Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams

We are confronted in this matter with a collision between competing constitutional interests involving a subject of exceptional public concern. The precise question is whether, in granting and upholding a permanent injunction against anti-abortion protesters, the trial court and Court of Appeal properly balanced the free speech and assembly rights of the protesters, against the health and safety interests of women attempting to obtain medical services, including clinical abortions, in a private medical facility. We conclude that the injunction, as modified by the Court of Appeal, is constitutional and therefore shall affirm the judgment.

Viewed independently to determine whether the evidence supports the judgment ( Bose Co. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (1984) 466 U.S. 485, 498-511 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 502, 514-524 , 104 S.Ct. 1949 ]), the record discloses the following: [1]

Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit corporation operating a family planning clinic in Vallejo. The clinic provides a range of family planning, health and counseling services, including abortions. Located in a one-story building that it shares with another commercial tenant, a tax service, the…

Today’s decision will probably receive a fair amount of publicity. Groups on either side of the abortion debate may hail it as a political victory or defeat. In legal circles, it will be cited as support for *882 erecting “buffer zones” around family planning clinics besieged by protestors. (See Operation Rescue v. Women’s Health Center (Fla. 1993) 626 So.2d 664 , cert, granted Jan. 21,1994, sub nom. Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. _U.S. _ [ 127 L.Ed.2d 98 , 114 S.Ct. 907 ].)

But abortion is not the central issue in this case. The free-speech problems presented could arise in any context. At issue is the extent to which the First Amendment’s protection of political expression is limited by the rights of private citizens to conduct their lawful business without pain or hindrance.

In our society, all presumptions are in favor of unfettered expression, particularly where the forum is public and an issue of broad concern is involved. The First Amendment protects vigorous, even stinging, debate. The burden generally falls on the recipients of an unwanted message to turn away. (See Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474, 479-481 [ 101 L.Ed.2d 420, 428-430 , 108 S.Ct. 2495 ]; Boos…

I respectfully dissent.

The federal Constitution protects both a woman’s right to obtain an abortion during the early months of pregnancy and the right of every person to publicly and peacefully express an opinion on emotionally charged and controversial issues like abortion. When presented with a case like this one, in which these constitutional rights appear to collide, a court must take special care to ensure that both rights are effectively protected, so far as reasonably possible.

In this case, a medical clinic that was the subject of anti-abortion demonstrations asked a court for an injunction to protect itself and its clients. The trial court issued preliminary orders permitting only a small number of protesters on the sidewalk in front of the clinic. Eleven months later, it issued a permanent injunction prohibiting any protesters on that sidewalk, even though the clinic had not sought such a blanket prohibition. We granted review solely to consider the validity of the sidewalk exclusion. The majority concludes that the exclusion was proper. I cannot agree.

My disagreement is not with the majority’s descriptions of the pertinent law or the relevant interests at stake.…

We are confronted in this matter with a collision between competing constitutional interests involving a subject of exceptional public concern. The precise question is whether, in granting and upholding a permanent injunction against anti-abortion protesters, the trial court and Court of Appeal properly balanced the free speech and assembly rights of the protesters, against the health and safety interests of women attempting to obtain medical services, including clinical abortions, in a private medical facility. We conclude that the injunction, as modified by the Court of Appeal, is constitutional and therefore shall affirm the judgment.

*865 I. Facts

Viewed independently to determine whether the evidence supports the judgment (Bose Co. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (1984) 466 U.S. 485, 498-511 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 502, 514-524 , 104 S.Ct. 1949 ]), the record discloses the following: 1

Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit corporation operating a family planning clinic in Vallejo. The clinic provides a range of family planning, health and counseling services, including abortions. Located in a one-story building that it shares with another commercial tenant, a tax service, the…