Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x1 - Planned Parenthood responds * Lawsuit filed over Chicago “bubble zone” ordinance

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Press release…

Today, the Thomas More Society filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Chicago over its abortion clinic “bubble zone” ordinance. The law makes it illegal to approach within 8 feet of someone who is walking towards an abortion clinic once they are within 50 feet of the entrance, unless that person consents. This confusing law is being challenged by the Pro-Life Action League and sidewalk counselors who reach out to women who may feel they have no option other than to end their baby’s life. The complaint charges the City, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and transportation Commissioner Rebekah Scheinfeld with unconstitutionally curtailing the rights of pro-life advocates. A press conference detailing the lawsuit is scheduled at noon (Central) on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, outside of a northside Chicago Planned Parenthood at LaSalle and Division. Speakers include: Thomas More Society Special Counsel Stephen Crampton, Pro-Life Action League Vice-President Ann Scheidler, and sidewalk counselor Veronica Price.

This civil rights action asserts the unconstitutionality of the ‘bubble zone’ law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments both on its face, and as applied by the Chicago Police through selective enforcement owing to a misunderstanding of the law and also prejudice against pro-life counselors, which has caused false arrests and harassment of pro-life counselors and advocates.

“The precious right of free speech — so central to our democracy — is being denied to these individuals on the basis of their pro-life beliefs,” explained Thomas Olp, Senior Counsel at the Thomas More Society. “Pro-life advocates are being singled out and their Constitutional protections are being trampled by Chicago’s ‘bubble zone’ ordinance – a law created solely to discriminate against people who wish to offer abortion-bound women information about alternatives to abortion. No other business or industry is sheltered in this way. Through this law, the mayor and his administration are partnering with abortion vendors to violate the rights of those who wish to reach out to women seeking abortions.”

The court filing document case offers numerous Constitutional violations and other illegal abuses including:

Pro-life advocates being told by a policeman, upon challenging his application of the “bubble zone,” that if he was forced to go get the ordinance from the station he would come back and arrest them.

Police determining and communicating to sidewalk counselors that they were not allowed within 150 feet of an abortion provider’s entrance.

Law enforcement personnel insisting that pro-life advocates could only hand literature to someone who asked for it and deciding that the ordinance prohibited any kind of verbal expression by sidewalk counselors.

Police imposing absolute and illegal buffer zones, telling sidewalk counselors that they were prohibited from approaching within 50 feet of the clinic entrance or with 8 feet of persons heading toward the clinic - even outside of the 50 feet “bubble zone.”

Officers stating that the ordinance banned sidewalk counselors from even standing within 8 feet of anyone approaching the abortion facility door.

The complaint also details several wrongful arrests of pro-life sidewalk counselors under the “bubble zone” ordinance and cites rampant abuse of citizen rights without provocation.

Scheidler rallied the pro-life community, saying, “I feel confident we will prevail in court. Only two years ago, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a ‘buffer zone’ law in Massachusetts. Now it’s time for Chicago’s unconstitutional ‘bubble zone’ to burst.”

The lawsuit is here. I’ll let you know if the other side provides a response.

*** UPDATE *** From Planned Parenthood of Illinois…

Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL) knows, first hand, the need for bubble zones. These protections help ensure that those giving and seeking health care can safely enter and leave medical facilities, keep entrances open, prevent traffic problems, maintain distance between individuals, minimize physical contact and reduce harassment and intimidation.

“Chicagoans should be able to access health care services without fearing intimidation and harassment,” said Linda Diamond Shapiro, PPIL Interim CEO. “The Chicago Bubble Zone Ordinance enables patients in this city to do just that.”

Chicago’s Health Care Bubble Zone Ordinance ensures that patients and staff have unimpeded access to and from health care facilities. The Bubble Zone Ordinance is part of the City Code regarding disorderly conduct that also provides protections for schools and places of worship. The ordinance protects the free speech rights of protesters while ensuring that patients can exercise their own rights to healthcare.

