The High Court has been told laws banning anti-abortion campaigners from protesting near clinics where terminations are offered go too far, and target lawful and peaceful protests.

Key points: Two cases where anti-abortion campaigners were fined will be heard in a High Court challenge today

Two cases where anti-abortion campaigners were fined will be heard in a High Court challenge today Lawyers for each campaigner argue the laws contravene an implied right to freedom of political communication in the constitution

Lawyers for each campaigner argue the laws contravene an implied right to freedom of political communication in the constitution The campaigners must first prove their messages were part of a political and not moral debate

The challenge, being heard by the court today, was prompted by two cases including a Victorian woman, Kathleen Clubb, who was convicted and fined for breaching the laws when she offered pamphlets to a couple outside an East Melbourne clinic in 2016.

The clinic is one of many that has been routinely picketed by anti-abortion campaigners.

The protests have included graphic signs and material being handed around, as well as a blood-spattered doll in a pram.

The Victorian law bans communication within the safe zone that would be reasonably likely to cause distress or anxiety.

In a second case a man, Graham Preston, was also convicted of breaching laws against protesting about terminations within 150 metres of a clinic in Tasmania.

Both cases are being heard by the court, and lawyers for Ms Clubb said the laws prevented her from communicating with anyone in the vicinity, including those seeking information about why they should not have an abortion.

The lawyers argued the current laws denied campaigners their right to freedom of political communication.

Anti-abortion campaigners Kathleen Clubb and Graham Preston outside the High Court. ( ABC News )

In their submissions to the court Mr Preston's lawyers questioned whether the Tasmanian Government can even make such a law.

"The question raised in this appeal is whether it is within the power of the Tasmanian Parliament directly and intentionally to quell political protest in this manner," it reads.

The Commonwealth and other state governments including New South Wales, which recently introduced its own laws, have intervened to support Victoria and Tasmania.

Victorian Government submissions to the court say there is a public interest in protecting people trying to attend an abortion clinic from harm and the laws are necessary for good government, making them valid under the constitution.

Laws prevent 'gauntlet of abuse': Advocates

Outside the court, advocates in favour of the status quo said the laws played an important role in protecting women during a time where they were vulnerable and making difficult decisions.

Susie Allanson from the East Melbourne Fertility Control Clinic said safe access zones had worked "where nothing else has".

"Before safe access zones, women accessing reproductive healthcare including abortion were intimidated and harassed," Dr Allanson said.

Adrianne Walters from the Human Rights Law Centre said the current laws struck the right balance between freedom and privacy.

"No woman should have to run a gauntlet of abuse and harassment just to see her doctor," she said.

"Australians do have a right to political communication, but that is certainly not a licence to harm others with impunity."

Campaigners must prove message is political

To press their case Ms Clubb and Mr Preston will first have to convince the court theirs is a political message and not part of a moral debate.

In their written submissions, Ms Clubb's lawyers said the debate over abortion is definitely political.

"A communication on the ethics of abortion is inevitably political in its practical effect," the submissions read.

"That a communication is unpopular or reflects a view held only by a minority does not deny it the protection of the freedom."

But the Victorian Government will tell the High Court if there is any restriction on the freedom it is outweighed by the benefits.

The case will test the court's recent decisions in similar cases, including one brought by former Greens leader Bob Brown, which supported the right for anti-logging campaigners to protest.