Renée Loth (“A zone that should be left alone,” Op-ed, Oct. 12) maintains that a buffer zone law applying to health centers “achieves a delicate balance,” and argues that the Supreme Court should uphold Massachusetts’ 35-foot zone.
Yet by claiming that the buffer zone is like the law that keeps political material 150 feet away from a polling place, Loth undermines her argument. In Loth’s world of abortion rights, her candidate, so to speak, would be allowed to distribute materials and talk to people right into the “voting both.” It would only be the other candidate who could not.
Loth has effectively made the argument against the buffer zone. The zone singles out certain kinds of medical facilities and applies only to people with certain opinions, which, of course is what makes it unconstitutional.
Loth further undermines her argument by claiming that the Supreme Court upheld a similar buffer zone law in Hill v. Colorado. The Colorado law applies to “any person outside any health care facility.” That makes it apply evenly to all, even the so-called escorts who hustle women in for abortions without letting them hear the information they need to make truly informed decisions.
I hope the amicus briefs filed by the people who favor Loth’s opinions are as poorly reasoned as her piece.