Home > Journals > JCRED > Vol. 30 (2017-2018) > Iss. 1
Abstract
(Excerpt)
This Comment will assert that the Court has likely caused a future increase in violence against women and other people who utilize, work for, or support abortion clinics, weakened the fundamental right to abortion, and prioritized free speech over equally important rights and interests. Part II will provide background on abortion and demonstrate the change in attitudes toward and increasing restrictions of abortion. Part III will discuss the history of buffer zones and McCullen and will look at how McCullen departs from free speech precedent. It will argue that the Court has incorrectly prioritized free speech as a result of a hostility and bias toward abortion rights. This Comment will conclude that the Court has wrongly decided McCullen and will need to revisit the decision at a later date. It will assert that the Supreme Court has wrongly prioritized free speech in an attempt to facilitate the chipping away of abortion rights, and that the decision is not in line with precedent.
Comments
Second Place Winner: 2015 Best JCRED Student Note