“As sponsor of this ordinance, I felt it was important to protect a patient’s right to health care while making sure that the rights of others were not infringed,” said former Alderman Vi Daley. “The eight foot bubble allows protestors to be heard while ensuring that a patient can enter a health center without obstructions.”

The first provision of the ordinance is similar in scope to a Colorado law that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The second part reflects language in the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), a law that was passed in 1994 and has also been upheld by each of the eight federal appeals courts.

Recently, protestors have started wearing the same color vests as PPIL escorts (volunteers who provide safe passage for patients) with “Parenthood Volunteer” and an icon that looks similar to Planned Parenthood’s logo. This tactic scares and confuses patients as they try to access the health center.

“A bubble zone of eight feet enables staff and patients to go in and out of health centers without being swarmed by protestors,” Shapiro stated. “This small distance can make an enormous difference in keeping entrances accessible and reducing aggressive confrontations.”

The Chicago ordinance allows protestors to continue to express their right to free speech as long as they do not approach within 8 feet of other people who have not given their consent to be approached within the 50 foot buffer zone.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 10:38 am

Comments

“counselors”? Man, that’s sure not how I have experienced them, although at Planned Parenthood in St. Louis. Went across the river to get the really cool and complete contraception education kit for our Our Whole Lives class at church.

That was harrowing to say the least. Harrowing. I hope they preserve the bubble law in Chicago. The further those people are the better.

Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 10:54 am
Seriously doubt your Right of Free Speech is denied because you’re not within eight feet of your audience. Would you claim that Free Speech was denied to a politician speaking from a stage, where the audience was eight feet away?

Fuzzy definitions and resulting inconsistent enforcement might be arguments.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:00 am
Hill v. Colorado (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v._Colorado) allows for floating buffer zones. This looks like an attempt to get the Supreme Court to overturn the decision after the success into striking down Massachusetts’ “hard buffer zone” law in 2014. But given the current and likely future makeup of the Court, seems unlikely.

Comment by so... Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:02 am
more like harassment from the anti choicers. sad how little they care about the life of a woman.

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:02 am
Would anyone, giving a speech from a stage, claim that his Right of Free Speech was denied, because he was separated from his audience by eight feet or more?

Over-claiming Constitutional Rights abuses them.

Confusion in language and enforcement might be arguments.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:13 am
There is a difference between freedom of speech and getting in people’s face.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:15 am
sorry for the duplicate.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:15 am
I believe the bubble zone should be farther and this is a frivolous lawsuit by Thomas More Society who wants to change the law to make it easier for them to bully women.

Comment by Ahoy! Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:25 am
Eight feet? Anyone shouting and belligerent that close to me is within self-protection range… just sayin…

Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:25 am
I wonder how the “counselors” would feel if somebody got in their face to protest what they are going. I would bet that the 8′ bubble would be litigated very quickly.

Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:43 am
===more like harassment from the anti choicers. sad how little they care about the life of a woman===

It’s also sad how little pro choicers care about the life of an unborn child. Look, I get both sides of the argument. Eight feet is close enough for the demonstrators to communicate what they want w/out threat of physical contact. And yes, they are demonstrators; not counselors. But I also have a problem calling abortions “health care services” unless the pregnancy is posing a serious medical threat to the mother. I would consider contraception education a health care service as proper education can prevent any number of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

I don’t think abortion providers do a good enough job of educating women who are considering one about the procedure itself and possible ramifications. They like to use ’soft’ language to minimize what actually takes place. Personally, I think providers should be required to show abortion seekers a video of an actual abortion consistent with how far along the mother is. If medical providers seek to make patients truly informed about a potential procedure then don’t leave out the gruesome stuff just because a woman may change her mind after seeing it. Again, this should only apply to women who are contemplating an elective abortion where their own health is not being compromised.

