GVFA 432
Dr. Marion
9 February 2017
MADSEN v. WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER, INC.
514 U.S.__, 114 S.Ct. 2516, __ L.Ed.2d __ (1994).
The Madsen case is one that involves much emotion because it concerns a topic that
enflames the passions of many; abortion. The petitioners in this case were a group of people who
held strong opinions on abortion. They expressed their sentiments, that abortions are morally
wrong and akin to murder, by protesting and picketing outside of a women’s health center that
preformed these operations. The health center, the respondent, sought an injunction against the
petitioners. Seeking the injunction was done with the health of the women who might enter the
health center in mind. A Florida state court entered an injunction that prohibited antiabortion
protesters from acting in certain ways and in certain places in the proximity of the health center.
The injunction granted by the Florida state court was the follow up to a previous
injunction that the respondents had felt was inadequate in protecting the individuals involved in
the functions of the health center. It is the second injunction that the petitioners argue is a
violation of their First Amendment rights. The respondents had sought a broader injunction
because they felt as though the first one allowed the petitioners to be too close to the health
center, which discouraged potential patients from entering the center. The court that granted the
injunction had found that the protesters were a potential threat to the health of the patients of the
clinic. A doctor testified that the patients exhibiting signs of higher anxiety and hypertension,
which required more sedation. This level of sedation increased the risk of procedures, they
argued. The court also found that the level of noise that the protesters were creating was causing
stress to the patients inside the clinic. Additionally, the protesters were causing some potential
patients to delay their procedures, which also increased health risk. The petitioners had also
taken measures to harass clinic employees at their private residences. These reasons led the state
court to modify the injunction in a much broader way.
The second injunction prohibited nine major actions of the petitioners. The first
prohibition was that the petitioners were prohibited from entering the clinic at all times. The
second prohibition was that the petitioners were not allowed in any way to block or interfere with
access to the clinic. The third prohibition did not allow any petitioner to be within 36 feet of the
clinic, but there were exceptions to this. The fourth prohibition was that during certain hours the
petitioners must not produce sounds that were audible inside the clinic and that they must also
not display any images observable to the patients inside the clinic. The fifth prohibition was that
the petitioners must not approach any person within 300 feet of the clinic unless that person
