accompany the patients to the door. Pehaps offering them an ipod with good, noise blocking earphones. Any physical contact would be assault, and should be prosecuted.

I see a real potential for tragedy in this ruling. The anti-choice crowd is one of the most mentally unhinged around.

Two workers that caused Massachusetts to enact the 35 foot buffer zone. Now it is down to 8 feet.

The antichoice group says they want to "converse" with clients going for an abortion. Nevermind that the clients don't want to visit with strangers about their crisis pregnancies.

I predict there will be shootings by antichoicers of pregnant women. They will rationalize executing the woman because she was going to "kill her baby".

These anti-choicers are usually rabid religious fanatics that want to bring 'souls to Christ'. I heard that all the time from our church zealots... Regardless of if the child will be ignored. There's 132 MILLION orphans in the world right now. Why don't these rabid pro lifers go rescue a few thousand?

...my ass.

We need observers with data centric wireless devices that could real time upload video of any and all assaults.

Create a hash tage/youtube channel so we can document who these people are that wish to impose their will on others through bullying and violence.

buffer zones can be initiated state by state with arguably shorter distance restrictions

So since the SC struck down 35 feet, a state like CA could have one at 30 feet, arguably, is what I was told

CA could enact one at 34' 11" and still comply with the SC ruling.

I practice firefighting and emergency medical.
But how am I wrong?

And 34'11" would be in that category. And all that would happen is whoever set the buffer zone would spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees defending a losing case. The court has ruled 8' is ok. 35' is not. Most jurisdictions will set it much closer to 8' than 35' so they can avoid the legal headaches.

CA could conceivably do so it they wanted to right?

But depending on where they set it they can expect a legal challenge -- especially since this decision was unanimous.

Thanks.

How would you do this? I agree wholeheartedly with your post...but how can you do this..isn't there certain individual privacy laws? I really don't know the law, but I agree that something should be done. Tjis is sickening. It's heart wrenching enough to decide to do this....much less having some asshat in your face making things worse! Let me know what you think can be done legally. DOXYDAD

Every day new instagram and youtube stars are born - often by their own behavior.

For example - a woman beating another woman up in NJ - is now making its way around the world.

Two private citizens right? Two women. But in this day and age of observation and posting everything out there for the world to see - there is no such thing as privacy. The worst thing to ever happen to stupid people is high speed wireless data.

It's simple - if you see something then say something or tape something. Or - tape something and upload something.

If they are on a public sidewalk and you are on a public sidewalk then it is public. Two equal tax payers in the public reale. Take their picture/video of them and post it like crazy. #StalkingAntiAbortionist or #IgnoramusAtWork or #HappyShinyJesusPeople <---something like that would work.

Get it trending. If I see them I would do it. That would be on my social networks so damn fast and you know who I would @sign it to? Naomi Wolf. Cory Booker. Barbara Buono.

Get high profile feminists and women focused politicians in on the game.

If they can all run around posting 'Bring Back our Girls' then they can post 'Save American Women'.

count me in.

it's not just the women in danger, but the doctors as well thanks to stochastic terrorists like Bill O'Reilly.

I have never owned a gun but plan to purchase several. If I volunteer I will have my guns in plain sight. They can see I am exercising my 2nd Amendment rights to challenge their 1st Amendment rights.

Ipods/earphones a bad idea. Best thing is to get them through the crazies as quickly as possible.

If these crazies were only screaming at the top of their lungs, grabbing at the women who want to use the clinics or throwing literature then the Supremes could consider free speech. But these rabid crazies are all about setting up a distraction outside so someone can get inside to plant a bomb or assault people.

I use to do counter protests and I can tell you violence is the anti-choice's favorite weapon.

At least put the show to good use.. sigh

what do you think?

Very rarely do the justices agree on cases. They must have agreed big time on this case. Probably thought 35 feet was too much but 8 feet is just enough. I don't know what they were thinking but we were not there for the arguments.

They support the shaming of women by religious whackos. They wouldn't care if they beat the hell out of these women. Scalia would probably really enjoy putting these women in some kind of work-house until the baby was born, then neglect the baby to death, since it was no longer a fetus, and throw it's body into a cistern with hundreds of others, like they've finally admitted was done in the name of his church in Ireland.

