<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"  Roe v. Wade celebrates its 41st anniversary this month, but the Supreme Court of the United States will be hearing a case that may chip away at Roe&amp;#039;s spirit. Beginning Jan. 15, the court will review a case regarding buffer zones around reproductive health care facilities. McCullen v. Coakley, called the Massachusetts Buffer Zone case, seeks to change a state law that forces all demonstrators to remain 35 feet away from clinic entrances, exits, and driveways. The law was passed in 2007 as a way to allow patients and employees safe, unobstructed access to clinics, while allowing activists to share their messages. This case aims to remove that restriction entirely. The bottom-line issues: Free speech versus abortion rights. Arguments against the buffer zone: Eleanor McCullen is a regular demonstrator outside Massachusetts&amp;#039;s abortion clinics. She passes out literature, reads Scripture and attempts to persuade patients to reconsider entering the facilities. She and fellow protestors claim the current law violates their First Amendment right to free speech, as well as their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the laws. They want not just curbside access to picket, but also intimate access that would allow them to &amp;quot;counsel&amp;quot; patients themselves.  A legal brief explaining their point of view states, &amp;quot;Petitioners are individuals who believe that women often have abortions because they feel pressured, alone, unloved, and out of options. Petitioners try to position themselves near clinics in an attempt to reach this unique audience, at a unique moment, to offer support, information, and practical assistance.&amp;quot; Arguments for the buffer zone: Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley argues that the concentration of protestors at close range to clinic entrances poses a &amp;quot;significant risk to public health and safety.&amp;quot; Violence is a concern. It was just 19 years ago when armed protestor John C. Salvi III opened fire in two Boston-area abortion clinics, killing two employees and wounding five others. Abortion-rights advocates fear a smaller space between patients and the two volatile sides of the abortion debate could lead to more bloodshed. NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, one of the supporters of the buffer zone law, points to statistics from areas without buffer zones to argue for the law&amp;#039;s necessity. According to the organization, between 2007 and 2012, there have been eight reported arsons, 41 incidents of assault and battery, 37 bomb threats, 41 death threats, 81 suspicious packages, 50 reports of staff and patients being stalked, and 30 facility blockades that shut down clinic services. What&amp;#039;s at stake: If the Supreme Court strikes down the buffer zone law, the precedent could lead to the dissolution of similar laws in Illinois, Colorado, Maine, California and Montana, and influence how state courts review similar laws protecting speech and public safety. Follow Heather on Twitter. Photo Credit: Getty Images "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a18479/mccullen-v-coakley-supreme-court-buffer-zone/?src=rss>