BY MICHAEL OLOHAN
OF NORTHERN VALLEY PRESS
ENGLEWOOD, N.J. —— Three doctors that provide medical services at an abortion clinic at 40 Engle St. pleaded with council members Nov. 21 to address loud protesters who they say harass and intimidate clinic visitors every Saturday with voice amplifying devices that disturb the peace and upset clinic employees and visitors.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
Coincidentally, the doctors’ complaints came in the wake of a federal court decision that voided a 2014 city ordinance that bars people from coming within 8 feet of a health care facility, an ordinance specifically developed with clinic visitors in mind.
The federal judge ruled that Englewood’s ordinance violates protesters’ rights of free speech and free assembly under the First Amendment. The lawsuit was filed by anti-abortion advocate Jeryl Turco in 2015 challenging the constitutionality of Englewood’s 8-foot buffer ordinance.
Originally, the ordinance was passed to address contentious confrontations among protesters and visitors at Metropolitan Medical Associates—situations similar to loud yelling and noisy protesters occurring on Saturdays that were detailed by three doctors at the meeting.
Mayor Frank Huttle III urged the council to appeal the federal decision knocking down Englewood’s 8-foot buffer ordinance.
“I think we should fight for women’s rights,” he said to applause.
Huttle said another recent federal court decision upheld that a 15-foot buffer “was not an infringement of free speech. Women have a right to care for themselves and make their own decisions and they should not be intimidated by aggressive protesters,” Huttle said.
Dr. Keith Gresham, of Saddle River, who practices at 40 Engle St., urged city council members to “consider updating their noise code” to adopt the state environmental protection agency noise regulations to give them a tool to stop the noises disturbing clinic operations every Saturday.
Gresham said that “a special kind of disruption occurs regularly on Saturdays” and that while he is “not an opponent of peaceful protest” the anti-abortion advocates who protest use voice amplification devices “making loud and unreasonable noises” at levels “heard inside the clinic’s waiting rooms.”
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
He said the amplified sounds are “heard in the library, surrounding homes and Palisade Avenue, a block and a half away.”
Another clinic physician, Vladimir Kilinsky, said clinic visitors and personnel are “assaulted by amplified devices” that “makes it impossible to function…the first few hours every Saturday it makes it impossible to work,” he said. He said the excessive loud noise is “an assault to our hearing and our human dignity.”
A third clinic doctor, Constantine Binas, said he was not against free speech but said that visitors “are being threatened, yelled at, intimidated and harassed. It’s noise harassment and intimidation,” he stated.
Prior to the doctors’ complaints, Huttle defended the council’s 2014 vote to approve an ordinance limiting protesters’ access around health care facilities.
Huttle said the federal judge “made a decision without hearing the case on the merits” and found that the city “did not target the [ordinance] to address the specific issue of congestion or aggressive behaviors,” he said.
Councilman Michael Cohen agreed with Huttle, noting the “pandemonium when we debated this [buffer] ordinance” and added: “Whatever we can do in the appeals process…whatever needs to be done to protect against the harassment and bullying…is incumbent upon us to take,” he said.
U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton said Englewood’s ordinance establishing an 8-foot buffer around healthcare facilities was too broad.
“Defendant created a sweeping regulation that burdens the free speech of individuals, not just in front of the clinic, but at health care and transitional facilities citywide,” wrote Wigenton.
She found that Englewood did not try less restrictive measures before enacting the ordinance and did not prosecute individuals for their actions outside the abortion clinic in the five years prior to ordinance passage.
Wigenton said the city “never undertook a cost study to determine the resources the city would need for additional police coverage in front of the clinic” and “cannot make a good-faith argument that it seriously considered or employed alternative measures before adopting the ordinance.”
Currently, Englewood’s noise code (Chapter 286) exempts “public assembly activities conducted on any public space or public right-of-way.”
Under subsection 7, it specifically states an exemption for “noise from engaging in political activity by means of a sound truck or other amplifying device, provided that such persons have first filed with the noise control officer an application for permit setting forth the sponsorship, date, hours, and routes of such activity” and a permit is issued.
It was unclear whether who, if anyone, is Englewood’s noise control officer. Also, whether this noise ordinance section was enforceable and by who was not clear.
Efforts to reach City Manager Edward Hynes for comment were not returned by press time.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]