The Westchester County Board of Legislators approved by a 10-7 party line vote the Reproductive Health Care Facilities Access law which allows abortion clinic personnel to make a police complaint on behalf of patients who are “having trouble getting through a crowd or demonstration”. Democrats who wrote the law says the law “fills the gap between federal legislation and state legislation that is already in place”.
Critics say the law was unnecessary, a political ploy and an affront to free speech. One called it a blatant attempt to arrest and bring lawsuits against pro-life advocates outside abortion clinics.
“The Board of Legislators worked on the safe clinic access legislation for two years, and numerous changes were made to the bill after two public hearings and in-depth discussions at the committee table with dozens of health care officials, advocates from both sides of the issue and First Amendment experts,” said Legislator Mary Jane Shimsky (D-Hastings-on-Hudson), one of the co-authors of the bill. “I urge County Executive Astorino to sign this important bill to ensure the public safety of Westchester residents who seek to obtain health care.”
In the newly approved bill, “intent” to deny access need not be proven, closing a crucial legal loophole. Moreover, residents visiting reproductive healthcare facilities and clinics will be given 25 feet of “buffer” space in which to walk unimpeded.
Both sides cited the First Amendment in their public statements.
“The boundaries of lawful First Amendment expression of free speech are crossed with physical harassment and intimidation, threatening language, berating and taunts,” said Legislator Judy Myers (D-Larchmont). “My colleagues on the Board and I believe that current law does not go far enough to protect those wanting health care service at reproductive health care facilities or those working at these facilities. This legislation will ensure public safety, protect freedoms, advance medical privacy and safeguard public property.”
“This is the best clinic access legislation in the country, in my opinion,” said BOL Chairman Ken Jenkins (D-Yonkers). “The bill balances public safety and freedom of speech while providing the people of this county protection they deserve. Best of all, this bill gives people back a good measure of their privacy in a situation where it should be expected.”
“Despite the fact that federal and state laws already exist regulating this conduct, a few legislators are pushing this county law. If we are to pass such a law, it must properly balance the constitutional legal precedents of freedom of speech for protestors and right to abortion for women.” BOL Minority Leader Jim Maisano. “After considering the relevant legal issues, I have decided that I cannot support this law as drafted.”
During the legislative debate, Maisano read from a memo he drafted and circulated: Maisano Memo on Reproductive Health Care Facilities Access Law (PDF)
RELATED: Newsday – Lawmakers OK abortion clinic buffer zone
Liberal joke
The Jenkins crew is destroying what has usually been a pretty bipartisan county legislature. There is already a state and federal law on abortion clinic access – so why do need a county law? – the answer is we don’t, especially one that violates freedom of speech of protesters. Jenkins pushed this law for only one reason – to make a political issue against Astorino and Reps. I’m glad Maisano & Marcotte stood up against this political nonsense.
Great arguement to just get rid of county government altogther
Just what we need, more laws.
Why does Westchester go it alone? Why not let the state take the lead?
Great arguement to just get rid of county government altogther if this is what they’re all about.
Is this vague law a ploy to help Obama?
In the Journal News yesterday (5/12) a thoughtful reply by Raymond Belair appropriately states in the proposed law the “constitutionally vague part…is the conflict it creates between the patient who approaches the abortion clinic and is willing to listen to the pro-life advocate, while the …abortion clinic employee or owner may now conveniently confect a reasonable fear…to intimidate the pro-life advocate into foregoing her constitutional freedom.” How outrageously unfair can a law be? Why should peaceful free speech be restricted? Apparently the authors of this bill feel only those for abortion have rights. This law should be rejected and never return for another vote.