In the world of real estate, the mantra “Location, Location, Location” sums up the reality that the location of a property is one of the biggest factors that determine its desirability. The same principle applies with equal, if not greater, force when it comes to exercising the freedom of speech, including opposition to abortion.
While the growth of communications technology has made it easier for like-minded individuals to share information, more traditional methods of communicating like using public sidewalks and parks for protests, distributing literature, holding a sign, or in-person conversations often provide the most effective way to reach people who do not already agree with the speaker.
The Supreme Court commented on this fact in McCullen v. Coakley:
It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas. Even today, they remain one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply preaching to the choir. With respect to other means of communication, an individual confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the channel, or leave the Web site. Not so on public streets and sidewalks. There, a listener often encounters speech he might otherwise tune out. . . . [T]his aspect of traditional public fora is a virtue, not a vice.
In McCullen, the Court unanimously invalidated a law restricting the ability of individuals to speak on public sidewalks located near abortion clinics, noting that the law robbed pro-life sidewalk counselors, who desire to engage in friendly, conversational discussions with women heading to or from clinics, of their ability to do so.
McCullen, and subsequent lawsuits protecting the right to use public sidewalks near abortion clinics for free speech, have taken on added importance in light of the recent disturbing revelations that abortion clinics are selling the body parts of aborted babies. Abortion clinics, and their supporters within the ranks of the government, would prefer to eliminate the ability of pro-life individuals to discuss these issues with women in the critical moments that they approach abortion clinics.
After the City of Englewood, New Jersey enacted an ordinance similar to the one invalidated in McCullen, the ACLJ filed suit on behalf of Jeryl Turco, a Christian sidewalk counselor who has regularly used the public sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic to speak with individuals heading to or from the clinic.
The sidewalk presents Jeryl with her only opportunity to communicate with women who are considering having an abortion at the clinic. She has only a matter of seconds to encourage women to stop and speak with her further while pro-abortion advocates (acting as “clinic escorts”) do everything possible to interfere with her, so being banned from several hundred square feet of sidewalk near the clinic has tangibly harmed Jeryl’s ability to communicate.
We recently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which would allow Jeryl to resume using the sidewalk for her First Amendment-protected activities while the case moves forward.
There is a mountain of evidence demonstrating that Englewood’s goal was to significantly interfere with the ability of pro-life individuals, like Jeryl, to engage in First Amendment-protected speech on the sidewalk while leaving the activities of pro-abortion escorts untouched. For example,
As the Supreme Court famously observed more than 70 years ago, “[t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
The right to be free from unnecessary, overly broad, or viewpoint discriminatory restrictions on the use of public sidewalks near abortion clinics is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment, even in parts of the country where local officials may desire to give special access to abortion supporters while “curtail[ing]” pro-life speakers by “cut[ting] down on the number of encounters” they can have with individuals who are considering having an abortion.
We will keep you informed as this case moves forward.
We're aggressively battling in Congress and in federal court to defeat Big Abortion. Your gift - of any size - will be DOUBLED to save lives. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.
Big Abortion is launching a massive propaganda campaign to activate its supporters and attack life. Planned Parenthood has rolled out an online initiative it calls “Unstoppable” – featuring pro-abortion artists and celebrities, and urging its supporters to sign an abortion “manifesto.” The intent...
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has filed an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit defending an Ohio law that prohibited taxpayer dollars from flowing to abortion providers. The law bars organizations that provide and advocate for abortion from participating in...
In May, we informed you about a proposed rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that would prevent taxpayer funded grants through Title X from being given to organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, that provide abortion services. If adopted, this rule will cut...
Big Abortion is irate because Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers are using technology to steal their business and save babies. According to a recent report , the radical abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America is livid with search engine Google for allowing pro-life advertisements, resulting in users being...