Clarence Thomas is urging the Supreme Court to take up this very delicate freedom issue

Clarence Thomas

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that speech restriction has become a hot-button issue over the last few months.

The communist Left continues to restrict almost every possible outlet there is in order to stop any message but their own from getting out.

That’s why Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is urging the Supreme Court to take up this very delicate freedom issue.

Earlier this week, Justice Thomas encouraged the high court to again take up the issue of speech restrictions outside abortion clinics.

Thomas said the justices need to “resolve the glaring tension” among its precedents.

At issue is a Pittsburgh ordinance that says individuals cannot “knowingly congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate” within 15 feet of the entrance of a hospital or health care facility.

While the ordinance is supposed to apply to all facilities, many say the city of Pittsburgh has only enforced the ordinance at two abortion clinics.

In a world where merely supporting the President of the United States can get you canceled, it should come as no surprise that cities are bending the rules to make them work in favor of left-wing regulations.

In 2019, Pro-life groups and activists challenged the law, and the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the law.

Although the Third Circuit upheld the Pittsburgh ordinance, it gave pro-lifers a small win, ruling the ordinance does not apply to “sidewalk counseling.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take the case, but in a one-page letter, Justice Thomas encouraged the court to take up the issue in the future.

Thomas’ statement read in part, “The city of Pittsburgh, like many jurisdictions, has created ‘buffer zones’ around abortion clinics. These zones often impose serious limits on free speech. Many even prohibit certain one-on-one conversations.”

The Justice went on to quote two separate abortion clinic cases that resulted in very different conclusions.

In Hill v. Colorado, the court upheld a Colorado statute that restricted speech within 100 feet of an abortion clinic entrance.  However, in McCullen v. Coakley, the court struck down a Massachusetts law that placed restrictions on speech within a 35-foot zone around all clinic entrances.

As Justice Thomas points out, the court desperately needs to revisit the language and meaning of “buffer zone” because they impose very serious limits on free speech.

America is seeing speech limited at every turn, and if something doesn’t turn around soon, we can likely kiss that freedom goodbye completely.

Culture Watch News will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.