Secular Pro-Life
  • Home
  • About
    • Meet The Team
    • Mission and Vision
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Stances
      • Abortion
      • Religion
      • Contraception
      • The Rape Exception
    • Terms and Conditions
      • Opt-out preferences
  • Content
    • Index
    • Blog
    • Presentations
      • A Secular Case Against Abortion
      • Building Bridges
      • Deconstructing Three Pro-Choice Myths
      • Overlooked Findings of the Turnaway Study
    • Research
      • Abortion Law and Abortion Rates
      • Abortion Law and Pregnancy Rates
      • Later Abortion
      • Embryonic Hearts
    • Collections
      • Becoming Pro-Life
      • They can hear you
      • Parents can hear you
      • Our children’s heartbeats
      • Ask An Atheist
      • LGBTQ and Pro-Life
      • Fixed that meme for you
      • For the biology textbook tells me so
    • Print Materials
      • 100 Pro-Life Sign Ideas
      • Overview of SPL
      • 3 Reasons to tell people you’re pro-life
      • How to talk (not fight) about abortion
      • Bridges PRC Curriculum
      • Fetal Remains Disposition Protocol
      • FAQ handout
      • Presentations overview card
    • Store
  • Contact
  • Get Involved
    • Why support SPL?
    • Donor Opportunities
    • Volunteer Opportunities
    • Volunteer Survey
    • More Surveys
      • Why do you support SPL?
      • Best and Worst Abortion Arguments
      • “Ask An Atheist” Interview
      • Non-Traditional Pro-Life Survey
      • LGBT Pro-Life Survey
      • Parents experiences with prenatal screening
      • Your experiences with adoption
      • Your experiences with processing abortion
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Pro-Lifers Sue Minneapolis Over “Exclusion Zone” Ordinance

April 7, 2023/in Legislation, laws, & court cases, Uncategorized /by Kelsey Hazzard

When Roe was thrown into the ash heap of history and Dobbs became the law of the land, I highlighted a little-noticed footnote in the Dobbs opinion strongly hinting that “bubble zone” laws targeting pro-life speech would be next:

The sentence “And they have distorted First Amendment doctrines” is followed by footnote 65, which cites Hill v. Colorado, an infamous 2000 Supreme Court case. Colorado legislators hostile to prenatal justice had enacted a “buffer zone” prohibiting peaceful distribution of pamphlets within 100 feet of abortion facilities. Successful sidewalk advocacy saves lives and deprives the abortion industry of revenue; the goal of buffer zones is to prevent sidewalk advocates from convincing mothers not to kill their babies. Hill upheld the Colorado law and denied freedom of speech for pro-life advocates on public sidewalks outside abortion centers.

The footnote is a serious black mark against Hill, and against buffer zones generally. Although Hill has not been formally reversed, a majority of the Supreme Court would clearly find sidewalk censorship unconstitutional today.

A lawsuit filed in Minnesota on Wednesday could be the vehicle the Supreme Court needs to overturn Hill v. Colorado. The suit, brought by a Christian sidewalk counseling organization, argues that a Minneapolis “exclusion zone” ordinance violates numerous rights articulated in the First Amendment. Being Christian, they assert a violation of their free exercise of religion. But their claim for violation of freedom of speech is stronger, and if their lawsuit is successful, secular speakers will also benefit.

The Minneapolis ordinance against sidewalk counseling is not quite as blatant about its purpose as the law in Hill. Rather than ban distribution of pamphlets, it prohibits simply being on particular sidewalks and driveways adjoining the abortion center unless “crossing the driveway completely from one side of the driveway to the other without stopping or slowing and continuing to a destination beyond the furthest lot line of the [abortion] facility.” It’s framed less like the Colorado bubble zone law and more like a mini-FACE Act against those who would “obstruct, impede, or hinder” the entrance.

The plaintiffs, however, have persuasive photographic evidence that their sidewalk counseling practices do not physically obstruct anyone. They approach cars from the side and present ethical pregnancy resources through the windows, without blocking the cars from moving forward:

This is allowed under the FACE Act, but not under the Minneapolis ordinance, purely because they “stop” or “slow down” on a public sidewalk. To be clear, the FACE Act is itself dreadful and inequitably enforced, but that’s a subject for another article. My point is that Minneapolis has gone a step further, and this is obvious viewpoint-based censorship. As a plaintiffs’ spokesperson put it in their press release, the ordinance “deliberately attempts to stifle our peaceful offers of life-affirming alternatives and support to pregnant women and their companions outside the Minneapolis Planned Parenthood abortion facility.”

The plaintiffs allege that their sidewalk counseling efforts have saved over 3,600 children from death. If that is even close to accurate, the lost abortion revenue easily exceeds a million dollars. No wonder Planned Parenthood lobbied for an exclusion zone!

The case is assigned to Judge Jerry Blackwell, a Biden appointee.

Related Posts

Tags: Planned Parenthood, sidewalk counselors & crisis pregnancy centers
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://i0.wp.com/secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/PP-driveway.png?fit=1327%2C635&ssl=1 635 1327 Kelsey Hazzard https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Kelsey Hazzard2023-04-07 04:53:002023-04-05 20:53:59Pro-Lifers Sue Minneapolis Over “Exclusion Zone” Ordinance
You might also like
Study: Women considering abortion who visit CPCs are more likely to continue their pregnancies
Tis’ the Season
Proposed HHS rule would create PP monopoly on family planning
Volunteer!
Quick News Roundup: 10/28/10
Scandal = Executive pay cuts, unless…
PP moves away from “pro-choice” label.
2024 Heartbeat International Recap

Follow via Email

* indicates required

Categories

  • Ableism
  • Abortion pills
  • Administrative
  • Adoption & Foster Care
  • Biology
  • Bodily Rights
  • Dialogue strategy
  • en español
  • Later Abortion
  • Legislation, laws, & court cases
  • Miscarriage & Pregnancy Loss
  • Personhood
  • Philosophy
  • Pro-Life Demographics
  • Rape Exception
  • Religion
  • Research
  • Speeches, Discussions, Presentations
  • SPL Emails
  • They Can Hear You
  • Top SPL Articles
  • Top SPL Graphics
  • Uncategorized
  • We Asked You Answered
  • Year In Review
  • Your Stories

Archive

It’s crucial that we demonstrate that anyone can–and everyone should–oppose abortion. Thanks to you, we are working to change minds, transform our culture, and protect our prenatal children. Every donation supports our ability to provide nonsectarian, nonpartisan arguments against abortion. Read more details here. Please donate today.

DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
© Copyright 2025 Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

Related Posts

Opportunity to Support Pregnant and Parenting Students Harry Potter Explains How Fetuses are People
Scroll to top
Manage Consent

To provide the best experience, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.

Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
Want to receive our email newsletter?

We’d be happy to keep in touch. Subscribe for access to our newsletter and other updates.