Anti-choicers hate women. Plain and simple.

I would imagine that anti-choice religious whacko men DO like women when they appear as the victims in their rape fantasies.

In my clinic defense days in New Orleans (which is down to one clinic that may soon close thanks to Booby Jindal!), one of my fellow defenders pointed out that the anti's would mostly harass and shame the African American women on their way out of the clinic. Only when a white woman showed up would they go into satanic anti overdrive and really make an effort to keep her from going in!

Pro-choice advocates should display images of children buried in that Irish septic tank as the future of child welfare by anti-choice advocates. Show malnourished children who are starving while anti-choicers are harrassing women trying to get reproductive healthcare. It's time to shame the anti-choicers.

I'm sick of the fetus fanatics parading their surgical photos around while opposing food for poor children that actually exist.

They need to be shamed in the worst way. This might work, but I doubt it would be allowed like their sanctified requests for distributing bogus information to women.

They need fewer hassles and turmoil, not more people there. They just need people to help them get into the clinic. (I'm an escort)

aim it at the Pharisees of the anti-choice movement and their supporters.
And remind them that Jesus did attack religious hypocrites. Called them a "brood of vipers".
Can have a lot of fund with this.

This type of behavior just makes it more difficult for us escorts and the women going to the clinic.
Riling up the anti's benefits no one.

I don't believe they have had to, and if that is true, then this is a reasonable, fair ruling.

You don't see any difference between workers temporarily picketing their own places of employment, and outside groups of violent lunatics who encourage the murder of doctors and nurses?

The buffer zones didn't just magically appear for no reason. They appeared as a direct response to murders, bombings, and assaults.

Read the opinion. The court found NO one had been even CHARGED with violating the older smaller buffer zone, but the Chief of Police had said a larger buffer zone would be "Easier" to police and the Attorney General had showed a Video of the problems of the Smaller Buffer Zone, but then she admitted she had NEVER charged those people for most appear to be inadvertent (i.e. they accidentally stepped over the lines and then stepped back).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf

Please note the Smaller buffer Zone approved by the Court in 2000 are NOT affected by this ruling. The court just found NO GROUNDS for the enlarged buffer zone. Given any buffer zone is by definition a violation of the First Amendment, the burden in on the STATE to show the need for the buffer zone. In this case the State of Massachusetts failed to show that the enlarged buffer zone was the best way to permit entrance into abortion clinics. The Court wanted ACTUALLY ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS of violators not allegation that there were violators. Basically the Court told the Attorney General of Massachusetts to do her job. Arrest and convict people who violate the smaller buffer zone, if they do so.

Side Note: I suspect the anti-abortion protesters stayed outside the smaller buffer zone, but that smaller zone permitted them more contact with people entering the Abortion Clinic. The Court had no problem with such protests under the First Amendment but the Attorney General of Massachusetts did.

One is people attempting to block someone from obtaining legal medical care.

The other is . . . not.

It's pretty simple really.

Seems like sauce for the goose to me.

Nobody could possibly explain it to you.

If you think one group of people picketing to GET medical care, safer working conditions, etc. is the same as a group preventing people from getting medical care, then it's highly unlikely that someone can penetrate your fog.

First Amendment rights don't get decided based on the court's opinion about the validity of the views being expressed. That means that abortion opponents have the same rights to express their views as union pickets have to express theirs. Neither group has any right to use violence or intimidation to accomplish their goals.

You are.

In the process of picketing and/or blocking the entrance to a clinic that provides abortion, you are doing many things, not the least of which is invasion of privacy of patients.

There is no such scenario for a non-medical business.

Free speech does not include harassing women seeking medical treatment. It does not include engaging in activity which could cause harm (such as intimidating women to the point where they do not seek treatment, recall that the majority of these clinics provide services other than abortion, and usually to the most needy segments of society). You are condoning the creation of a situation where women who need treatment most may not seek it due to being intimidated by crowds of people harassing them.

Sorry, but the mere presence of a large crowd opposed to what you are doing is not intimidation.

