The constitutionality of abortion clinic "buffer zones" will again be considered by the Supreme Court this fall. The Feminist Majority Foundation has filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in the Schenk v. Pro-Choice Network case, asking the Court to rule in favor of buffer zones around Buffalo, NY clinics and individuals approaching or leaving the clinics.

Abortion clinics in Buffalo currently have a 15-foot "buffer zone" around clinic buildings, driveways, and individuals entering or leaving the clinics. Members of certain anti-abortion groups who have been harassing patients at those clinics are prohibited from entering the buffer zones. Anti-abortion extremists challenged these buffer zones, saying they restrict the freedom of speech of people opposed to abortion.

"When a clinic is the target of persistent harassment, blockades, and even violence, buffer zones are critical to keeping clinics open and protecting patients," said Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "Our annual survey of abortion clinic violence shows that violence diminishes with effective law enforcement — including buffer zone injunctions."

This case is very similar to another Supreme Court buffer zone case initiated two years ago by the Feminist Majority Foundation, Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion clinics harassed by anti-abortion extremists can obtain court-ordered protective "buffer zone" injunctions to keep harassers away from clinics without violating the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.

Anti-abortion extremists challenging the Buffalo buffer zones argue that the buffer zone injunction in Buffalo should not be judged by the same standards as the Madsen case. In fact, they argue that the Madsen decision applies only to the Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida, whose buffer zones were challenged in Madsen.

The Feminist Majority Foundation disagrees, and argues in its amicus curiae brief that the Madsen decision should apply to the Buffalo clinics, because of the similarities of the cases. The Buffalo clinics suffered from the same types of obstruction and harassing behavior that prompted the buffer zones in Melbourne, Florida. Anti-abortion extremists in Buffalo blocked access to clinics and parking lots, and "sidewalk counselors" used video cameras to intimidate and harass patients. The Feminist Majority Foundation also argues that the courts are not granting injunctions "on demand" and restricting speech where there is no harassment. It is not easy for abortion clinics to be granted buffer zone injunctions — over half of the abortion clinics which requested some type of injunction from the courts were denied.

The Feminist Majority Foundation is uniquely qualified to submit this brief, which the Supreme Court justices will read as background material. The Feminist Majority Foundation’s National Clinic Defense Project trained hundreds of clinic defense volunteers to protect Buffalo abortion clinics. Foundation staff, volunteers, and supporters witnessed first-hand the violence directed at clinics, the clinic workers, and the women who seek the clinics’ services in Buffalo.

The Feminist Majority Foundation’s brief was filed by Talbot D’Alemberte, the attorney who argued the Madsen case before the Supreme Court. Also assisting on the amicus brief is Steven Gey, the John W. and Ashley E. Frost Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law.