A federal judge in Denver has dismissed a local woman’s challenge to a law that restricts activities aimed at persuading others outside abortion clinics, a rule that has been in place for over three decades. The case could potentially lead to a U.S. Supreme Court review of its previous decision on similar restrictions.
Enacted in 1993, Colorado’s law prohibits individuals from approaching anyone within eight feet of the entrance to a health care facility for the purpose of distributing literature, displaying signs, or speaking with patrons. The legislation was introduced following reports of confrontational tactics employed by anti-abortion protesters, which targeted not only those seeking abortions but also other patients visiting the facilities.
In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld this law in the case of Hill v. Colorado, deciding by a 6-3 margin that such regulations do not constitute a blanket restriction on speech and are considered an appropriate way to manage public discourse in specific locations.
Recently, Wendy Faustin, who has been involved in sidewalk counseling against abortion, challenged both the Colorado law and a similar ordinance in Denver. She argued that the restriction prevents her from engaging individuals within a conversational distance of less than eight feet. Faustin and her legal team emphasized that she would prefer to initiate discussions in a manner she believes is more effective.
However, Faustin recognized the uphill battle due to the Supreme Court’s precedent established in Hill. In her legal arguments, she requested U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews to provide her with the opportunity to bring her case to the Supreme Court if he found himself bound by the Hill decision.
In a concise order issued on July 29, Crews underscored the clear precedent set by the higher court. He explained that the federal court system mandates adherence to controlling decisions from the Supreme Court, asserting that he was obligated to apply Hill in this instance.
Faustin pointed out in her court filings that there are currently justices on the Supreme Court who might be open to revisiting the Hill ruling. Earlier this year, the court declined to take up a case from Illinois that involved similar buffer zone laws, despite Justice Clarence Thomas indicating a willingness to reassess Hill’s constitutionality.
Thomas, who was the dissenting voice in the original Hill case and remains on the Supreme Court, expressed that he would have welcomed the chance to explicitly overturn the Hill decision. He acknowledged that since the original ruling, some lower courts have felt compelled to uphold similar restrictive measures surrounding abortion clinics.
The case has been officially titled Faustin v. Polis et al., and it highlights ongoing legal battles surrounding reproductive rights and free speech in America.
This article was automatically written by Open AI and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested removed, retracted, or corrected by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.