For immediate release

August 25, 2008

 

Contact: Andrea Miller
617-556-8800 x12

 

 

Boston, MA – Late Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro upheld a 2007 Massachusetts statute creating a fixed 35-foot “buffer zone” around the entrances and driveways of reproductive health care facilities.  NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts applauded the federal court ruling today.

 

“No one should have to face harassment or fear violence when they are seeking or providing reproductive health services,” said Andrea Miller, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.  “The federal district court confirms that the legislature struck a careful, constitutional balance when it passed this law protecting the safety, dignity, and privacy of patients and health care workers throughout the Commonwealth without infringing on free speech rights.”

 

An Act Relative to Public Safety passed the Massachusetts House and Senate on November 1, 2007, and Governor Deval Patrick signed the bill into law twelve days later.  Lead sponsors Senators Susan Fargo (D-Concord) and Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester) and Representatives Marty Walz (D-Boston) and Carl Sciortino (D-Medford) guided the measure through the legislature, where it received overwhelming support. Strong proponents of the bill included leadership of both chambers: Senate President Therese Murray, House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, and the Co-Chairs of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security Senator James Timilty (D-Walpole) and Representative Michael Costello (D-Newburyport).

 

Elected officials, law enforcement, and women’s health advocates argued that a new law was needed to maintain a safe environment outside of reproductive health care facilities.  In his ruling, Judge Tauro cites testimony presented to the legislature about pervasive harassment and intimidation occurring even after a 2000 law established 6-foot “bubble zones” around individuals within 18 feet of those facilities.  That measure passed after anti-choice extremist John Salvi murdered two women's health center employees in 1994, but its vagueness and complexity rendered it ineffective.

 

Anti-choice activists filed suit on January 16, 2008, asserting that the new public safety law is unconstitutional “on its face” (as written) and “as applied” to several reproductive health care facilities.  Judge Tauro heard arguments on the facial challenge on May 28th from attorneys for the anti-choice plaintiffs and representatives of Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office, which is defending the law.  In ruling that the new law is constitutional on its face, the district court also rejected the anti-choice plaintiffs’ request that the law be enjoined.  Judge Tauro will next consider the “as applied” claims in McCullen v. Coakley, under a schedule still to be determined.

 

# # #