In the case of McCullen v. Coakley (2014), a unanimous United States Supreme Court reversed a series of lower court opinions that had upheld the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law regulating activism in front of abortion clinics. As such, it struck the law down as unconstitutional, but a majority of the Court left open room for other regulations.

“Protecting abortion clinics in the age of McCullen v. Coakley,” Pacific Standard, July 8, 2014
  • After the Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley, the piece argues that clinics may have to turn to injunctions to keep protesters away, taking on the additional expense themselves or passing it on to those they serve.
“Abortion clinics are not defenseless, but there is reason for caution.” The Washington Post / The Monkey Cage, June 29, 2014
  • After the Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley, the piece argues that while abortion politics will change somewhat, the degree to which they have is not nearly as dramatic as the initial popular arguments suggest.
“McCullen v. Coakley and the politics of abortion,” Pacific Standard, January 21, 2014
  • Considering the Supreme Court argument in McCullen v. Coakley, the piece argues that even if the Supreme Court strikes down a law requiring a buffer zone around abortion clinics, the return of large-scale national street politics is not likely since the fight has moved inside to legislatures and courts.
“The changing face of anti-choice activism,” Religion Dispatches, January 21, 2014
  • This piece responds to criticisms and concerns from those who fear a return to the 1980s street politics of abortion in the wake of McCullen v. Coakley. It does so by drawing more attention to how the political resources, political context, and thus the political fight, have fundamentally changed.
“Abortion buffer zones: What Supreme Court Justice Roberts’ silence means,” Politix, January 17, 2014
  • This piece uses US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’s silence during the oral arguments in McCullen v. Coakley to discuss issues of concern for the Court regarding its legitimacy, and thus its power.
“The anti-abortion movement has changed.  Here’s what that means for abortion clinics.” The Washington Post / The Monkey Cage, January 16, 2014
  • Considering the Supreme Court argument in McCullen v. Coakley, the piece argues that even if the Supreme Court strikes down a law requiring a buffer zone around abortion clinics, the return of large-scale national street politics is not likely since the fight has moved inside to legislatures and courts.