Fresno anti-abortion group scores ‘free speech’ win against state over vaccine clinics law
An anti-abortion group in Fresno won a legal victory Saturday in a case in which the group’s supporters argue a state law related to COVID-19 vaccines is infringing on their free speech rights.
Fresno nonprofit Right to Life of Central California is suing Attorney General Rob Bonta over Senate Bill 742, a law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed this past month that creates a 100-foot buffer zone outside of a clinic or other facility that administers vaccines.
The U.S. Eastern District Court of California Judge Dale Drozd granted a temporary restraining order, allowing the nonprofit and anyone across the state relief from a part of the law while the case is ongoing.
People pushing any kind of message cannot get within 30 feet of a person who is within 100 feet of a vaccine clinic, the law says. The temporary restraining order allows that activity while the case makes its way through court, though the rest of the law still applies.
The nonprofit is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Denise Harle, who said the law is unconstitutional.
“The court rightly acknowledged SB 742’s double standard in restricting pro-life outreach while permitting other types of speech, such as picketing about a labor dispute,” she said. “We are thankful Right to Life’s staff and volunteers can continue their critical mission of serving vulnerable women in the central California region with their free, life-giving services.”
SB 742 was meant to protect those patients seeking the COVID vaccine from harassment by extremists who might obstruct or threaten them as they arrived.
State Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, wrote the bill in response to protesters briefly shutting down Dodger Stadium in January while it was serving as a mass COVID-19 vaccination site.
The restraining order applies only to “harassing” and left in place “obstructing, injuring ... intimidating or interfering” with people seeking a vaccine as prohibited behavior, Pan’s office noted Monday.
“This ruling recognizes that the state has a public interest in combating the COVID-19 pandemic and ‘availability and access to lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines are of paramount importance,’ “ Pan said in a statement. “The judge ultimately ruled against anti-vaccine extremists who attempt to obstruct and interfere with vaccination delivery and recognized that critical provisions of SB 742 did not interfere with First Amendment rights.”
The law became a problem for the anti-abortion nonprofit because the law applies to any kind of vaccine, including the one for HPV, a virus that can cause cancer. The nonprofit’s outreach center on Fulton Street is next door to Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, which administers the HPV vaccine but not COVID-19 inoculations.
The two properties are connected by a sidewalk and the nonprofit’s advocates routinely approach people who visit Planned Parenthood and offer them alternative services and share handbills.
SB 742 prohibits passing out leaflets, displaying signs or educating or counseling someone without consent within the buffer zone. Protesters can’t restrict someone’s physical ability to enter a vaccine site, or make threats as an intimidation tactic. Violators could face six months in jail, a $1,000 fine or both.
The nonprofit this year suspended its annual 40 Days of Life campaign, which would have been from Sept. 22 through Sunday, but it was cut short by the new law, according to court documents.
The Attorney General’s Office argued in court documents that the public interest to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 outweighed any affect the law had on the nonprofit’s free speech, which the office argued is minimal.
“The Attorney General will continue to defend the law and work to ensure that any Californian who would like to be vaccinated is able to obtain their COVID-19 vaccine without intimidation,” the office said Monday in a statement.
This story was originally published November 1, 2021 at 1:05 PM.
