Massachusetts Catholic Action League Files Amicus Brief Urging the Supreme Judicial Court to Find "Buffer Zone" Legislation Unconstitutional

The Massachusetts Catholic Action League urged the highest court of Massachusetts to advise the state legislature that Senate Bill 148, concerning so-called "buffer zones" around abortion facilities, violates constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly.  The brief was filed on December 16, 1999.  Two other excellent briefs urging the same result were filed by Massachusetts State Senator Marian Walsh and the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.

Download instructions (for PC users with Windows and Word97 + or programs that can read Word documents delivered in uuencode)

(you may want to print this page of instructions first):

Do you have Word97 or subsequent version of Word, or a program that can open Word files?  If yes, continue.

Click on the document you want to download.

Amicus Brief on Buffer Zone Bill

Motion of Catholic Action League Accompanying Brief

Background Article on Buffer Zone Appeal.

A "Save File" dialogue box will appear.  Make sure that the "Save this file to disk" box is marked.  Click "Yes".

A "Save As ..." dialogue box should appear.  Find the folder into which you want to download the document.  The default name for the file to be downloaded will be indicated in the dialogue box.  Click OK.

Open Word, or other program that can read Word97 files in uuencode.

Open file containing the downloaded document.

SJC Informs Massachusetts Senate That Senate Bill 148 Is Constitutional.

Click here to see a copy of the January 26, 2000 decision of the SJC.

 

MASSACHUSETTS CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: January 26, 2000

Statement on SJC Ruling on Buffer Bill
The Massachusetts Catholic Conference is disappointed by today’s ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court finding no constitutional fault with Senate Bill 148, creating speech-free zones around abortion facilities.

The Court’s conclusion that the bill is "narrowly tailored" is mystifying, given that the bill would squelch all expression, regardless of degree of threat or level of danger, within the designated zones. While we abhor violence in any form, this bill goes too far by targeting peaceful types of speech, prayer and assembly that pose no threat to public safety.

With all due respect, the court is wrong when it concludes that the buffer zones created by the bill are somehow "substantially comparable" to other buffer zones upheld in previous cases. This bill differs radically in scope and effect by targeting the activities of peaceful, law-abiding citizens who seek to avail women with life-affirming alternatives or who desire to remain in quiet prayer.

Given the bill’s impact on speech, religious activities, and assembly, we will continue to oppose its passage in the legislature. Ultimately, we remain convinced that the legislation will be subject to challenge in the federal courts if it is ever enacted.

- 30 -