WESTFIELD – It’s an issue that’s been legally settled in this country for over 40 years, yet remains quite possibly the most polarizing social wedge in America today.
Whether you deem it the murder of an unborn fetus or a woman’s right to choose, abortion continues to serve as a major sticking point for citizens all over the U.S.
On Wednesday, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill that would enable police to disperse protesters and groups “substantially impeding access” to abortion clinics in the Commonwealth, a response to a unanimous Supreme Court decision that struck down the state’s previous law, which created a 35-foot protest-free zone around clinic entrances.
Under the new bill, after a dispersal order is issued, individuals would have to remain at least 25 feet from the clinic’s entrances and driveways for a maximum of eight hours. A dispersal area would have to be clearly marked and the law posted.
An Act to Promote Public Safety and Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities would also prohibit any physical act or threat of force from being used to intimidate anyone trying to enter or leave a clinic, and knowingly impeding an individual or vehicle’s access to a facility.
The bill would allow victims under the new law to file a civil action in Superior Court seeking injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees, along with amending the existing Massachusetts Civil Rights Act to allow the Attorney General to seek damages on behalf of affected individuals who have been blocked from clinics, as well as recover litigation costs and seek civil penalties for the interference of constitutional rights.
A hearing convened by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary was held in Boston Wednesday, with organizations such as the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Citizens for Life testifying for and against the bill.
PPLM Vice President of Health Center Operations Deb Fenton testified “without the buffer zone, patients and staff are once again unnecessarily put at risk”, while MCFL President Pat Stewart highlighted over 20 laws regarding blockading and harrassment currently on the books in the Commonwealth.
Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) and House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) said they are planning to get a final bill to the desk of Governor Deval L. Patrick before the end of the Legislature’s formal session on July 31.
While most of the clinics the proposed law will affect are located in greater Boston, western Mass. has facilities in Berkshire and Hampden Counties where residents can get an abortion.
For residents of greater Westfield, the Planned Parenthood League of Western Massachusetts/Western Massachusetts Health Center in Springfield is the nearest clinic, while Baystate Medical Center, also in Springfield, is the nearest hospital which can provide abortion services.
Tricia Wajda, PPLM director of public relations, says that they’ve dealt with protesting at their Springfield clinic over the years and in the wake of the McCullen v. Coakley decision, theres been an uptick in protesting around many Massachusetts clinics. The new legislation would be most beneficial for a facility like Springfield’s, which is located in a larger office building.
“It’s a different situation in Springfield than it is in a place like Boston because a lot of it revolves around (Springfield’s) parking lot, while in Boston we’re on a busy public sidewalk,” she said, adding that Fenton, who is based in Springfield, has always been able to hear and see protesters from her office window.”
“She (Fenton) had encountered a protester who knew her from her prior job, and she came into the building kicking the door, demanding to see Deb, telling her she needed to find a new job,” said Wajda. “Our staff, we’re used to hearing that we’re going to hell because we work for Planned Parenthood. She’s been called more names and ‘sinner’ more times than she can count.”
Wajda stated that a lot of the protesting activity peaks during religious holidays and during the 40 Days for Life campaign, an annual movement which spawned prayer vigils in cities around the world, and cited an incident where she said a Springfield nurse was barricaded inside her car by protesters.
“We were extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling. In reading their opinion, it was clear that they failed to grasp the realities that we – patients and staff – face every single day,” she said. “The decision was focused almost completely on the idea of ‘sidewalk counseling’ and closed, quiet conversations. But the reality is that patients and staff are faced with a gauntlet of protester activity that ranges from really disturbing, graphic signage and littering the sidewalks to people trying to stuff brochures in your hand.”
“This isn’t about making things easier for us. This is about making things safer for us.”
Ben Craft, director of public affairs for Baystate Medical Center, said that the “comfort, safety and privacy” of patients and their families is “of absolute importance to us.”
“The geography of our campus is such that any patients who may come for these services are far removed from any areas where demonstrations could take place,” he said. “In any case, our experience is that such demonstrations adjacent to our campus are really limited in nature, small scale and quite unintrusive.”
While the Commonwealth’s sizeable pro-choice contingent is supportive of the nascent bill, pro-life advocates question it’s necessity.
“There are already laws against blocking driveways or entrances. There are laws against harassment, and injunctions are available against persons who violate existing laws,” said Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, in a statement prior to the bill’s filing. “Let’s not waste the time of the legislators and the tax money of the citizens to end up before the Supreme Court again.”
James Driscoll, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, added that the timing of the bill was unfortunate.
“Any bill that comes out this late in the session, you don’t have time to vet it, to really sort of analyze what the effects are, to get people involved on the pro-side and the con-side,” he said. “It just seems to be an example of another bill being rushed through. I’m guessing that there was no expectation that the Supreme Court was going to toss out the buffer zone.”
Driscoll stated that while the Catholic Church no longer provides adoption services, it still views adoption as it’s preferred alternative to abortion, and that there are numerous agencies who help with food, shelter, employment, and counseling to women in crisis around the state.
“We encourage women to research what is in their area and community for support services, as well as reaching out to family members nearby,” said Driscoll before referring to the law again.
“There are laws already out there preventing people from causing a disturbance anywhere, anyplace, preventing access or egress,” he said. “No one in society has the right to prevent someone else from conducting their daily lives. Those laws are on the books. The police have the power to enforce them. Why do we need something specific for this?”
