COURT WON'T RULE ON CLINIC BUFFER ZONES

The Supreme Court yesterday declined to take up the question of whether
states are in violation of the Constitution when they enforce "buffer
zones" around abortion clinics to keep protesters away.

The justices offered no comment in their move to let stand a 2000
Massachusetts law that forces protesters to stay at least 18 feet from the
clinics and at least six feet from women entering them.

In other action, the high court agreed to hear arguments in a case that
centers on whether a New Mexico church can continue serving its members a
hallucinogenic tea during religious services.

Blending Christianity and indigenous South American beliefs, the
Brazil-based church has about 140 members in the Santa Fe area. It has been
locked in a years-long battle with federal authorities over the legality of
the hoasca tea it uses.

A lower federal court ruled in favor of allowing the church to use the tea
- -- brewed from plants found in the Amazon River basin -- because of the
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But the government argued that it
contains the controlled substance DMT, a hallucinogenic drug, and in 1999,
authorities seized about 30 gallons of the tea from church leaders in Santa Fe.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case this
summer and to rule in the fall.

In the Massachusetts case, pro-life groups voiced discontent over the
court's move not to review the the Massachusetts abortion-clinic law.

"We're disappointed," said Cheryl Sullenger, a spokeswoman for the national
pro-life group Operation Rescue. "What the buffer zones really do is
prevent pro-lifers from distributing literature to women who are seeking
abortions.

"A lot of times that literature gives them the information they needed in
order for them to make a better decision for them and their baby."

Several states have buffer-zone laws similar to the one Massachusetts began
seeking after two abortion clinic workers were fatally shot in 1994. The
state passed the law in 2000, but it was briefly overturned during the
ensuing legal battle in Massachusetts federal courts.

A federal appeals court upheld the law in 2001, at which time Massachusetts
Attorney General Tom Reilly, a Democrat, said the "buffer-zone law is a
sensible measure that strikes the right balance between public safety and
the right to free speech."

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case marks the third time in as
many months that the justices have declined to wade into politically
sensitive abortion waters.

In February, they refused to reopen Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that
made the practice legal nationwide in 1973. Last month, the justices
refused to hear an appeal of a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that
struck down an Idaho law requiring parental consent for minors seeking
abortions.

In 1992, the last time Roe v. Wade was reviewed, the justices upheld the
fundamental constitutional right of women to choose abortion.