Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled in an 8-1 decision that speech-free "buffer zones" around abortion clinics were constitutional. The Court held that "fixed buffer zones" were constitutional, but "floating buffer zones" were not.
Paul Schenck challenged a Federal District Court injunction that restricted anti-abortion "sidewalk counselors" from approaching abortion clinic clients and others with Bibles, tracts and anti-abortion message. The Court rules in Schenck's favor, striking down the restrictions as a fundamental violation of the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.
Full citation: 519 U.S. 357, 117 S. Ct. 855 (1997).
[edit] External links
- Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York on Cornell Law
- Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York on the California Anti-SLAPP Project
- Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York et al. on the Boston College Free Speech Library
- PBS NewsHour: "Drawing the Line"
| Abortion law (Part of the abortion series) | ||
|---|---|---|
| History & overview: | Case law, History of abortion law, Laws by country | |
| Types of regulation: | Buffer zones, Conscience clauses, Informed consent, Fetal protection, Parental involvement, Spousal consent | |
 |
This abortion-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This article related to a U.S. Supreme Court case is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
