ARTICLES

Are We Such A Threat?

San Francisco Restricts Pro-Life Activism

By Maria Kennedy

On July 19, the San Francisco board of supervisors voted to pass an ordinance that some say will effectively shut down sidewalk counseling in front of abortion clinics in the city.

According to pro-life activists who regularly pray in front of two abortion clinics in San Francisco, the ordinance, which was unanimously passed on August 19, will create an eight-foot "buffer zone" around abortion clinics. Anyone who crosses the bubble zone could be charged with harassment. One pro-life activist who has lived in San Francisco since the 1960s expressed concern that any attempt by herself and fellow pro-lifers to distribute literature at abortion clinics will be construed as harassment. A review of the June 17 San Francisco board of supervisors' agenda where the ordinance was introduced shows the reason for the concern. The ordinance defines harassment as "the non-consensual and knowing approach within eight feet of another person for purposes of passing a leaflet or handbill to, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest, education or counseling with such other person in a public way or on a sidewalk area within one hundred feet of a health care facility." The prior code respecting access to abortion clinics required that a person approaching an abortion clinic "invoke a 'buffer zone ' by declaring to protestors a desire to be left alone." The new ordinance revokes this requirement.

The ordinance was signed by San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown on August 28. The law was to take effect on September 28.

Pro-life advocates have pointed out how abortion clinic workers harass them for merely praying the rosary in front of the abortion clinics. "Choice Medical really hates us because we're out there trying to sidewalk counsel and they have people coming in for late term [abortions]," said one sidewalk counselor, who asked not to be named. "There was one Hispanic family and the daughter wanted the abortion; the mother and sister didn't want her to have it. When the girl went in for the abortion they had her sign that she was harassed by us. Her sister told her, 'you know that's a lie,' but she signed it anyway. They are under pressure."

"It' big money there at the Choice Medical Group," continued the sidewalk counselor, who believes that the ordinance is aimed at pro-life activists who regularly pray at Choice Medical Group and at the Planned Parenthood clinic at 815 Eddy Street. "Can you imagine that we are such a threat? It's only about a dozen of us." This sidewalk counselor said that during the public comment period provided before the ordinance was passed, pro-lifers were outnumbered by the huge turnout of pro-abortion forces. "We didn't stand a chance at those meetings," she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the ordinance. In an August 8 letter, addressed to the San Francisco board of supervisors, the ACLU argued against the ordinance, saying it would "make peaceful approaches on public sidewalks outside health care facilities a crime." The ACLU noted that the ordinance "restricts peaceful political speech without providing meaningful protection against violence." The ACLU pointed out it had supported the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) -- a 1994 federal law that made it a federal offense to block the entrances of abortion clinics -- but this ordinance was not about blockading an abortion clinic but about curtailing the First Amendment.

Katie Short, an attorney with Life Legal Defense Association, said that she believed that the San Francisco ordinance is based on a Colorado bubble ordinance which was upheld in 2000 by the United States Supreme Court. Short said she and others had thought, after this, "we were going to see [bubble ordinances] popping up all over. Why it took them three years [is anyone's guess]." said Short.

Not all pro-life activists agree that the buffer zone will curtail pro-life activism at the clinics. Nello Prato, a San Francisco attorney who regularly prays the rosary in front of an abortion clinic, said that he is not very worried about the ordinance's effect on sidewalk counseling. "I don't think its going to make a difference," he said to this reporter in a telephone interview. "I still think the law is broad enough. I don't think the law is going to have that much effect."

Prato noted that what's at issue is free speech. Abortion clinics "don't want opposing view points; its going to put them out of business," he said. "Receiving literature is not harassment."

Though told that the ordinance specifically forbade signs, Prato said that the United States Supreme Court had upheld the free speech of pro-lifers at clinics in the Hill vs. Colorado decision, which was decided in the year 2000. "All we are doing out there is following what Chief Justice Paul Stevens said we could do and that includes holding our signs," said Prato.

For the ACLU, the Hill decision was still too restrictive and hampers the First Amendment. In their August 8 letter to the San Franciso board of supervisors, the ACLU notes that it had "argued before the United States Supreme Court that an identical statute violated the First Amendment. While the Supreme Court disagreed. we continue to believe that this measure is unconstitutional and unwise."

Short said she found the San Francisco ordinance, which Prato said was based on a similar Denver ordinance, vague. "For all of the big fight in Denver, I spoke with a kid from Denver who went out to clinics and picketed, and he was not aware of the law," said Short. "It's so vague that I would be interested in what a cop would think of it." (The San Francisco police department did not return a call for comment on the ordinance.

The bill was sponsored by the entire San Francisco board of supervisors. David Owen, a staffer for Supervisor Arron Peskin, said that several groups had urged the board to enact the ordinance because of alleged harassment at local abortion clinics. "It was brought to our attention by California Abortion Rights Action League, Planned Parenthood, and Choice Medical Group because of the problems encountered at a lot of clinics," said Owen. Owen said that the ordinance is based on the Denver law, but was refined to fit local needs. "The federal law requires that a person tell the protestors they want to be left alone," continued Owen. "The problem we encounter at a lot of clinics is that people going to the clinics don't always know they can object or they are too intimidated."

Prato said that the bottom line for the ordinance was economics. "They [abortionists] don't want sidewalk counselors because we offer life, they offer death. If the women chose life, they would be put out of business".

The pro-life picketers at clinics in San Francisco said that they are not going to be deterred by the ordinance. "I think we can still stand out there and pray and hold our signs," said one. "We are not going to give up praying the rosary or put away our signs. This is not going to change. Yes, it'll make it more difficult to give people literature but that's mostly what the sidewalk counselors are doing. We are still going to be out there praying. As for not taking our literature, the clinics are already telling them not to take our literature. We don't have much luck with approaching people anyway. We can always pray."

TOP