Inc. Madsen v. Women's Health Center

No contemporary issue is more contentious than abortion. In recent years there have been acts of vandalism, arson, invasions, and shootings (some fatal) by radical antiabortion activists. The Court apparently made its decision with this in mind. Some decried the decision; in a Connecticut Law Tribune article, Bruce Fein called it a "blunderbuss attack on free speech." In the Maryland Journal of Contemporary Issues Heather O'Connor called it "a step in the right direction," but said that other precedents existed to support further action: "The Court had authority and opportunity to go further in protecting states' interests and the safety of women . . . The Court failed to do so, allowing the violence . . . to continue." The Court used the "Madsen test" in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997) to limit injunctive restrictions on abortion protesters. So while upholding some protection for those seeking abortions and the clinics that perform them, Madsen is likely to be used to protect the protesters' rights.