I know this will be an extremely unpopular view on this blog but, unlike Rauner, I truly am willing to take some arrows. lol

Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:46 am
Not much room on the sidewalk at LaSalle & Division. And there is a bus stop on the #70 route located along the Division street side of the building. Awkward spot for any buffer zone which undoubtedly played into the location for the press conference.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:47 am
I don’t know if this is a good solution, but the people that engage in this behavior are disgusting, and I don’t understand how their blatant harassment is even legal everywhere else.

Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:50 am
Huh? -
It’s a matter of time before folks start actively working against the “counselors” outside PP. Snarkfully and peacefully, I hope.

Treating them like you would the Westboro folks would be appropriate.

Comment by Dee Lay Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:53 am
Not everyone going into a Planned Parenthood clinic is there for an abortion, Cubs. Do you really want the bullies to keep poor women away from one place they can get affordable birth control?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:17 pm
===Not everyone going into a Planned Parenthood clinic is there for an abortion, Cubs. Do you really want the bullies to keep poor women away from one place they can get affordable birth control?===

I certainly do not. You may want to re-read my comments.

Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:23 pm
Re Anonymous @12:17: “Do you really want the bullies to keep poor women away from one place they can get affordable birth control?”
It’s important for folks to realize that the *vast* majority of people who are intensely anti-abortion are also opposed to “artificial” contraception, though you often have to really quiz people ’cause they don’t like to advertise that fact…..

Comment by The Historian Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:27 pm
The Historian @ 12:27

The “vast majority”? Can you back that up with some numbers because the only group of people I’m aware of who are strongly opposed to artificial contraception is some Catholics. I’ve not encountered too many anti-abortion Protestants who have a problem with contraception.

Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:44 pm
I used to work in Louisville and drove past the women’s clinic once a week. One day, I pulled over to the curb, near where an clinic escort was standing and thanked the person for helping people exercise their constitutional rights. To this day, I wonder what the clinic escort thought of my remark.

Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:46 pm
That Anonymous at 12:17 was me. Somehow I don’t think the bullies are asking women walking into Planned Parenthood what they are there for.

Also:

http://www.reproductiverights.org/project/contraceptive-access-in-the-united-states

Comment by cpowell44 Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 1:31 pm
I’ve got to think its unconstitutional given the Springfield case where they tried to ban panhandlers from being a certain distance from people when asking for money. Springfield tried to create a bubble and it was tossed.

http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150810/NEWS/150819951

Comment by 4 percent Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 1:32 pm
People also have the right to walk into the clinic without being accosted. You’re “free speech” rights don’t cross into harassing someone going into one of these clinics.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 3:00 pm
Thomas More was not a defender of “freedom” of any kind. As chancellor, he had Protestants burned at the stake for “heresy.”

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 3:04 pm
@Cubs in 16 (gal) in all your misinformation ignominy. a fetus that is not viable is not the same as a grown woman. it is just not. and who are you to judge what is happening health wise with a woman? are you going to question her? it is between her and the doc and whomever else she wishes to include. it is her body. you can start showing a video of an abortion when you start showing men a video of a vasectomy, before their procedure. Prostate exam? yep show that video too, and prostate removal and video of a man who can no longer function as he might wish post prostate removal. show it all. No? i didn’t think so.

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 3:09 pm
@Amalia:

What is viable? My mother-in-law’s obstetrician recommended she terminate her last and final pregnancy for a number of reasons. She was in her mid 40s, had health issues with her two previous pregnancies, and via in-utero testing it was determined there was something genetically wrong with the baby. Her doctor said the child would most likely have a host of intellectual and physical impairments. Because of her faith, my mother-in-law refused to have an abortion. Today, my 18 y.o. sister-in-law started college. The only things ‘wrong’ with her is she had to have a non-malignant growth removed from her side and one of her fingers is unusually large.

I’m not judging anyone. All I’m saying is give women ALL of the information related to having an abortion so they can make an informed choice. If, after having all of the information, they decide to proceed that is their constitutional right. I’ll disagree with it but I won’t judge them because it’s not my place to. If video footage for other medical procedures is a useful part of the educational process then so be it. I have no problem with that. Why are you so adamant against showing a video of an abortion procedure? What are you afraid of? Had my mother-in-law chosen to take her doctor’s advice 18 years ago our family would look much different.

Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 3:30 pm
@Cubs in 16, are you a climate change denier too? medical determinations of viability are in the early 20 weeks. your family situation is not about viability.

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 3:40 pm
We’re gonna have to agree to disagree Amalia. Have a nice day.

Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 3:46 pm
==Why are you so adamant against showing a video of an abortion procedure==

Many people can’t tolerate seeing video of *any* medical procedure. I have a friend who saw a birth video and is still haunted by it. I still have flashes to a heart surgery video I saw while in high school that still makes me queasy to think about. Nobody should be forced to watch any kind of video. Heck, I made the mistake of watching a spaying video before I made my cat go through it. I cried all the way to the vet. There are just some things that are really bad ideas and people can’t handle, not because of whether they will have that procedure, but most of us just should never see the inside of anybody.

Comment by HangingOn Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:06 pm
===If, after having all of the information, they decide to proceed that is their constitutional right. ===

So, should people be forced to watch video of exploding heads before they get a FOID card?

Ridiculous.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:09 pm
Exploding heads? That’s not really a fair comparison. I don’t have a FOID card but there is training that’s required before a card is issued correct? Perhaps an instructional video is part of that training? I don’t know, I’m asking. But showing a video of people getting their heads blown off to someone wanting to purchase a gun is quite different that showing a video of the actual procedure that will take place. I don’t get why some people are so opposed to giving facts to women who are contemplating an abortion. I’ve known multiple women who’ve said had they fully understood what the procedure entailed they wouldn’t have had it.

Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:22 pm
On a bubble zone, I think -4 percent- is probably on the mark if it is phrased as a free speech issue.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:23 pm
===but there is training that’s required before a card is issued correct?===

Nope. Not a thing. Fill out a simple form, pay the fee and watch the mailbox.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:27 pm
Rich Miller is spot on with the exploding heads video comparison.

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:33 pm
===Nope. Not a thing. Fill out a simple form, pay the fee and watch the mailbox.===

Really? Wow, that’s kind of scary. The state wants you to know how to safely operate a vehicle before they’ll give you a license. You’d think the same would hold true for a gun.

Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:36 pm
I find myself in a kind of strange position on this issue; probably closer to -Cubs in 16- than some other posters. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, but I also think it should be an informed decision that includes consideration of the various alternatives. The hard to answer question is what is “informed”?

Personally, we support a faith-based alternative consuling service that offers various levels of support and information. Help is available to those who want it. Unlike some, we don’t force our viewpoint on others.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:37 pm
== You’d think the same would hold true for a gun. ==

Training is required for a concealed carry license but not for a FOID. The whole FOID thing was developed about 55 years ago when people were assumed to be knowledgeable and responsible enough to learn proper firearms safety.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:41 pm
Demorilized @3:00. I feel the same way when people are going to a Trump rally.

Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:49 pm
Also, the ACLU agrees with the pro-lifers here because the police have other tools and this law actually undermines union members and other workers from protesting outside ANY medical facility in Chicago where such protesting requires approaching people with info http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Articles/2016/08/23/Abortion-patient-bubble-8-23-16.aspx

Comment by Pro-lifer Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:55 pm
==I believe in a woman’s right to choose, but I also think it should be an informed decision that includes consideration of the various alternatives.==

Stop treating women like children. Women who choose abortion know exactly why they are doing it, and they don’t need your unsolicited “help” with that decision.

What could prevent many abortions are resources. If you want to prevent abortion, support education and greater access to contraception and other medical needs. Support a strong safety net and policies that protect women and children from violence. Help make a better world so fewer women have to decide they will not let a child be born into a hellhole.

Comment by yinn Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 5:09 pm
“cubs in ‘16″ - a lot of heads have been exploded because of guns and a lot of innocent children. Why not also show a video of that??

Comment by Denisquared Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 5:23 pm
Thanks yinn.

Comment by kimocat Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 6:05 pm