Governments sometimes take measures designed to afford legal protection of access to abortion. Such legislation often seeks to guard facilities which provide induced abortion against obstruction, vandalism, picketing, and other actions, or to protect patients and employees of such facilities from threats and harassment (see sidewalk interference).
Another form such legislation sometimes takes is in the creation of a perimeter around a facility, known variously as a "buffer zone", "bubble zone", "safe access zone" or "access zone". This area is intended to limit how close to these facilities demonstration by those who oppose abortion can approach. Protests and other displays are restricted to a certain distance from the building, which varies depending upon the law, or are prohibited altogether. Similar zones have also been created to protect the homes of abortion providers and clinic staff.
Bubble zone laws are divided into "fixed" and "floating" categories. Fixed bubble zone laws apply to the static area around the facility itself, and floating laws to objects in transit, such as people or cars. [1]
Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, [2] Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland are the states and territories in Australia where buffer zones exist. [3] The Australian Capital Territory has a buffer zone of only 50 m that has to be approved by the ACT health minister. [4] [5] [6]
Tasmania was the first state or territory to enforce buffer zones. In 2013, the Tasmanian Parliament passed the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act which enforces 'access zones' of a radius of 150 metres from premises at which abortions are provided. [7] Behaviour prohibited within access zones includes: besetting, harassing, intimidating, interfering with, threatening, hindering, obstructing or impeding a person; protests in relation to terminations that are able to be seen or heard by a person accessing a clinic; footpath interference; and intentionally recording a person accessing a clinic without their consent. [7] The laws, in particular, the recent regulations passed by the NSW parliament in June 2018, were opposed by "sidewalk counsellors" who are "known to stand outside clinics with the intention of changing the minds of women entering the clinics". [8]
In November 2015, Victoria became the second state to pass legislation to limit protests outside abortion clinics [9] and 150 metre buffer zones are now enforced. Prior to this, in 2005, the Australian Democrats proposed a law to create buffer zones around clinics in Victoria. [10] However, these attempts were unsuccessful as buffer zones were not included in Victoria's Public Health and Wellbeing Act. [11]
On 12 August 2021, [12] Western Australia became the final state or territory to legislate 'safe access zones' after passing the Public Health Amendment (Safe Access Zones) Bill [13] (Assent date 17 August 2021).
Several "buffer zone" laws have been enacted within Canada. At least three of the country's provinces and territories have passed laws intended to protect medical facilities that provide induced abortion:
Access zone legislation has also been passed at the level of local government in Canada:
The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act prohibits anyone from "preventing the lawful termination of a pregnancy" or "obstructing access to a facility for the termination of a pregnancy", imposing a penalty of up to ten years' imprisonment. [20]
At the federal level in the United States, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), makes it an offense to use intimidation or physical force –such as forming a blockade –in order to prevent a person from entering a facility which provides reproductive healthcare or a place of worship. The law also creates specific penalties for destroying, or causing damage to, either of these types of building.
California, New York, and Washington have each established their own version of FACE. [21] Other states have instituted several different kinds of measures designed to protect clinics, their employees, and patients: [22]
In the February 2003 case, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that anti-abortion activists could not be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a law drafted to counter organized crime, or the Hobbs Act, a law intended to address economic damages caused by extortion. [23] The Court reaffirmed this holding on February 28, 2006 in a unanimous decision, although only eight Justices participated in the ruling, because Samuel Alito had not yet been confirmed.
