The Supreme Court of the United States of America recently shocked the country by agreeing that pro-life Americans should not be allowed to protest abortion near abortion clinics.

Per Fox News: "The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a pro-life challenge against protest restrictions around abortion clinics in Illinois, as activists argued the laws infringe on their First Amendment rights, a decision met with a fiery dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas."

It's no surprise that Clarence Thomas was upset by the decision. Americans have a right to free speech, and he feels as though they're not being allowed to utilize it because liberals don't like what the free speech is saying.

Liberals love abortion so much that they honestly believe that Americans should not be able to exercise their First Amendment right to protest it.

Supreme Court rejects appeals

America's Supreme Court rejected appeals in New Jersey and Illinois from Coalition Life, which calls itself "America's Largest Professional Sidewalk Counseling Organization."

Coalition Life was challenging previous decisions from lower courts which had resulted in their lawsuits being dismissed.

Pro-life activists are arguing that "buffer zones" that were established after a Supreme Court decision in Colorado to shield people getting abortions from harassment violate their right to free speech.

In what some feel was a surprising move, America's conservative-leaning Supreme Court did not agree with the pro-life plaintiffs. Only two judges out of the nine on the court thought that Coalition Life had a case regarding the issue.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

Thomas and Alito are both conservatives, so it's no surprise that they would be the two trying to stand up for free speech, even if people want to practice it near abortion clinics.

Clarence Thomas thought that the decision in the case in Colorado, Hill v. Colorado, is outdated and should be reexamined at this point.

That case "has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty," Thomas said.

Clarence Thomas added that he would've used the Coalition Life case to override the decision that was made in Hill v. Colorado.

"This case would have allowed us to provide needed clarity to lower courts," Thomas added in his dissent.

Something that undermined the decision made in Hill v. Colorado was the 2014 case of McCullen v. Coakley. That case challenged a Massachussetts law that established a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The Supreme Court found that the law was overly broad, included too much space, and infringed on the free speech rights of pro-lifers. America's Supreme Court court struck down that law, distinguishing it from the Hill decision. Thomas thought Coalition Life's case had the potential to do something similar.

In a deviation from McCullen v. Coakley was a 2019 case that upheld a 15-foot buffer zone law outside of abortion clinics in New York.