Pittsburgh's abortion clinic buffer zone upheld, but activists keep appealing

Five anti-abortion activists challenging a Pittsburgh ordinance that regulates abortion clinic protests have appealed a federal judge's dismissal of a lawsuit contending the ordinance violates their free-speech rights.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon in November upheld the ordinance creating 15-foot “buffer zones” around clinic entrances, saying it “imposes only a minimum burden” on protestors.

The group of activists: Nikki Bruni of Verona, Julie Consentino of Bridgeville, Cynthia Rinaldi of Coraopolis, Kathleen Laslow of Pittsburgh and Patrick Malley of Trafford contends the ordinance violates their First Amendment rights to counsel women seeking abortions. They've appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The reasons and rational (Bissoon) used have already been rejected by the Supreme Court and the 3rd Circuit,” said Kevin Theriot, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based legal advocacy representing the plaintiffs. “It's 15 feet on either side of the doorway, so it ends up being 30 feet. The Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions that you can't hold a conversation with somebody even from 15 feet.”

Pittsburgh City Council in 2005 created the buffer zones as a public safety precaution, according to Mayor Bill Peduto, who sponsored the ordinance when he was a councilman.

“It's a safety area where people who are using a legal service have the opportunity not to be harassed for using a legal service,” Peduto said Thursday. “It provides every opportunity for a First Amendment right to protest but does so in a way that makes public safety a primary concern. It has been upheld in courts around the country, and any challenge to it in Pittsburgh obviously will be fought.”

The group originally sued in 2014 based on a Supreme Court decision that struck down a Massachusetts state law creating 35-foot buffer zones around abortion clinics. Bissoon dismissed that case, but the circuit court reinstated it, ruling that Pittsburgh had to show the zones were necessary.

The judge in November again dismissed the lawsuit. She noted that between February 2005 and November 2005, there were “13 cases of aggressive pushing, shoving and hitting and 30 complaints of harassing behavior” outside a Downtown Planned Parenthood clinic and that police were called to the clinic 22 times in the six months leading to council's passage of the ordinance.

She also noted that Pittsburgh's buffer zones are much smaller than those in the Massachusetts case and that the Pittsburgh plaintiffs were able to effectively communicate to people leaving and entering the clinic from the sidewalk.

“In short, the undisputed evidence in this case demonstrates that the ordinance places only a minimal burden on plaintiff's First Amendment free speech rights,” she wrote.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-765-2312, bbauder@tribweb.com or on Twitter @bobbauder