Mccullen V. Coakley Case Summary

Opinion of the Court: McCullen v. Coakley The Eleanor McCullen against Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts was a Supreme Court Issue in 2013. In 2000 Massachusetts Legislature created the Massachusetts Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act which stated that a buffer zone will be enforced around abortion clinics to prevent interference between those who are pro-life and pro-choice advocates. The final ruling from the Supreme Court was that the buffer zones did violate the First Amendment. A similar act was enacted in Colorado, that the Court sided for the buffer zones in the Hill v Colorado (2000). The case became local when the McGuire v. Reilly was denied the challenge the First Amendment. Around 2007, Massachusetts legislators came to the realization that the 2000 ruling was inadequate. The Supreme Court used the information from the past two cases to help determine the ruling of the McCullen v. Coakley case. Many witnessed the violation of the law on multiple accounts; Martha Coakley testified that protestors denied the buffer zone (McCullen v. Coakley, Opinion, 1,2).
Eleanor McCullen, a prime petitioner, said that the act …show more content…
Some zones were too large for petitioners to decipher those who were actually patients or bystanders before they enter the buffer zones. The distance also creates a burden for petitioners to begin a conversation with patients as a way of counseling. McCullen personally states that even if she does begin a conversation with someone outside the buffer zone she must abruptly stop at the edge of zone which gives the appearance that she is “suspicious”. She also says the zones causes her to raise her voice when speaking to people from a distance which does not give the compassion she wishes to convey (McCullen v. Coakley, Opinion, 20). The Supreme Court noted these views as they were scene to be a way of violating the First