Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board retools clinic buffer-zone law to comply with Supreme Court, extends protections for reproductive health patients
Summary
After revising a prior 25-foot buffer law to address the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley, supervisors passed an ordinance limiting harassment and blocking access at reproductive healthcare facilities while accommodating First Amendment concerns.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Oct. 28 adopted a reworked ordinance meant to protect access to reproductive‑health facilities while responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley.
Supervisor London Breed and others argued the city's prior 25‑foot buffer law was designed to protect patients and staff from harassment and intimidation outside clinics. The Supreme Court ruling invalidated a similar Massachusetts law; the board instructed the City Attorney’s Office and police to craft amendments to preserve patient access while respecting constitutional protections.
The approved ordinance prohibits following or harassing any person within 25 feet of a reproductive-health facility, impeding access at the doorway, and using amplified sound or shouting within 50 feet of the property line. Police may issue a written warning and, on repeated violation, require an individual to disperse and remain 25 feet from the facility for up to eight hours or until the facility closes for the day.
Supervisor David Campos described the typical scene outside a San Francisco clinic: graphic posters, amplified audio and confrontational protesters, which he said can intimidate patients. He said the revised ordinance seeks a balance between preserving First Amendment activity and preventing harassment that can deter patients from seeking care.
The planning commission and City Attorney’s Office helped draft the amended language; Deputy City Attorney Aaron Bernstein was thanked for his work. The ordinance passed on first reading with 11 ayes.
Why it matters: Supporters said the law protects patients seeking time‑sensitive and private medical care; opponents have argued about constitutional limits and the scope of restrictions on speech.
What's next: The ordinance passed on first reading; implementation will involve police training on warnings and dispersal authority and continued legal review to ensure compliance with constitutional law.
