By KATHERINE PETERSEN
Pro-choice and pro-life advocates disagree on what impact a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision will have on Sunnyvale's "bubble" ordinance.
The law, approved by the City Council last April, was designed to protect clients from protesters at Sunnyvale's Planned Parenthood Mar Monte clinic--which offers women's health-care services, including abortions and birth control pills. The ordinance requires protesters to respect an 8-foot "bubble" of space around patients who are within 100 feet of the building.
The Supreme Court ruled on an injunction that had been ordered by a New York judge, not a city ordinance, clinic officials argue.
Opponents of the Sunnyvale ordinance feel the higher court's decision should overturn the law.
Eric Rakowski, a professor at the UC-Berkeley Law School, said the Supreme Court overturned the 15-foot floating bubble aspect of the New York injunction, but upheld a 15-foot buffer zone at the clinic entrance and at entrances and exits of parking lots.
The court may give more weight to an ordinance, like Sunnyvale's, which was passed by a legislative body, he said.
However, it's impossible to say for certain if Sunnyvale's ordinance is constitutional on the basis of this ruling, he said. "The court's decision raises doubts about the constitutionality of any bubble, but it left it open that a bubble could be justified in some circumstances," he said.
Sunnyvale City Attorney Valerie Armento hasn't yet read the Supreme Court's decision and can't say conclusively if the city's ordinance is in jeopardy.
"Based on my knowledge, I don't think our ordinance is in any danger," she said.
In Sunnyvale, protesters within the 100-foot area who do not respect a "go away" from clients could be arrested and prosecuted on misdemeanor charges.
Kjerstin Gould, Planned Parenthood's clinic defense coordinator, said the organization assumes at this point that both the Sunnyvale ordinance and a similar one in San Jose will remain in place.
"We haven't arrested anybody under the bubble ordinance in either of the cities because protesters know about the law and respect it," she said.
Frank Hughes--an attorney for Miller, Morton, Caillat and Nevis in San Jose who has represented protesters of Planned Parenthood in the past--said the decision should have an impact on the Sunnyvale ordinance.
"The concerns that the Supreme Court had about the bubbles being unworkable and excessively broad have the same kind of impact on the Sunnyvale site. I think the biggest impact of a rule like that is a chilling effect on lawful conduct," he said.
Gould conceded that protesters have refrained from yelling in clients' faces as they enter or leave the clinic since the passage of the ordinance. But the ordinance doesn't reduce their verbal impact on clients, she said.
"People just yell things from eight feet away, which isn't really that far," she said.
Hughes said that protesters at Planned Parenthood clinics are quiet and sincere. The ordinance discourages legal behavior as well as more overt, illegal conduct, he added.
"There was a group of women who prayed on the rosary on the sidewalk twice a week. The ordinance affected them, but they hadn't bothered anybody," he said.
The Supreme Court decision does not affect clinic entrances, which may not be blocked, according to federal law.
The Supreme Court will look at a bubble ordinance in Phoenix, similar to Sunnyvale's, that may have a more drastic impact on laws in Sunnyvale and San Jose, Gould said.
"Having the ordinances in place in both cities is reassuring. It's something we can provide our clients with if they're being harassed. If that were to be eliminated, hopefully things wouldn't go back to the way they were," she said.
Mayor Stan Kawczynski hasn't changed his mind since he opposed the ordinance last year, citing reasons of free speech. He also disagreed with the ordinance because its constitutionality was in question.
Forcing protesters to stay eight feet away from clients means they would have no place to go, he said.
"The sidewalks aren't eight feet wide. They would have to go into the street or onto private property," he said.
Yet Vice Mayor Jim Roberts expressed disappointment in the court's decision and hopes it won't have any adverse impact on the Sunnyvale ordinance.
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, March 5, 1997.
©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.