech-related conduct are constitutional because they regulate the places where some speech may occur and not the speech itself.
If you are interested in articles produced by Worthy News, please check out our FREE sydication service available to churches or online Christian ministries. To find out more, visit Worthy Plugins.