The court missed the point.

The Supreme Court treated the law as a freedom of speech law when in fact it is a consumer safety law. If the Supreme Court can't get their ducks in a row, then the clinics themselves have property rights which can enforce "No Trespassing" to anyone, but, clients. It will at least provide for a safe entrance way to the clinic and a somewhat remote location of protesters so bombs can't be planted at, in or near the building. 

The clinics will have to apply an added layer of permission to entering the building such as a key pad at the entrance way. The client then picks up a phone or pushes a button or rings the inside receptionist to validate the appoint and provide entrance to the building.

There will be an ID issue to insure those entering the building are actually clients. A code or statement or a list of questions on the appointment reservation. It adds danger to the clinic, but, there are methods to securing a building. Massachusetts could create a task force through state legislation to explore the ways in which clinics can secure their entrances and insure only clients to their services are finding their way in.

The No Trespassing laws, with posted signs, that already exist is an immediate measure enforced by police officers and signing complaints against protesters. But, legislation of a Task Force to bring long time security is probably needed.

If invoking No Trespassing laws, the clinic needs to write an administrative letter to the local police department with copies to mayor and council stating there is a problem and this is how the clinic is remedying the problem. The notice is not necessary as No Trespassing is a legitimate law, but, it would provide notice to police this will be an activity they might require assistance with. 

June 26, 2014

By Pete Williams The U.S. Supreme Court (click here) on Thursday struck down a Massachusetts law requiring protesters to stay at least 35 feet from the entrances to clinics that provide abortions, a decision that cast a legal cloud over similar provisions in other states.

The court found that Massachusetts had violated the First Amendment and shut off a traditional public forum. It held that the state had not tried less intrusive methods to address its concerns.

The law was challenged by opponents who said they wanted to talk to women entering the clinics about alternatives to abortion....