In the United States, three states have passed "buffer zone" legislation, which can create either a "fixed" area around a medical facility or a "floating" area around patients and staff: [21] [22]
Several local governments in the United States have, at some time, also passed similar municipal ordinances:
In May 2023, legislation was enacted to explicitly ban protesting 150m from any hospitals, abortion clinics and/or doctors surgeries throughout both England and Wales – and also must legally provide "safe access" for women who want an abortion without being blocked, filmed, intimidated and/or harassed. [34] Members of the House of Commons voted 299 to 116 in favour of the measure. [35] Northern Ireland has also implemented laws on safe access zones within 2023. [36] However Scotland is yet to implement similar safe access zone laws – like the rest of the UK, but are proposed instead with a private members bill on the subject introduced to the Parliament of Scotland and is awaiting a formal vote. [37]
Supporters of such laws claim that these zones are necessary to ensure that women have access to abortion. They argue that a buffer zone helps to prevent blockading of a clinic's entrance, to protect the safety of patients and staff, and to ensure that clients do not feel intimidated, distressed, or harassed by the presence of anti-abortion activists. [1]
Some traditional free speech advocates such as the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association have cautiously sided in favour of narrowly defined "bubble zones" around abortion clinics on the basis that patients have a medical right to privacy when receiving confidential legal medical procedures that is compromised if protesters identify patients for the purpose of publicly shaming or intimidating them. [38] [39]
The American Civil Liberties Union helped enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 1994, which guarantees pedestrian access to clinics, but does not restrict related speech activity. In Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York , the ACLU filed briefs defending the constitutionality of a court order that prohibited defendants from protesting within 15 feet of clinic driveways and entrances in western New York. [40] The Supreme Court upheld the ACLU's position.
Some pro-choice activists have also argued that anyone convicted of anti-abortion violence should be permanently banned from protesting outside abortion clinics. [41] Professor Jacob M. Appel of New York University has argued that "much as we do not permit convicted pedophiles to teach kindergarten or convicted hijackers to board airplanes, common sense dictates that individuals who have been imprisoned for plotting violence against abortion clinics should never again be permitted anywhere near such facilities.". [41]
Those who oppose the creation of such legislation contend that "bubble zones", by limiting the ability to protest peacefully, represent an infringement upon their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. [23]
Intact dilation and extraction is a surgical procedure that removes an intact fetus from the uterus. The procedure is used both after miscarriages and for abortions in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.
Abortion laws vary widely among countries and territories, and have changed over time. Such laws range from abortion being freely available on request, to regulation or restrictions of various kinds, to outright prohibition in all circumstances. Many countries and territories that allow abortion have gestational limits for the procedure depending on the reason; with the majority being up to 12 weeks for abortion on request, up to 24 weeks for rape, incest, or socioeconomic reasons, and more for fetal impairment or risk to the woman's health or life. As of 2022, countries that legally allow abortion on request or for socioeconomic reasons comprise about 60% of the world's population.
Abortion in Australia is legal nationwide. There are no federal abortion laws, and full decriminalisation of the practice has been enacted in all jurisdictions. Access to abortion varies between the states and territories: surgical abortions are readily available on request within the first 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy in most jurisdictions, and up to 16 weeks in Tasmania. Later term abortions can be obtained with the approval of two doctors, although the Australian Capital Territory only requires a single physician's approval.
An abortion clinic or abortion provider is a medical facility that provides abortions. Such clinics may be public medical centers, private medical practices or nonprofit organizations such as Planned Parenthood.
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 547 U.S. 9 (2006), was a lengthy and high-profile U.S. legal case interpreting and applying the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): a law originally drafted to combat the mafia and organized crime, the Hobbs Act: an anti-extortion law prohibiting interference with commerce by violence or threat of violence, and the Travel Act: a law prohibiting interstate travel in support of racketeering.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is a United States law that was signed by President Bill Clinton in May 1994, which prohibits the following three things: (1) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion, (2) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship, (3) the intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health care facility or a place of worship.
Many jurisdictions have laws applying to minors and abortion. These parental involvement laws require that one or more parents consent or be informed before their minor daughter may legally have an abortion.
