“Mass. abortion clinic buffer zones ruled illegal”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Boston Globe, along with a front page article headlined “No finger-pointing at AG Martha Coakley over ruling.”
The Boston Herald reports that “Abortion ruling has officials scrambling.”
The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts has articles headlined “Abortion protesters thrilled after Supreme Court strikes down clinic ‘buffer zones’“; “Anti-abortion plaintiff Eleanor McCullen says clinic protests are about ‘surrounding women with love’“; and “Reproductive rights activist Bill Baird: Supreme Court decision on abortion clinic buffer ‘horrendous day’ for women’s rights.”
In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak and John Schwartz have a front page article headlined “Court Rejects Zone to Buffer Abortion Clinic.”
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Court strikes down abortion clinic buffer zones.”
In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court rejects abortion clinic buffer zone in nuanced ruling.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court strikes down abortion clinic buffer zone.”
Stephanie Haven of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Abortion clinic buffer zone violates free speech, Supreme Court says.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court, 9-0, nixes 35-foot ‘buffer zone’ at abortion clinic.”
Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times reports that “Unanimous court strikes down abortion ‘buffer’ for protesters.”
Greg Stohr and Andrew Harris of Bloomberg News report that “Abortion-Clinic Buffer Zone Struck Down by Top U.S. Court.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. high court curbs state limits on abortion clinic protests.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: A broader right to oppose abortion.”
Posted at 10:54 AM by Howard Bashman