In a friend of the court brief
filed this week in the United States Supreme Court case, McCullen v. Coakley, Dana Cody, Executive Director of Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) stated, “There is often one set of rules for free speech at abortion clinics that bear little resemblance to the rules that apply everywhere else!” According to ChristianNewswire.com,
seven Massachusetts residents who engaged in pro-life counseling outside of abortion clinics sued the state for violation of their right to free speech through enactment of a “buffer zone” law. The statute created a thirty-five-foot fixed buffer zone around driveways and entrances of reproductive health care facilities. The lower court upheld the buffer zone despite its unfair impact on pro-life speech. The Life Legal Defense Foundation
argues that this buffer zone is unconstitutional. The LLDF website states in the September 12th article “Abortion Exceptionalism” to be reviewed by U.S. Supreme Court
As pro-life sidewalk counselors have experienced for years, there is often one set of rules for free speech at abortion clinics that bears little resemblance to the rules that apply everywhere else. These rules have been springing up all over the country and have unfortunately been upheld by the majority of reviewing courts. Most recently, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Massachusetts’ buffer zone law which was designed to keep pro-life speech activities a minimum of 35 feet away from the entrances to abortion clinics.
Of course, such hypocrisy comes as no surprise to conservatives. After all, being a hypocrite void of morality encompasses what it means to be a liberal.