interesting to me looking at the history of how massachusetts has tried to deal with the issue about danger at clinics and protests at clinics, is that massachusetts did, in 2000, governor cellucci, republican governor, i believe, signed a law that created a different buffer zone, one more like colorado s which at this point is still standing according to the supreme court. that was sort of a moving buffer zone around individuals as they tried to get in and out of clinics rather than just a fixed space that was a no-protest area. why didn t that work? why wasn t that perceived to be working in massachusetts? that law didn t work because it allowed the protesters in stand in the doorway of the health center. for someone coming into the health center to get health care, they had to walk up to the protesters and thread their way through a big group of screaming people just to get in the door. so the law didn t work because the patients had to approach the protesters. and in that instanc
health care. we re going be open tomorrow, be open saturday, and patients are going to get their health care. we also have tremendous support from our local police departments. so i was in touch with them today, and we know we will have increased law enforcement presence at our health centers, but that s not really a long-term solution. you don t want to solve this problem by having police there constantly when women are coming in for health care. what we re doing is reviewing the laws that are already on the books that we might be able to use, as well as what new laws we might be able to craft. we have great support from our governor deval patrick and attorney general martha coakley as well as our legislative leadership. so everyone today said, all right, let s read the decision and let s find out what the answer is and what law might be constitutional and let s get that law through the legislature. marty walz, president of the planned parenthood league of massachusetts, and author
rules. one thing that has been interesting to me looking at the history of how massachusetts has tried to deal with the issue about danger at clinics and protests at clinics, is that massachusetts did, in 2000, governor saluchi, republican governor, i believe, signed a law that created a different buffer zone, one more like colorado s which at this point is still standing according to the supreme court. that was sort of a moving buffer zone around individuals as they tried to get in and out of clinics rather than just a fixed space that was a no-protest area. why didn t that ceived to be working in massachusetts? that law didn t work because it allowed the protesters in stand in the doorway of the health center. for someone coming into the health center to get health care, they had to walk up to the protesters and thread their way through a big group of screaming people just to get in the door. so the law didn t work because the patients had to approach the protesters. and in that
women have a right to get the health services they need without any fear of harassment or intimidation. as we made clear in our court filings, we believe that massachusetts buffer zone law protected those rights in a common sense manner that also respected everyone s first amendment rights. now, abortion opponents are hailing the supreme court s decision as a victory saying it confirms that the first amendment is for everyone. a second major ruling by the supreme court scales back the president s power to make temporary appointments when the senate is in recess. the issue arose in 2012 after the president appointed three nominees on a labor board without senate confirmation. the high court says the president does not have the power to make recess appointments during any senate recess of ten days or more. it was a year ago today that the senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill. remember that? well, now, virtually everyone on capitol hill agrees it s dead. house republicans
coverage of a deadly shooting incident at two abortion clinics in massachusetts in 1994. lawmakers in massachusetts eventually established a 35-foot buffer zone, basically a protest-free zone around abortion clinics in part to deal with concerns like those. today the u.s. supreme court struck down the massachusetts law. joining us now, marty walz, former member of the massachusetts state legislature. she s now head of the planned parenthood league of massachusetts. thanks very much for being with us. great to be with you, rachel. first, let me ask you your reaction to today s ruling. a lot of people predicted the law might be in trouble. simply because the court took it up. what do you think of their ruling today? well, of course, we were disappointed. we think the buffer zone law worked very well to maintain a