State laws keeping protesters 150 metres away from abortion clinics stop them harassing and intimidating patients and staff and are not designed to protect patients from hurt feelings, the High Court has been told.
Victorian solicitor-general Kristen Walker SC said clinic staff reported that women arrived in a distressed and anxious state.
One clinic doctor reported protesters outside every working day for 25 years, singing, praying and yelling, displaying placards saying abortion leads to cancer and infertility and trying to block women's entry to the premises.
Ms Walker said the Victorian parliament was responding to a full spectrum of those behaviours when it enacted legislation establishing the 150-metre "access zone" around clinics in which protesters were barred.
She said it was apparent that existing laws were unsatisfactory and did not address the problems being confronted by women and staff at the clinics.
"On no view is this legislation directed to the prevention of hurt feelings and nor is it necessary to demonstrate that any particular person suffered actual psychiatric harm or depression," she said.
"We accept that the harmful conduct does extend to matters that would not be traditionally be considered harassment or intimidation and that would not perhaps lead to a recognised diagnosis of psychiatric harm."
The High Court is hearing appeals from two anti-abortion activists who are arguing that the legislation establishing protester exclusion zones in Victoria and Tasmania infringes their right of political communication.
Kathleen Clubb, a mother of 13, was convicted breaching the Victorian law in 2016 and fined $5000.
Queenslander John Preston was convicted of three breaches of the Tasmanian law in 2014 and 2015 and fined $3000.
Outside court, the Human Rights Law Centre's Adrianne Walters said the Victorian laws struck the right balance between freedom of expression and the right of every woman to see her doctor privately and safely.
"Australians do have a right to political communication, but that is certainly not a licence to harm others with impunity," she told reporters.
Guy Reynolds SC, counsel for Ms Clubb and Mr Preston, told the court the laws discriminated against anti-abortion political speech.
"Its practical effect is to deprive anti-abortion protesters of one of their primary fora for such protests and probably their most effective forum," he said.
"That discrimination I submit causes a distortion of the free flow of information."
Mr Reynolds said the legislation didn't advance the purpose of preventing psychiatric harm although it may possible stop some hurt feelings.
He said protesting did cause women to be deterred, but it was difficult to say whether they were deterred from having an abortion or using a particular facility.
That issue, he said, was dealt with in one doctor's report who cited the possible benefits of deterring women from having an abortion.
That prompted a sharp response from Chief Justice Susan Kiefel.
Senior counsel should be putting forward arguments which properly addressed the legal issues "not the opinion of someone who holds a personal ethical moral position", she said.
The hearing is continuing