How is there an invasion of privacy? The woman walking into the clinic is in a public place and by walking into the clinic, she is making her intentions known to the public. People who observe this have not invaded her privacy.

Women seeking abortions do not have special rights and people opposed to abortion do not have less rights than anyone else. The both have the same rights. You'll just have to accept that.

Handing out flyers calling everyone entering the facility a murderer is intimidation.

Telling someone they will go to hell merely for entering the building is intimidation.

You really have no clue do you?

Freedom of speech is a two edged sword. Sometimes you have to put up with an offensive viewpoint or an offensive way of expressing it. There aren't any exceptions for women entering an abortion clinic.

If it has the effect of intimidating and scaring a defenseless woman to the point where she is afraid to seek the medical treatment she would otherwise seek, it's no longer an issue of freedom of speech, but of intimidation.

Being offended is far different than being scared and intimidated.

The smell of corruption is pungent in that group. I bet you have to wash it off with tomato juice.

They got this one right. Women entering abortion clinics don't have any more rights than anyone else.

I bow to the enormity of your hopelessness.

I celebrate the fact that the SCOTUS recogizes that. Had they ruled differently, it would have set a precedent whereby entire classes of citizens could be denied their rights based on the unlawful actions of a few within that group. The court said that in those situations, you need to use a different remedy to address the problem than a blanket denial of civil rights. That was a very wise decision.

And absolutely nothing more to say to you. shakin' my head...

they are passive. They have rights. If I needed to have an abortion and they assaulted me verbally or by intimidation, I would sign on to stand your ground and pop a cap in their behinds, legally.

...if they don't already. In order to ID perps in case of assault or other crimes.

roberts and the "liberals" had the majority opinion.

4 of the right-wingers on the court wanted something even worse.

Death penalty for women getting abortions?

today's decision doesn't mention that one, so it's now unclear if an 8-foot buffer zone is ok, just not massachusetts's 35-foot zone.

against raging, probably armed, maniacs.

They are mostly just disgusting religious jerks.

Most of the mass killings in this country are done by the mentally unhinged. Anti-choice fanatics fit into that category, imho.

I have a pretty good idea what's going on.

thanks for what you do.

And we always need more escorts.

But with the gun nuts getting the upper hand today, I think the anti-choice crowd could easily be packing now a days.

Hell, they use make a huge disturbance with their protests outside while several people tried to get inside to set bomb or attack people.

Many, actually almost all would be horrified if a bombing or other such violence occurred.

Many of them think the violence that goes on, the bombing and murders their members commit, are just desserts for those awful baby killing women. I have never heard an anti-choice protester express real regret for the murders or bombings. I've seen them scream and claw and grab at the girls trying to use the clinics. None of the anti-choice protesters I've seen seemed a bit concerned about the women they were abusing and attacking.

If they were serious about stopping abortions, they would offer each woman a safe place to live and raise her child for free. Instead they go around terrorizing them.

I don't believe they are horrified by the violence of their members for one bit.

I can't stand these people, but the common motive you ascribe to them is not accurate.
It is closer to accurate for the protestant antis than the catholic ones, but still not accurate.

And at several protest rallies I have also had to confront these anti-choice fools.

You must get a kinder, gentler version where you live because the ones I've seen, even at just the protest rallies, were foaming at the mouth. They would yell, scream, grab at you, throw things and spit. I was at one clinic escorting some patients and while they were screaming and grabbing at us out front, anti-choice protesters got in through the trash chute. Luckily they were merely there to harass and intimidate and they had no weapons or bombs.

But it could have been fatal for all those patients and attendants.

People want to give these fools the benefit of the doubt like the Supremes did, but that just allows pro-choice people to get complacent and then the rabid fanatics attack where you least expect it.

I'm sure many a dead or injured abortion provider was too complacent or had others telling them the anti-choice crowd are just nice old ladies. They are not nice and they are extremely dangerous.

Making them appear harmless is great camouflage for their next murder or bombing.

are wrong too.

We are worth sacrificing to appease the GOP, which never works. Kind of like throwing a woman into a volcano to appease the gods, that continues to erupt with even more force.

