Although the Supreme Court will have the final say in a ruling expected sometime before the end of this term, a federal judge allowed a Portland ordinance to stand, prohibiting protesters within 39 feet of a Planned Parenthood clinic that performs abortions.

Although Nancy Torresen’s ruling could be upheld … or not … by the High Court, she did not rule on a motion to lift the ban until the Supreme Court rules. For now, protesters will have to remain outside of the 39-foot exclusion zone.

This is a case of competing rights, and this ruling, and possibly the Supreme Court ruling, may come down to one simple issue: Which party has the more compelling interest, the patient who is trying to step down the sidewalk without being screamed at or called a murderer, or the right of the people on the sidewalk to harass her?

The protesters say their First Amendment rights are being curtailed by the buffer zone; patients — the majority of whom are not terminating a pregnancy — and staff at the clinic say they feel unsafe and threatened.

The First Amendment, like other amendments, isn’t without limits. One cannot shout fire in a crowded theater or libel someone in the press without penalties. One can’t assemble, peaceably or not, with the intent to overthrow the government. One can’t deny medical treatment to a minor in the name of religion.

It is hard to envision another situation in which a non-public figure would be subjected to the kind of abuse women who are trying to obtain family planning services at Planned Parenthood have been enduring. Imagine a large, organized group protesting at a children’s health care clinic against vaccination. Or a large group taunting pet owners who bring their dogs or cats to a veterinary clinic to be spayed or neutered. Or a well- organized group protesting outside a maternity ward against infant circumcision.

We understand that some of these protesters have sincerely held beliefs about the sanctity of life. But they don’t know and can’t know the circumstances of a woman’s life or health that would lead her to terminate a pregnancy, and she shouldn’t have to explain it to them. It may have been a decision she was forced to because of her own health needs.

It’s not a decision any woman takes lightly, and wouldn’t be likely to be altered by a sidewalk counselor, no matter how wellmeaning he or she might be.

And we have to question how “well-meaning” some of the protesters are, in any case. Many of them bear signs that would make Westboro Baptist Church’s odious signage look like a kindergarten bulletin board.

The most important issue Judge Torresen faced, and the Supreme Court will face, is whether the impersonal right to speak about some issue outweighs the very personal right to make a medical decision for oneself and one’s family without being taunted, abused, or harassed at very close quarters.

We don’t believe that the right to protest outweighs a woman’s right to feel safe and secure while accessing health care of any kind. We applaud Judge Torresen, and hope that the High Court rules in favor of women’s safety and health. Her rights, and her interests, trump those of the perennial protester.