Abortion buffer zone case in Pennsylvania heads to Supreme Court

(Liberty Counsel) Liberty Counsel will be preparing a petition for cert to the U.S. Supreme Court in light of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recent decision in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg regarding the city’s ordinance that was enforced to prohibit pro-life volunteers from one-on-one counseling near a Planned Parenthood abortion facility.

In 2012, the Harrisburg City Council passed an ordinance to curtail any interference with abortion facilities called “Interference with Access to Health Care Facilities.” Liberty Counsel’s reply brief to the Third Circuit states that the ordinance makes it illegal to enter the buffer zone and have a one-on-one conversation about abortion with a person entering the abortion clinic.

Liberty Counsel represents Colleen Reilly and Becky Biter, who engage in peaceful sidewalk counseling to encourage women to protect the life of their unborn children. The City of Harrisburg enforced the ordinance silencing Reilly and Biter on more than 70 feet of public sidewalk in front of the Harrisburg Planned Parenthood preventing them from quiet one-on-one conversations, peaceful sidewalk counseling, prayer, and distributing life-affirming literature.

A Never Before Seen Look At Human Life In The Womb | Baby Olivia

During the course of litigation, the city presented two people to speak on its behalf regarding the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the ordinance – referred to as Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses. Both of the city’s 30(b)(6) witnesses testified that the ordinance prohibits pro-life speech regarding abortion inside the buffer zone, but other speech not about abortion is permitted. In addition, during a prior oral argument before the Third Circuit, the city’s attorney stated that passing out literature inside the buffer zone about the abortion clinic is prohibited but passing out literature about a law firm is permitted. There is no contradictory testimony in nearly 10 years of litigation about the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the ordinance being a content-based restriction on pro-life speech.

Yet, the court wrote in its opinion that these enforcers who speak on behalf of the city “misinterpreted” their own ordinance. This makes no sense.

The next step for this case is to request the Supreme Court to review the matter.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The City of Harrisburg clearly violated the First Amendment by enforcing a policy that prohibits pro-life speech but allows other speech within the buffer zone. There is no contradictory testimony in nearly 10 years of litigation about the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the ordinance being a content-based restriction on pro-life speech. However, the Third Circuit’s decision brushes off the undisputed testimony by saying these enforcers who speak on behalf of the city ‘misinterpreted’ their own ordinance. This does not make sense in light of the undisputed testimony.”

Editor’s Note: This press release was originally published at Liberty Counsel.