Here's an article from when the case was argued, predicting a 5-4 vote with Roberts as the swing:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/us-supreme-court-skeptical-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones

They might not enjoy the dripping red mess like the right wingers do either.

and I sure as fuck hope they do not vote based on their gender as that would be wrong.

Yes, it is not what we want to hear but the first amendment protects unpopular speech.

Just like the fucking nazis in Skokie, ugly as it can be, we must protect the right to be ugly.

It was the right decision, as much as I hate it. Once you start limiting speech, look out....

They are bad enough with the buffer zone....

WTF is wrong with the Supreme Court? People should be allowed to go to public places without being harassed. This is so wrong on so many levels. F'ing lunatics is right.

and enforced sporadically at best.

When a woman's body is involved, suddenly everything is up for debate.

You're free to scream "BABY KILLING WHORE!!!!!" at a woman, as long as you don't make a pattern of doing it to the same woman.

This decision doesn't overturn harassment laws. It protects our first amendment rights to free speech.

I am as horrified by the tactics of the anti-choice protesters as anyone, but they are absolutely entitled to express their opinions. Once we start limiting speech based upon our disagreement with it, where does it stop?

Those of us who care about protecting the women accessing the clinics will need to step up and be present, much the same way as the counter-protests have neutralized the WBC. We also need to put pressure on our local law enforcement to enforce existing laws against harassment, terroristic threatening, and assault.

Having served as an escort, I can say that this decision, while making it harder for volunteers like myself, is the right one.

This ruling doesn't give anyone the right to be on private property. As long as I am on public property, I do have the right to interact with people entering a store. I can carry signs with my opinion on them. I can talk to people- even talk to them loudly.

Harangue? Yes. As it is defined by the Cambridge dictionary, I have a right to harangue.

harangue: to speak to someone or a group of people, often for a long time, in a forceful and sometimes angry way, esp. to persuade them or to express disapproval.

Screaming in a woman's face "YOU ARE A BABY KILLING WHORE!!!!!" is free speech. Not harassment.

As a result, it was only the buffer zones that prevented that. Now that's gone, and the anti-abortion lunatics can go back to screaming in women's faces.

People vastly overestimate the effect of a protest that is "in the face" of a political figure. The guy gets driven up in a car, and whisked into the building. The 5 seconds spent outside are not going to change their mind on an issue.

What may change their mind is if they hear about the massive numbers of people who disagree with them. And since the political figure is not actually counting heads, being close to them is irrelevant.

Escorts stand between women and protesters all the time. There just are not enough of them.

And here you were talking about the evils of buffers.

The escorts make the situation better than awful. We should be striving for well beyond "better than awful". Adding more escorts does not make it better, it keeps it at "better than awful".

I NEVER said buffers were evil, only that a law creating a buffer infringes on free speech.

Enough counter-protesters could create a "buffer" significantly larger than the 35 foot one that this decision struck down.

Of course we should be striving for well beyond awful. But whacking away at our freedoms is not the answer. Creating a "special" class of people who are entitled to more protections is not the answer. I believe the best approach is for more people that feel strongly about a woman's right to choose to SHOW UP and DO SOMETHING. You appear to feel differently.

Case Example #1

Scalia and the other fringe-right justices wanted to strike down buffer zones entirely.

... this should provide an excellent precedent to challange "free speech zones" at political events.

It also limits Bankster Security goons and Police from clearing protesters, so yeah, I think there is a Silver Lining too.

This decision could open the door for protestors/activists to get there message a little closer to politicians. Maybe Wisconsin won't be able to detain free speech activists in the state capital? anti war activists can't be cordoned off 1/4 mile away from presidential appearances, etc.,etc.

Seems like a cease and desist order citing the SCOTUS decision as precedent would prevail.

What is wrong with these people?

I guess women's safety is less important than hate speech.

she how long the cowards stick around...

by grammar.

against the anti-choice lunatics.

anti-choice poster here, who believes women and doctors should be charged with murder, will show up to crow about this travesty of justice?

before FACE existed, we copied a tactic used by BACAOR (Bay Area Coalition Against Operation Rescue). We took a bunch of about waist-high and body-width boards, drilled holes in the sides, and roped them together. Sorry, no pix; this was well before the Internet era.