The city can protect women's health clinics with a buffer zone.

Or the city can use a so-called bubble zone.

But it cannot use both.

That was the opinion of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday in striking down a 2005 Pittsburgh ordinance that limited the rights of pro-life protesters at medical facilities where abortions are performed.

The ordinance, designed to protect patients who said they were being harassed as they entered the clinics, created an 8-foot bubble zone around people approaching medical facilities, as well as a 15-foot buffer zone from center entrances.

In an 83-page opinion, the circuit court wrote that the combination of the two zones was too much and burdened "substantially more speech than necessary."

The original lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court by a registered nurse who for years sought out patients as they entered the clinics to counsel them, included claims for First Amendment violations.

Mary Kathryn Brown claimed that because of the bubble zone, she was unable to approach women and pass out leaflets. Further, she claimed that the noise from the street and businesses nearby made it impossible for her to really speak to the women.

"The question is close, but we think Brown has the better argument," wrote Third Circuit Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica. "Although the ordinance serves important government interests, we believe the layering of two types of prophylactic measures is 'substantially broader than necessary to achieve [those] interest[s].' "

The court's ruling strikes down the ordinance and also sends Ms. Brown's other claims, including one alleging viewpoint discrimination, back down to U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer.

David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents Ms. Brown in her case, praised the appellate decision.

"This one finally draws the line," Mr. Cortman said. "This [ordinance], we know, goes too far. It draws a boundary line as to how far cities can go to restrict speech, and that's important."

The Supreme Court has separately found in favor of both buffer and bubble zones, but the Third Circuit said the use of both has never been upheld.

"The reach of this ordinance was unprecedented in the amount of speech it restricted," Mr. Cortman said. "Lower courts have lacked specific direction on how far they can go. This opinion issues some clear guidelines."

While he and the Alliance Defense Fund hailed the decision as a victory, it is a limited one.

The Third Circuit opinion clearly instructed the city of Pittsburgh to choose which type of buffer it wants to move forward with and gave its blessing.

Mr. Cortman said his client is willing to give the city a reasonable amount of time to make its decision.

William Peduto, a city councilman who helped craft the original legislation, said that there will be a meeting with the solicitor's office this week to determine how to move forward.

The city could appeal the court's decision, or choose to narrow the ordinance.

"In my opinion, it's essential that people have the right to obtain legal health care without being subjected to intimidation," Mr. Peduto said. "We can do that while protecting individual rights of freedom of speech and expression."

Jules Lobel, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said the rights have to be balanced.

"It's a question of competing constitutional rights and interests," he said. "In this particular context, of women asserting their rights to be free to choose to have an abortion -- free from harassment -- the First Amendment rights of people who want to approach them and discuss it ought to give way."

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.