Limits on pro-life protests outside of abortion clinics are being
challenged in the upcoming case “McCullen v. Coakley.”
The petitioners
argue that a Massachusetts law limiting sidewalk counseling for women
entering abortion clinics violates the First Amendment.
They claim that limiting the enforcement of a 35-foot “buffer zone”
around abortion clinics to pro-life counselors and other non-employees
is an example of a selective exclusion law targeting a specific
viewpoint in a public space.
The ruling will affect the interpretation of First Amendment rights for
protestors, and could implicitly reveal the court's interpretation of
the importance of abortion, its view of the procedure as “health care,”
and the value of individuals' freedom of speech in public spaces.
If the “buffer zone” is ruled to be unconstitutional, it would likely
expand pro-life counselors' ability to offer sidewalk counseling
services in front of abortion clinics.
Another case of note coming to the Supreme Court will be November's
“Town of Greece v. Galloway,” which will address the constitutionality
of prayer in legislative settings. The case challenges the town of
Greece, N.Y.'s 14-year-long practice of beginning town meetings with
prayers from a variety of traditions and faiths. The town places no
limits on who can say the public prayers, nor what the prayers contain.
The town argues that the practice of prayer in the government, and more
specifically in legislative areas, is a practice present in all levels
of government, and one that has been exercised throughout the nation's
history.
However, petitioners argue that the prayer sessions, though they are not
regulated or limited to certain faiths, violate the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment, and coerce participation in religious
prayer.
The court's decision is expected to clarify whether religious petitions
in legislative settings constitute “an establishment of religion,” or if
they are a licit means of religious expression in a public arena.
Other notable cases the Supreme Court will address are “Fisher v.
University of Texas,” which will revisit the question of affirmative
action in colleges; “McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission,”
regarding the constitutionality of individual political campaign
contributions; “National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning,” which
will address the president’s ability to appoint government officials
when the Senate is not in session; and “Medtronic Inc. v. Boston
Scientific Corp,” a patent law case.
Court observers have speculated that one or more cases dealing with the
federal contraception mandate may also be heard in the near future.
The controversial mandate requires employers to offer health insurance
plans covering contraceptive, sterilizing and abortion-causing products
and procedures, even if doing so violates their conscience or religious
beliefs.
Several cases regarding the mandate have been filed with the Supreme
Court, all concerning the ability of owners of private companies to run
their organizations in accordance with their deeply-held religious
convictions.
In each case – “Autocam v. Sebelius,” “Conestoga Wood Specialties v.
Sebelius,” and “Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores,” the government has
argued that the right to freely exercise religion does not apply to the
owners of for-profit companies. The owners have largely argued that
participating in for-profit business should not mean separating their
religious beliefs from their public action.
If the cases are taken, the decision will determine whether or not
companies must obey the mandate at the expense of their religious
convictions, and it could set a precedent for establishing the range of
freedom of religion in the public square.