Supreme Court Asked to Decide on Law Blocking Abortion Clinic Protests

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 7, 2022. (Front L–R) Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. (Back L–R) Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

A Catholic “sidewalk counselor” has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a New York county law that prevents pro-life protesters from speaking to people near abortion clinics, according to a religious liberty law firm.

Debra Vitagliano is now petitioning the Supreme Court to look at a 2000 court ruling, Hill v. Colorado, which involves a 1993 law that prevents the approach of a person within 8 feet without their consent for the purpose of giving them fliers or counseling, according to law firm Becket.

In June, a federal appeals court ruled that Mrs. Vitagliano can ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the Hill v. Colorado ruling that the law firm says “allowed states and local governments to ban peaceful life-affirming advocacy on public sidewalks.”

In 2022, the government of New York’s Westchester County passed a measure that restricts discussions about abortion, resources available to women, and alternatives to abortion on public sidewalks near abortion clinics. The law implemented a 100-foot zone around clinics, including public sidewalks.

“This ban on sidewalk counseling deprives abortion-vulnerable women of a final opportunity to receive help and learn about additional resources before potentially making a life-altering choice,” the law firm said, adding that the Supreme Court could render a decision against Hill v. Colorado, which it said was a “major departure from our nation’s protections of free speech.”

In June, the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law adopted by Westchester County, located just north of New York City, was valid under the Hill ruling. The court said that it was bound to follow that ruling unless the Supreme Court expressly overturns it.

“No one should be arrested and put behind bars for having peaceful, face-to-face conversations on a public sidewalk,” Mark Rienzi, president and CEO at Becket, said in a statement. “The Court should fix the mistake of Hill and make clear that the First Amendment protects these offers of help and information to women in need.”

“No one’s looking for the right to block or tackle somebody or anything like that. But we are looking for the right to speak peacefully,” he said, according to the Washington Examiner.

In a 2014 case, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law establishing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, but the court didn’t mention the Hill decision.

Pro-abortion protesters with Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights wear green as they protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on June 15, 2022. (Jackson Elliott/The Epoch Times)

In 2022, an Ohio-based U.S. appeals court temporarily blocked a Kentucky county’s 10-foot buffer zone, citing the 2014 Supreme Court decision. A Philadelphia-based appeals court is currently considering a challenge to a 20-foot buffer zone adopted by Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

When the Westchester County law was passed, some members of the local Board of Legislators who supported the measure said that it would afford a woman the “right to walk freely to and from a health care facility.” The law was passed shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision, thus giving each state the right to place restrictions on or to allow abortions.

“It will not prevent protesters from protesting in those places. That is not the intent of the law. Rather, it would only prevent those persons seeking to engage in those activities from harming, harassing or obstructing access,” Legislator Colin Smith, a Democrat, said at the time, according to local media outlets.

“Eleven years ago, this law didn’t get passed for a reason, and it still is wrong today, not because of medical reasons, but canceling someone’s freedom of speech,” Legislator James Nolan, a Republican, said in response.

Some critics of the measure also said that the passage of the Westchester County law was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision.

The case submitted by Mrs. Vitagliano is listed as Vitagliano v. County of Westchester. The Supreme Court’s nine justices will likely consider whether or not to take up the case during the fall. At least four justices are required to sign off in order for it to be taken up in the next term.

Reuters contributed to this report.