Supreme Court urged to reverse ‘abortion distortion’ First Amendment ruling.
EXCLUSIVE: Americans United for Life Fights to Overturn Abortion-Related Free Speech Restrictions
Americans United for Life (AUL) has taken a stand in the Supreme Court, filing a brief to challenge the limitations on abortion-related free speech imposed by a 2000 high court case. This exclusive brief, obtained by the Washington Examiner, supports a New York case that questions the precedent set in Hill v. Colorado, where sidewalk counselor Debra Vitagliano was prohibited from informing women seeking abortions about alternative options.
Top Three Takeaways from the Republican Debate in Milwaukee
In June 2022, Westchester County, New York, passed a law that banned individuals like Vitagliano from engaging in sidewalk counseling, citing the Hill v. Colorado precedent. Vitagliano filed a lawsuit against the county and has recently requested the Supreme Court to review the case.
Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, hinted at the potential to overturn Hill. Alito noted that the high court’s abortion precedent had “diluted the strict standard for facial constitutional challenges.”
The demise of Roe has created an opportunity to challenge Hill, and the Supreme Court could make a decision on Vitagliano’s case as early as the fall term.
Alito specifically criticized Hill, stating that the court’s abortion precedent had “distorted First Amendment doctrines.”
“Hill not only silenced sidewalk counselors’ protected speech,” said AUL policy counsel Danielle Pimentel, “but it has also harmed women and girls, especially those experiencing coercive abuse, by preventing sidewalk counselors from discussing abortion alternatives, the procedure’s risks, and available resources.”
In Hill, the Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado statute prohibiting similar activities within 100 feet of abortion clinics did not violate the First Amendment right to free speech.
The 6-3 opinion by former Justice John Paul Stevens stated, “The law ‘is not a ‘regulation of speech.’ Rather, it is a regulation of the places where some speech may occur.'”
In his dissent, former Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, criticized the increased state power in controlling speech.
“‘Uninhibited, robust, and wide open’ debate is replaced by the power of the state to protect an unheard-of ‘right to be let alone’ on the public streets,” Scalia said.
AUL, an organization that predates the Roe decision, argued in their brief, “This Court may have overturned Roe v. Wade, but Roe’s distortion of First Amendment law continues to infringe upon the fundamental rights of sidewalk counselors.”
The group highlighted retired Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dissent in Hill, stating, “For the first time, the Court approves a law which bars a private citizen from passing a message, in a peaceful manner and on a profound moral issue, to a fellow citizen on a public sidewalk.”
After Roe, a web of abortion precedent was established, impacting medical standards, legal norms, and standing. Critics refer to this as the “abortion distortion.”
“As Roe made it difficult to enact any legislation protecting women and preborn children, it also interfered with the democratic process and created an abortion distortion that warped other legal doctrines,” said AUL litigation counsel Carolyn McDonnell. “The Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Hill case to restore the right of all Americans to engage in public discourse about alternatives to abortion.”
In recent years, science and medicine have become divisive political issues, extending beyond abortion to topics like the coronavirus and the efficacy of masks and vaccines.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
