Different police officers can interpret obstruction and blockading differently, and the resulting uncertainty in enforcement may infringe on protesters' civil liberties by deterring legal, peaceful demonstrations.

For example, does this law outlaw picketing in front of a clinic? After all, women may be forced to walk around picketers. Will a person who steps in front of a woman to hand her a leaflet be considered in violation?

The freedom of access bill fails to provide clear answers to these questions, even though the U.S. Supreme Court, in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, ruled that government must exercise "precision of regulation" in its prohibition of illegal activities "when such conduct occurs in the context of constitutionally protected activity."

As University of Chicago Law Professor Michael W. McConnell explains in a Wall Street Journal editorial, "Government must be careful not to impose any penalty or inhibition on lawful protest in the course of imposing liability on the lawful acts."

It may be unpleasant for a woman to have to endure picketers and their signs. They may not enjoy anti-abortion protesters' attempts at persuading them to not have an abortion. But the First Amendment is very clear on this issue: it specifically protects freedom of speech and association.

The Massachusetts government has done exactly what the Supreme Court warned against. By employing sweeping language, this act is likely to inhibit the actions of peaceful protesters.

The Constitution is very clear on the issue of minority rights. Their viewpoints, however unpopular, must not be denied equal protection of the law.