Abortion Rights: Uphold Buffer Zones Abortion is one of the most emotionally fraught issues in American society, and public discussion often turns into an attack on the women who choose to exercise their constitutionally protected rights. That is essentially what happened for years outside reproductive-health clinics in Massachusetts, where dozens of anti-abortion protesters have gathered since the late 1980s in an organized effort to stop women from getting abortions. Some held up signs or handed out leaflets, while others surrounded the arriving cars of doctors and patients or chained themselves together and physically blocked clinic entrances. Eventually, protesters in support of abortion rights started showing up, and the two groups pushed and jockeyed for better position. As a result, women approaching the clinic had to endure a frenetic gauntlet of activists. Many were intimidated, and some chose to leave rather than confront the crowds. Police arrested some protesters for harassment and other violations but had trouble keeping the peace. In response to this public-safety problem, Massachusetts passed a law in 2007 that created a 35-foot buffer zone around clinic entrances. Within the zone, which is the width of about two parking spaces and marked by a yellow line, only patients and clinic employees are permitted. Protesters - whether anti-abortion or pro-abortion rights - must stay behind the yellow line. On Wednesday, in McCullen v. Coakley, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether this law violates the protesters" free speech rights under the First Amendment. While that is the legal question before the court, the broader issue at stake is protecting women's access to abortion, which is under assault around the country by lawmakers and protesters alike. The anti-abortion protesters who challenged the law argue that it improperly restricts speech based on content because it applies only at clinics where abortions are performed. They also say that it favors the voices of those who support abortion rights because it allows clinic workers inside the buffer zone. Far from limiting speech, the law is a prime example of a state's power to protect public safety, even if it has incidental effects on some speech. The history of abortion protests in Massachusetts surely merits such a response. In addition to regular incidents of harassment and intimidation, in 1994 a man named John Salvi III went on a shooting spree in two clinics outside Boston, killing two employees and injuring five others. Before the current law was enacted, Massachusetts legislators tried numerous other solutions, including a smaller, "floating" buffer zone - which set an 18-foot perimeter around clinic entrances and made it unlawful to approach within 6 feet of anyone in that zone, if done without the person's consent to engage "in oral protest, education or counseling." The zone, modeled on a Colorado law that the Supreme Court upheld in 2000, quickly proved unworkable, as police struggled to play referee against protesters who violated the 6-foot limit. The fixed buffer zone came about after years of consultation with police officers and is the first law that has succeeded in keeping a clear path for women trying to get into the clinics (more than two-thirds of whom go to the clinics for health care appointments, not abortions). The government may reasonably impose "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech, provided that they are neutral as to content and allow other channels of communication. The Massachusetts law does both. It is aimed at certain clinics because that is where the public-safety risk exists. And anti-abortion protesters may still picket, hand out leaflets and speak freely to women outside the buffer zone. Eleanor McCullen, the lead plaintiff in the case, testified that while standing outside the zone she had personally persuaded more than 80 women not to go through with a planned abortion. That is, of course, their choice. But the vast majority of women who do choose to end a pregnancy do not do so lightly, contrary to the condescending assumptions of anti-abortion activists and lawmakers. The Supreme Court should uphold this sensible law and allow women to make choices free from intimidation, harassment or worse.