The United States Supreme Court is deciding whether to review Chicago’s ordinance that creates a “bubble zone” around abortion facilities. In the case, Veronica Price et al. v. The City of Chicago et al., Thomas More Society attorneys are representing a group of pro-life advocates who believe that the restrictive ordinance is an unconstitutional, content-based abridgment of their First Amendment right of free speech.

Thomas Olp, Thomas More Society Vice President and Senior Counsel, talks about this pivotal case, its importance, and implications.

Could you explain what this case is about?

OLP: The Chicago “bubble zone” ordinance, enforced at abortion facilities, designates a 50-foot radius from the entrance as an area in which people are prohibited from intentionally coming closer than eight feet to any other person, unless that person gives permission, “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person.” Since the ordinance plainly focuses on the purpose of speech, we believe it is "content-based" censorship and a direct violation of First Amendment rights.

What would happen if the Supreme Court allows the “bubble zone” to stand?

OLP: Two things. First, freedom of speech would be abridged, granting the abortion industry an exception to the First Amendment that no other sector enjoys. Chicago’s “bubble zone” ordinance is a special interest law benefiting only the abortion industry. Imagine if this law were applied to industries generally. Because approaches that are “unconsented to” are prohibited, approaching a person to offer a free food sample, a point of purchase coupon, or a trial subscription would be prohibited unless prior consent was obtained. Applied to any other industry, this law’s foolishness and irrationality would be evident. Why then is it right to give the abortion industry special preference at the expense of free speech? It isn’t. There is no good reason for this law.

Secondly, the “bubble zone” robs abortion-minded mothers of the opportunity to learn about life-saving alternatives to abortion, deprives them of information about resources for themselves and their child, and bars them from knowing that there are people who care, ready to offer real and concrete help – people who are putting the best interest of that woman and her child first and have no eye to financial profit from the decision.

What is a common misperception about this case?

OLP: The abortion lobby wants people to believe that pro-life advocates who witness outside abortion clinics are aggressive and threatening. That’s just not true. It is pro-abortion propaganda that pro-life counselors intimidate women approaching abortion clinics. That type of engagement would be totally ineffective. Pro-life sidewalk counselors compassionately and calmly approach women, one-on-one, offering them information about abortion alternatives, of which many are unaware. The Chicago “bubble zone” ordinance deliberately curtails our clients’ ability to offer that information, contrary to the First Amendment.

Veronica Price, one of the sidewalk counselors in this case, explained her desire as a sidewalk counselor to give hope and help to women and men considering abortion. Sadly, the “bubble zone” prevents her from doing this effectively and actually detracts from a woman’s right to choose as it restricts the flow of information about abortion alternatives. With its “bubble zone” law, the City of Chicago is doing women a great disservice by denying them access to information at a critical time in their lives.

Additionally, this law is vague and over-broad and does not serve any legitimate interest of the city. Chicago has never had an issue with obstruction of access to abortion facilities. Yet, the ordinance creates a “no speech” zone in front of every medical facility in Chicago. Laws prohibit government from arbitrarily establishing “bubble zones” and censoring the content of free speech. The city must prove that the speech regulation can be justified in the context in which it is being enacted, and in order to resolve real problems with safety and access. In Chicago that justification has never been made.

Why should the average American care about this case?

OLP: Whenever government restricts speech based on its content, that is a very dangerous precedent because it curtails the flow of ideas so important to our democracy. That is why to do so violates the First Amendment.

The Chicago “bubble zone” ordinance makes it illegal to “knowingly approach” within eight feet of another person within 50 feet of an abortion facility “for the purpose of…engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling.”

One can therefore approach a person within the “bubble zone” to raise funds for charity, sell Cubs tickets, make small talk about the weather, or panhandle. Yet one commits a crime by standing in the same spot and speaking about the alternatives to abortion at the precise moment when this speech is most likely to matter. And, of course, the only way a law officer could determine whether an individual had engaged in banned speech is to “examine the content of the message that is conveyed.” Regulating, controlling, or restricting speech content is reminiscent of Orwell’s fictional “newspeak” from his dystopian novel, 1984, and not at all in line with the United States Constitution. That should be of great concern to everyone who values freedom of any kind.

Why is this case important to you personally?

OLP: Aside from the obvious unconstitutional violation of free speech rights, one thing that greatly concerns me is the tendency of some courts toward something that we refer to as abortion exceptionalism. The abortion lobby has poured a lot of money into litigating for exceptions that give abortionists protections granted to no other industry. For example, abortion vendors are often exempted from the standard medical regulations required for dentists, chiropractors, and even blood donation centers – rules established to protect the health and safety of patients. In another instance, the same abortion proponents who seek to prohibit life-advocacy speech near abortion facilities lobby for laws that would compel pro-life pregnancy centers to make abortion referrals. That is overarchingly autocratic. It’s akin to requiring Coke to advertise for Pepsi, but rather than risking capital gains, it is the health and safety of women and the lives of their children that hang in the balance. And during the COVID-19 crisis “stay at home” orders, abortion facilities were allowed to remain open, while churches were compelled to close. This “exceptionalism” that singles out abortion to receive privileges not granted to any other business infringes deeply on the liberties of Americans who abhor the killing of children in the womb and advocate life-affirming alternatives to abortion.

How can we be praying?

OLP: We can pray for those on the frontlines. Veronica Price, along with fellow plaintiffs Ann Scheidler, Anna Marie Scinto Mesia, and David Bergquist, peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights on the public sidewalk near Chicago abortion facilities. Pray that these and other life advocates will continue their compassionate outreach and that abortion-bound women will receive the information about life-saving alternatives and choose life for their preborn children.

Please pray for the Thomas More Society and legal staff involved in this case. Pray that their words will carry sound reason and solid legal standing as they defend the rights and freedoms of those they represent.

And also pray for the members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Pray that they will not fall under the persuasion of those arguing for abortion exceptionalism, but that they will recognize the constitutionally guaranteed right of citizens to speak up on behalf of life, and strike down the Chicago “bubble zone” law that is unlawfully abridging their First Amendment freedoms.

Read the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, docketed on June 7, 2019 by Thomas More Society attorneys in Veronica Price et al. v. The City of Chicago et al., here.