Under current Massachusetts law, anti-abortion protesters must observe a six-foot “bubble” within 18 feet of any abortion provider. (In other words, within 18 feet of a clinic, protesters must stay at least six feet away from anyone entering or leaving. Leave it to legislators to put their diktats in garbled language!)

The state Senate has approved a bill to expand the buffer zone around abortion clinics. Under the proposal, which is expected to be passed and signed into law by Governor Patrick, protesters would be prohibited from coming within 35 feet of a clinic’s property line. Importantly, this includes silent protesters, and apparently applies to people standing otherwise lawfully on private property — even their own.

Those who believe that this further restriction on the “right of the people to peaceably assemble” (from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) is justified, should ask themselves this: As a matter of law, would they favor a 35-foot buffer zone around military recruitment offices? Or keeping immigration-reform demonstrators 35 feet away from all federal buildings?

Of course they wouldn’t! They would be outraged by the thought of such things.

Therein lies their inconsistency, and the folly of this bill. Women entering reproductive clinics under stressful circumstances may indeed feel harassed by the sight of protesters. But so may young men entering the priesthood amidst a cacophony of protest, or military recruits entering certain elite universities, where recruiters are regarded as humanity in its lowest form.

Things might be different if citizens’ safety — any citizen’s safety — were demonstrably at risk. But aside from one horrible incident several years ago when a mentally ill man murdered two people at a Brookline clinic, convenience and feelings, not safety, are the issues that the Senate’s bill addresses. In the hurly-burly of democracy, convenience is no good reason to tread on the Bill of Rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed the Bay State bill, calling it limitations on freedom of expression “overly broad.” We agree. This will end up in court.