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court related to legal protection of access to abortion. The question before the court was whether the First Amendment was violated by placing an injunction on protesters outside abortion clinics. The court ruled in a 6–3 decision that "floating buffer zones" preventing protesters approaching people entering or leaving the clinics were unconstitutional, though "fixed buffer zones" around the clinics themselves remained constitutional. The Court's upholding the fixed buffer was the most important aspect of the ruling, because it was a common feature of injunctions nationwide.
The Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ) is New Zealand's national abortion-rights advocacy group in existence since 1971. Since the decriminalisation of abortion in 2020, the organisation continues to monitor and lobby for changes to the law. The organisation is based in Wellington, publishes a quarterly newsletter, and has its own web site.
Sidewalk counseling, also known as sidewalk interference, is a form of anti-abortion activism conducted outside abortion clinics. Activists seek to communicate with those entering the building, or with passersby in general, in an effort to persuade them not to have an abortion, or to consider their position on the morality of abortion. Common tactics include engaging in conversation, displaying signs, distributing literature, or giving directions to nearby crisis pregnancy centers.
The Access to Abortion Services Act is a law in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Enacted in September 1995, it protects access to abortion services by limiting demonstrations outside of abortion clinics, doctor's offices, and doctor's homes. It creates an "access zone" around the facility in which such activities as protesting, sidewalk counseling, intimidation of or physical interference with abortion providers or their patients are prohibited. This distance varies depending upon the building's type, with protests outside of doctor's offices being restricted to coming within 10 metres, up to 50 metres for hospital or clinic, and 160 metres for a doctor's home.
An abortionclinic escort is an individual who volunteers at an abortion clinic or family planning clinic. Their role is to assist patients and staff to enter and exit these facilities safely, and to prevent any potential harassment or danger to individuals. A clinic escort's role at a family planning clinic encompasses myriad different tasks, which can also vary between clinics.
The timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) represents formal changes and reforms regarding women's rights. The changes include actual law reforms, as well as other formal changes (e.g. reforms through new interpretations of laws by precedents). The right to vote is exempted from the timeline: for that right, see Timeline of women's suffrage. The timeline excludes ideological changes and events within feminism and antifeminism; for that, see Timeline of feminism.
This is a timeline of reproductive rights legislation, a chronological list of laws and legal decisions affecting human reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are a sub-set of human rights pertaining to issues of reproduction and reproductive health. These rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to birth control, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence. Reproductive rights may also include the right to receive education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization, abortion, and contraception, and protection from practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM).
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places, and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.
While some protests of the anti-abortion movement use violent methods, most protesters use a range of physically non-violent tactics, which may nonetheless include emotionally violent acts, such as intimidation or harassment.
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving a First Amendment challenge to the validity of a Massachusetts law establishing 35-foot (11 m) fixed buffer zones around facilities where abortions were performed.
Abortion in Massachusetts is legal at all stages of pregnancy, although terminations after the 24th week can only be performed if a physician determines it to be medically necessary. Modern Massachusetts is considered one of the most pro-choice states in the country: a PEW research poll finding that 74% of residents supported the right to an abortion in all or most cases, a higher percentage than any other state. Marches supporting abortion rights took place as part of the #StoptheBans movement in May 2019.
Abortion in New York is legal at all stages of pregnancy, although abortions after the point of viability require a physician's approval. Abortion was legalized up to the 24th week of pregnancy in New York (NY) in 1970, three years before it was decriminalized for the entire United States with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Roe v. Wade was later overturned in 2022 by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The Reproductive Health Act, passed in 2019 in New York, further allows abortions past the 24th week of pregnancy if a woman's life or health is at risk or if the fetus is not viable. However, since these exceptions are not defined by the law, and the law carries no criminal penalties, abortion is effectively legal throughout pregnancy.
Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was a combined hearing of two appeals, raised from the Magistrates Court of Victoria and Tasmania respectively. The appellants, Kathleen Clubb and John Preston; had sought to challenge two laws restricting their conduct near abortion providers, on the ground that the relevant laws were unconstitutional for breach of Australia's freedom of political communication doctrine.