Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 484290671 by Frankgyn (talk) rv removal of sourced info
Frankgyn (talk | contribs)
60 edits
Removed misleading edits and pro-abortion rhetoric, the NYT is a biased and weak source for such inflammatory and inaccurates statements as "protesters often violently harassed," NPOV needed here!
Line 20: Line 20:
|LawsApplied=
|LawsApplied=
}}
}}
'''''Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York''''', [[Case citation|519 U.S. 357]] (1997), was a case heard before the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] related to [[legal protection of access to abortion]]. It ruled in an 8-1 decision that "floating buffer zones" preventing protesters approaching people entering or leaving [[abortion 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.<ref name="NYT">{{Cite news |work=The New York Times |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/20/us/high-court-upholds-15-foot-buffer-zone-at-abortion-clinics.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm |first=Linda |last=Greenhouse |authorlink=Linda Greenhouse |date=February 20, 1997 |title=High Court Upholds 15-Foot Buffer Zone At Abortion Clinics}}</ref>
'''''Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York''''', [[Case citation|519 U.S. 357]] (1997), was a case heard before the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]. It ruled in an 8-1 decision that speech-free "floating buffer zones" around [[abortion clinics]] were unconstitutional. The Court held that although "fixed buffer zones" were constitutional, but "floating buffer zones" were not.


[[Paul Schenck]] challenged a Federal District Court injunction that restricted "[[sidewalk counseling|sidewalk counselors]]" from approaching abortion clinic patients and others with [[Bible]]s, tracts and [[pro-life]] messages. Because these protesters often violently harassed and intimidated patients and staff or prevented them from entering the clinic, the Court upheld the fixed buffer zone around the clinics, although it struck down the floating buffer zone around individuals because its indefinite and movable nature made it difficult to administer and risked overly restricting free speech.<ref name="NYT"/>
[[Paul Schenck]] challenged a Federal District Court injunction that restricted "[[sidewalk counseling|sidewalk counselors]]" from approaching abortion clinic patients and others with [[Bible]]s, tracts and [[pro-life]] messages. The Court ruled in Schenck's favor, striking down the restrictions as a fundamental violation of the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.


==See also==
==See also==
Line 37: Line 37:
==External links==
==External links==
*[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/october96/abortion_10-16a.html PBS NewsHour: "Drawing the Line"]
*[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/october96/abortion_10-16a.html PBS NewsHour: "Drawing the Line"]
*[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=clinics&url=/supct/html/95-1065.ZS.html Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York] on [[Cornell Law]]
*[http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1065.ZX1.html Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York] on [[Cornell Law]]
*[http://www.casp.net/cases/schenck1.html Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York] on the California Anti-SLAPP Project
*[http://www.acljlife.org/ussc/Transcripts/Schenck%20Transcript.pdf Schenck v. Pro-Choice] October 16, 1996
*[http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/prochoicenetwork.html Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York et al.] on the Boston College Free Speech Library
*[http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/prochoicenetwork.html Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York et al.] on the Boston College Free Speech Library


Revision as of 19:34, 28 March 2012

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 16, 1996
Decided February 19, 1997
Full case namePaul Schenck and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners
v.
Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, et al.
Citations519 U.S. 357 (more)
117 S. Ct. 855
Holding
The injunction provisions imposing "fixed buffer zone" limitations are constitutional, but the provisions imposing "floating buffer zone" limitations violate the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by unanimous court
Concur/dissentScalia, joined by Kennedy, Thomas
Concur/dissentBreyer

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled in an 8-1 decision that speech-free "floating buffer zones" around abortion clinics were unconstitutional. The Court held that although "fixed buffer zones" were constitutional, but "floating buffer zones" were not.

Paul Schenck challenged a Federal District Court injunction that restricted "sidewalk counselors" from approaching abortion clinic patients and others with Bibles, tracts and pro-life messages. The Court ruled in Schenck's favor, striking down the restrictions as a fundamental violation of the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.

See also

References

Further reading

  • Hostetler, Darrin Alan (1997). "Face-to-Face with the First Amendment: Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network and the Right to 'Approach and Offer' in Abortion Clinic Protests". Stanford Law Review. 50 (1). Stanford Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 1: 179–223. doi:10.2307/1229361. JSTOR 1229361. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

External links

Stub icon

This abortion-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schenck_v._Pro-Choice_Network_of_Western_New_York&oldid=484422495"