SW News: In the Vitagliano v. County of Westchester lawsuit, fourteen states and numerous pro-life organizations urged the US Supreme Court to strike down rules that limit pro-lifers' freedom of speech close to abortion facilities across the nation.

Debra Vitagliano, a Catholic mother of three, is suing a county in New York for prohibiting pro-life advocates from counseling women and providing them with abortion alternatives within 100 feet of a clinic, including sidewalks.

The law office Becket, which focuses on disputes involving free speech and religious freedom, is representing Vitagliano. The 64-year-old occupational therapist Vitagliano works with kids who have unique difficulties. Vitagliano, a Catholic who works with children with severe disabilities, thinks that every child has human dignity and deserves a chance at life.

A Westchester County statute called the Reproductive Health Care Facilities Access Act, which among other things prohibits pro-life statements outside abortion clinics, prevented her from pursuing her training to become a sidewalk counsellor to assist women in making the right decision.

"I want to offer abortion-vulnerable women a message of hope and compassion, letting them know that they are loved and can keep their babies," Vitagliano said in a press statement from Becket on August 25.

For pro-life advocates who seek to counsel women outside abortion clinics, the Westchester County "bubble" or "buffer" zone statute levies misdemeanor penalties of up to $5,000 and a year in jail.

A number of legal professionals and pro-life groups, such as pregnancy help centers, have submitted amicus briefs. There were a total of 18 separate amicus curiae briefs submitted in favor of pro-life free speech.

Based on the decision in Hill v. Colorado, a New York District Court dismissed Vitagliano's complaint. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals then dismissed her case once more on June 21 for the same cause.

Both judges concurred with the Westchester County attorneys that the New York bubble statute is constitutional in light of the legally binding precedent set by Hill in 2000.

According to the Second Circuit Court's ruling, Vitagliano's assertions that the decision in Hill was erroneous "have no bearing on the disposition of the appeal."