Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

There’s a local law in Carbondale, Illinois, that prohibits “approaching women outside clinics to advise of abortion alternatives.” A pro-life advocacy group has challenged this law time and again, despite being dismissed. However, in a January twist, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is considering whether it will hear the petition put forth by Coalition Life (CL).

First litigated in 2000, Hill v. Colorado was the court decision that upheld a law that “makes it illegal — within 100 feet of a hospital, medical clinic, or health care facility — to come within eight feet of another person with the intention of distributing leaflets, displaying signs, or participating in protest, education, or counseling.” But CL, a pro-life sidewalk counselling organisation, sued the Illinois city’s Disorderly Conduct Ordinance on the grounds that it violates locals’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In their lawsuit, Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, the coalition highlighted the 2022 SCOTUS Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overruled Roe v. Wade. According to the pro-life group, since Roe was overturned, “laws restricting free speech outside abortion clinics deserve to be reexamined in light of [that].” They wrote, “Dobbs should have made clear beyond [objection] that Hill could no longer skew public debate on a divisive issue being returned to the people.”

Restoration of Rights

In July, Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of litigation at the Thomas More Society, said, “Hill v. Colorado was egregiously wrong on the day it was decided, and it remains a black mark in our law to this day.” He added,

“Now that the Supreme Court has returned the abortion debate to the people and their legislators, it is more important than ever to restore the free speech rights of those who advocate for life in the public square.”

As the lawsuit emphasised, “There are few things more central to the First Amendment than the right ‘to converse with … fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks.’” In light of this, “the Court should grant certiorari, overrule Hill, and vindicate the time-honoured principle that speech ‘on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’”

Mary Szoch, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, shared with The Washington Stand, “We are grateful that the Supreme Court is examining the Illinois law that prevents pro-lifers from exercising their free speech rights.” She went on to explain how “women choosing abortion are often pressured into doing so. Many feel that they have no support and no other option.”

“Laws like the one in Illinois make a point of silencing anyone who is willing to step up and help these women recognise that there is a much better choice than abortion,” she added. Szoch further contended that the Illinois law also attempts to cover up the fact “that there are people ready and willing to help any woman carry her child to term and raise him or her after.”

Szoch concluded, “We pray that the Supreme Court recognises that killing an unborn child cannot be prioritised over a pro-lifer’s right to speak the truth.”

___

Republished with thanks to The Washington Stand. Image courtesy of Pavel Danilyuk.