The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law Thursday that prohibits protesters from picketing within 35 feet of abortion clinics.

The court, which ruled unanimously, decided that the law violates the First Amendment rights of pro-life advocates. The decision strikes down 10 "buffer zone" laws that have been in effect across the country and offers limited restrictions for clinic protests.

"They've approved the idea of this kind of law, just not the mechanism," Jessica Silbey, Suffolk University Law School professor told The Boston Globe. "It was too broad."

After the ruling, state lawmakers said they will begin to draft and work to pass legislation that protects women seeking abortions. However, it is not clear what those protections may be.

The Massachusetts law, which was passed in 2007, imposed "serious burdens" on pro-life protesters who wanted to talk to women walking into abortion clinics to either seek counseling or forgo the abortion. 

"At each of the three Planned Parenthood clinics where petitioners attempt to counsel patients, the zones carve out a significant portion of the adjacent public sidewalks, pushing petitioners well back from the clinics' entrances and driveways," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

The Massachusetts law had enacted a buffer zone of six feet, meaning protesters had to stay six feet away from anyone who was within 18 feet of the clinic. The law was passed after a fatal shooting of two staff members at an abortion clinic in Brookline in 1994. 

Anti-abortion activists see the ruling as a victory for free speech rights. 

"The court recognized our First Amendment rights, and now I'll have a chance to speak to people one-on-one," said Eleanor McCullen, who was the lead petitioner in the case.

However, supporters of the buffer zone argue that the law allowed patients and staff to enter the clinics without being harassed. Supporters of the law say they will now try to find a new way to keep patients and staff members safe. 

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who defended the law in court, said the law still prohibits the obstruction of entrances to the clinic. 

"We will utilize all of the tools we have available to protect everyone from harassment, threats and physical obstruction," Coakley told The Boston Globe. 

Now that the law has been struck down, Martha Walz, president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said police officers will enforce existing laws at clinics, and volunteers will be able to escort patients and staff inside if deemed necessary. 

"We will exhaust all options to protect the safety of patients," Walz told The Boston Globe.

Walz said the law worked. Prior to the law's passage, she said screaming protesters would clog clinic entrances, forcing people entering the clinic to squeeze through the doorway. 

"It was, to say the least, frightening," Walz said. "That is what is of such concern to us. The court is essentially saying that kind of behavior may resume."

Mark Rienzi, the lead counsel for activists who challenged the law, said the decision "affirmed a critical freedom."

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who is also chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called the law "an attack on pro-life Americans' freedom of speech." He added that the bishops "welcome" the decision to overturn the law. 

In the decision, the court said it would model the new, relaxed restrictions on protesters on a 1994 law that prohibits protesters from interfering with people trying to receive or provide services pertaining to reproductive health. 

State lawmakers said they will act quickly to ensure patients and staff of abortion clinics have adequate protection. 

"We have to do something in order to provide protections for those folks who are using the clinics," said House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, a Democrat from Winthrop.

Lt. Philip Harrington of the Brookline Police Department said the police department supported the buffer zone law, as it reduced the likelihood of physical fights. He said police will now make "the necessary adjustments" to adhere to the new ruling.

Dr. Laurent Delli-Bovi of Women's Health Services in Brookline, however, said patients will feel more vulnerable in the absence of a buffer zone. 

"It doesn't seem to me that First Amendment rights include being able to force someone into a conversation with you that they don't want to have," she told The Boston Globe. "It's a sad, bad decision."

While protesters, such as Neary, a retired teacher from Medfield, said they are "peaceful," Jaime Dasque, 36, who lives near a clinic in Boston, said she hears protesters chanting, singing and intimidating women. 

"They make something that is already an emotional and horrific thing that is hard to choose to do even harder," she said.

Megan Amundson, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, told The Latin Post that the Supreme Court "took a step back" from protecting women's safe access to health care. 

"This decision ignores the very real violence that still occurs at abortion clinics. It disrespects the community right here in Boston that was violated by an armed zealot just 20 years ago," Amundson said. 

She said that the buffer zone did its job: It allowed anti-choice protesters to express their views while preventing violence from breaking out at clinics. 

"Without it, the only tool we have left to combat clinic violence is to prosecute people after they have already committed violent acts," she said. "This decision turns back the clock to the days when women were too intimidated by protesters to seek medical care. Women's health will suffer because of it."

While the overturning of the buffer zone law is often seen as a First Amendment issue, the ruling is also considered a major blow to pro-choice advocates.

The bill is only one of a number of anti-abortion bills that have been passed recently. According to the Guttmacher Institute, more anti-abortion laws have been passed between 2011 and 2013 that in the past three decades combined. 

Alabama passed four bills in March that restrict abortions, including a controversial bill that bans abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is at six weeks. Mississippi also signed a law banning abortions after 20 weeks this past April. 

While it is not clear what will happen next in terms of the buffer zone law, Amundson said NARAL is working with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office to determine legislation that can be implemented that doesn't contradict SOCTUS' decision. 

"Every person in our state, and across the nation, deserves the right to access health care services free from violence, harassment and intimidation," Amundson said.