Staff Reports
Pro-life advocates recently took on local ordinances that limit sidewalk counselors’ ability to operate near abortion facilities, but their efforts hit a brick wall when the Supreme Court decided to pass on hearing their arguments. Evidently, the justices preferred to spend their time on more pressing matters, like deciding the fate of a coconut-flavored seltzer. The lack of a hearing has sparked a collective eye-roll from conservatives who expected the court to at least entertain the idea of allowing voices for the voiceless to be heard.
At the heart of this legal debacle are two cases—one coming from Carbondale, Illinois, led by the organization Coalition Life, and the other from Englewood, New Jersey, pushed by pro-life activist Jeryl Turco. Both were shot down by lower courts that leaned heavily on a 2000 Supreme Court ruling from Hill v. Colorado. Apparently, the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution’s First Amendment protections are a little too flexible when it comes to the pro-life movement. Who knew?
It's disappointing that #SCOTUS won't hear the case about abortion business buffer zones. Sidewalk counselors are the last line of defense for the unborn.https://t.co/Ax6X1cjv7P
— Janet Morana (@JanetMorana) February 24, 2025
Dissenting voices like Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed disappointment over the court’s lack of ambition to take up these critical cases. Alito and Thomas seemed baffled that the court couldn’t see the contradiction in upholding a ruling from 23 years ago while ignoring their newer First Amendment precedents. Thomas, in particular, lamented the confusion this creates, making it sound less like a legal issue and more like a bad episode of Court TV.
Meanwhile, Brian Westbrook, the executive director of Coalition Life, isn’t throwing in the towel just yet. He has vowed to continue the “lifesaving work on the sidewalk,” indicating that this battle is far from over. The righteous indignation is palpable as Westbrook declared that they won’t let women be misled into making irreversible decisions. Apparently, he plans to take this fight straight to the streets, armed with the conviction that free speech shouldn’t be treated like a game of dodgeball in front of abortion clinics.
In the end, while the Court’s decision may have disheartened some, it hasn’t deterred the resolve of pro-life activists. They’ll continue to be a thorn in the side of those working diligently to push abortion without so much as a thought for the lives affected. Whether it’s from the sidewalks or the courtrooms, the pro-life movement is gearing up for a long game, hoping to ace their next court challenge and, eventually, change hearts and minds along the way.
Pro-life advocates recently took on local ordinances that limit sidewalk counselors’ ability to operate near abortion facilities, but their efforts hit a brick wall when the Supreme Court decided to pass on hearing their arguments. Evidently, the justices preferred to spend their time on more pressing matters, like deciding the fate of a coconut-flavored seltzer. The lack of a hearing has sparked a collective eye-roll from conservatives who expected the court to at least entertain the idea of allowing voices for the voiceless to be heard.
At the heart of this legal debacle are two cases—one coming from Carbondale, Illinois, led by the organization Coalition Life, and the other from Englewood, New Jersey, pushed by pro-life activist Jeryl Turco. Both were shot down by lower courts that leaned heavily on a 2000 Supreme Court ruling from Hill v. Colorado. Apparently, the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution’s First Amendment protections are a little too flexible when it comes to the pro-life movement. Who knew?
Dissenting voices like Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed disappointment over the court’s lack of ambition to take up these critical cases. Alito and Thomas seemed baffled that the court couldn’t see the contradiction in upholding a ruling from 23 years ago while ignoring their newer First Amendment precedents. Thomas, in particular, lamented the confusion this creates, making it sound less like a legal issue and more like a bad episode of Court TV.
Meanwhile, Brian Westbrook, the executive director of Coalition Life, isn’t throwing in the towel just yet. He has vowed to continue the “lifesaving work on the sidewalk,” indicating that this battle is far from over. The righteous indignation is palpable as Westbrook declared that they won’t let women be misled into making irreversible decisions. Apparently, he plans to take this fight straight to the streets, armed with the conviction that free speech shouldn’t be treated like a game of dodgeball in front of abortion clinics.
In the end, while the Court’s decision may have disheartened some, it hasn’t deterred the resolve of pro-life activists. They’ll continue to be a thorn in the side of those working diligently to push abortion without so much as a thought for the lives affected. Whether it’s from the sidewalks or the courtrooms, the pro-life movement is gearing up for a long game, hoping to ace their next court challenge and, eventually, change hearts and minds along the way.
