Politics & Government

Court Abortion 'Buffer Zone' Ruling Resonates in NH

Cornerstone calls NH's law "copycat" legislation, but Governor Hassan says the New Hampshire law is different than Massachusetts' law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a Massachusetts law of a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics is unconstitutional, prompting local elected leaders to debate what it means for a similar law recently enacted in New Hampshire.

The high court said the 35-foot buffer law in Massachusetts violated the First Amendment.

Gov. Maggie Hassan, D-Exeter, said New Hampshire's law would be reviewed in the wake of that decision.

Hassan issued a statement June 26: "Women should be able to safely access health care and family planning services, and the bipartisan legislation that I signed earlier this month was narrowly tailored, with input from the law enforcement community and municipal officials, to ensure the safety and privacy of patients and the public, while also protecting the right to free speech. New Hampshire’s law is different than Massachusetts’, but we will closely review today’s decision to determine its impact, if any, on our state.”

Hassan signed it into law June 10 and it takes effect July 10. The law passed with some bipartisan support, and its co-sponsors including three Republican state senators: Sen. Nancy Stiles of Hampton, Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro, and Bob Odell of New London.

State Sen. Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, the chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who opposed Senate Bill 319, noted the court's reference that lawmakers have other steps to take to ensure safe and open access for patients to clinics that balance First Amendment rights.

"The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision today affirmed the concerns raised by lawmakers, Constitutional scholars, and others over this last session with regards to New Hampshire’s buffer zone bill," Carson said in a statement. "In siding with the plaintiffs in this case, the Court has agreed that these buffer zone laws pose an onerous burden to the free speech rights of those who wish to educate, protest, or otherwise exercise their Constitutional rights around these facilities."

Bryan McCormack, executive director of Cornerstone Action in New Hampshire, said the high court's ruling means New Hampshire's "copycat law is unsupportable."

McCormack added in a statement: "Peaceful pro-life witness outside abortion facilities is constitutionally protected and must be respected by law, as Cornerstone has held all along. Governor Hassan used deplorable judgment in signing New Hampshire's law knowing that a ruling on the Massachusetts case was pending. Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a reproach to everyone who supported SB 319. This ruling is a welcome affirmation of the First Amendment and an irresponsible door opening the State to a lawsuit."

U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) issued the following statement:

"Buffer zone laws exist to protect women from harassment and intimidation as they seek medical care and in the absence of these protections, we are compromising public safety. We must be able to respect First Amendment rights while also protecting women at the same time, and I am disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision which will have an unnecessarily harmful impact on the safety of women seeking to receive legal reproductive healthcare."

Find out what's happening in Nashuawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The New Hampshire House Republican Alliance issued a statement saying the New Hampshire law was rushed through, even as Republicans called it a blatant constitutional violation.

The HRA statement, from state Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton:

Find out what's happening in Nashuawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"The US Supreme Court's unanimous decision today simply confirms what the HRA members believed when they fought against SB 319, that it infringes on freedom of speech. Governor Hassan's signing of the bill must be either because she does not understand our constitutional rights, or has little regard for them. Free speech zones" that prohibit citizens from demonstrating or otherwise expressing their opinions in some locations are blatant affronts to our freedom of speech. Yes, it's sometimes annoying, but democracy is messy and one person's convenience is no reason to limit another's right to speak out."

Read the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in McCullen et al V. Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here