Court Rejects Challenge To Massachusetts Abortion Facility Buffer Zone Law

In McCullen v. Coakley, (D MA, Aug. 22, 2008), a Massachusetts federal district court rejected a facial constitutional challenge brought by pro-life "sidewalk counselors" to Massachusetts' recently revised law that creates a 35-foot fixed buffer zone around driveways and entrances of reproductive health care facilities. In a 75-page opinion, the court rejected First Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process challenges. The court found that the law is a content-neutral, narrowly-tailored time, place and manner regulation. In response to plaintiffs' Free Exercise challenge,the court held:

The Act does not regulate speech, expression, prayer, singing, worship or display of religious articles. It merely regulates where such expression may take place, i.e., outside of a clearly marked buffer zone during the normal business hours of an RHCF. The Act also applies to all non-exempt persons equally. As a result, this court is “bound to conclude that the regulation does not discriminate against a particular religion or religious practice.”