Thanks for the thread, DonViejo.

What abt a woman's right not to be harrassed by a mob?

Sure the first amendment gives you the right to talk freely. But it doesn't say anything about forcing anyone to listen to you. If these women wanted 'face to face counselling', I'd think they would have sought it out, not gone to an clinic that provides abortion services.

terrible decision.

The Supreme Court likes buffer zones around the President (well, some presidents), too:

http://www.aclu-or.org/content/moss-v-secret-service

So, if you want to go see your doctor, according to the Supreme Court, you have to run a gauntlet of shrieking, spitting hooligans with a record of violence, because Free Speech. But if you want to make a direct petition for redress from government officials, you have to stay 30 yards away or more from the untouchable, august personages of our public officials.

It's a curiously gymnastic reading of the First Amendment, but since both the McCullen and Moss decisions were unanimous. Us lowlies probably aren't smart enough to figure it out, so we're just so lucky to have the Supreme Court here to tell us what is and is not protected speech.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the state was asserting an “undeniably significant interest in maintaining public safety” and preserving access to health-care facilities. But Massachusetts pursued those interests by taking the “extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum [public streets and sidewalks] to all speakers,” he said.

The state had failed to address less-restrictive alternatives that would protect free speech while also defending its interest in maintaining safety, he said.

The court record showed that most of the problem was associated with protests at a single clinic in Boston on Saturday mornings, Chief Justice Roberts said.

“For a problem shown to arise only once a week in one city at one clinic, creating 35-foot buffer zones at every clinic across the Commonwealth is hardly a narrowly tailored solution,” he said. “The Commonwealth has available to it a variety of approaches that appear capable of serving its interests, without excluding individuals from areas historically open for speech and debate.” . .

Massachusetts officials had argued that they had tried other less-restrictive methods – including a six-foot buffer zone that police said was too difficult to enforce.

“We cannot accept that contention,” Roberts said. “Although [state officials] claim that Massachusetts tried other laws already on the books, they identify not a single prosecution brought under those laws within at least the last 17 years.”'

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0626/Supreme-Court-9-0-nixes-35-foot-buffer-zone-at-abortion-clinic