Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Restrictions on Abortion Pickets Mulled

The U.S Supreme Court decided this week to let stand a lower court ruling that sharply limits picketing that may occur near the home of a doctor who performs abortions.

Despite the strong objection of Justice Antonin Scalia, the high court refused to hear the claim that the order violates free-speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The New Jersey Supreme Court had ruled that abortion protesters may come no closer than 100 feet to the home of Dr. Elrick Murray, who lives in Westfield, N.J., a New York City suburb, and may march for only one hour every other week.

Scalia, however, accused the other justices of treating abortion protesters as a “currently disfavored class.� He said that, in the past, marching and picketing by civil rights protesters, union members or political activists have been protected as a form of free expression.

What is your reaction to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing limits on picketing near the homes of doctors who perform abortions?

Robert Weissman, president-elect, San Fernando Valley Bar Assn.

“The responsibility of our judicial system in crafting the line between free speech and personal harassment is a difficult one to draw, but I agree with the court’s decision. Sometimes, in our society, we tend to over-personalize our judgments. A physician who honestly believes he or she is doing the right thing medically, and even possibly legally and morally, should not be personally attacked. The right of freedom of speech must be protected, but not at the cost of the equally important right to personal safety.�

Diane Chamberlain, associate director, Valley Community Clinic, North Hollywood

“I think it’s a good decision not to allow people’s home lives to be disrupted. I certainly support everyone’s right to disagree on any subject on any time, but when you go to someone’s home and put their family in jeopardy and their whole safety in jeopardy, I don’t think it’s fair, and I don’t think it’s right. If someone is going to protest a business, you protest what’s going on in the business; it doesn’t have to be personal.�

Sara DiVito Hardman of Tarzana, chairwoman, Christian Coalition of California

“I totally agree with Justice Scalia. The issue here is freedom of expression. Our First Amendment is one of the most important and fundamental rights. It’s what keeps us separate from other nations, and these rights are not, and have not been, denied to other groups of lawful and peaceful protesters. This should sound an alarm to people everywhere. I don’t agree to violent protest or breaking the law to protest; I don’t agree with any of that type of activity. This is a totally different issue, and the issue here is freedom of expression.�

Jean Morrison, coordinator, San Fernando Valley chapter, National Organization for Women

“It’s an attempt to balance the rights of the individual to live a peaceful life versus the rights of groups to protest. While the National Organization for Women does not want heavy infringements on the rights of individuals to have freedom of speech, pickets in front of a person’s home, especially an abortion physician, have become tools for harassment, and I think the New Jersey court and the Supreme Court have recognized that. It should be noted that individuals in our society, just because they happen to be doctors performing a legal procedure, should have the same right to lead a peaceful life.�

Dr. Brian Greenberg, Tarzana pediatrician

“Whether or not you believe abortion is an ethical procedure or a good procedure, we’ve decided, through the courts, that it is a legal procedure. On that basis, physicians who do perform abortions should have protection under the law. They should be free from harassment of their home, and their families should be free of harassment, and so I support the court’s decision.