screw women — we’ll get our drum circles back!
By Liberal Librarian
Wild Joey Hickok @60th_Street
Follow
So fucking tired of white, male, liberal 'journalists' denying their privilege, pretending to be oppressed, while ignoring actual oppression
8:06 PM - 26 Jun 2014
The Supreme Court, in its never ending quest to lurch the country back to something it never was even in its darkest moments, ruled that Massachusetts’ buffer zone around women’s clinics providing abortion services was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. The ruling was unanimous, showing that even our liberal justices can get a ruling disastrously wrong at times.
Of course, this means that now 15 and 16 year old girls, who may have the local clinic as their only source for women’s health services, will now have to walk a gantlet of screaming, rabid anti-abortion protestors seeking to “counsel” them. Meanwhile, exclusion zones remain around the Supreme Court buildings, because obviously being secure behind the marble walls isn’t enough to protect the justices from hurtful words.
snip
From Carl Gibson @ WP.
Respondents also emphasize that the Act does not prevent petitioners from engaging in various forms of “protest”-such as chanting slogans and displaying signs-outside the buffer zones. Brief for Respondents 50-54. That misses the point. Petitioners are not protestors. They seek not merely to express their opposition to abortion, but to inform women of various alternatives and to provide help in pursuing them. Petitioners believe that they can accomplish this objective only through personal, caring, consensual conversations. And for good reason: It is easier to ignore a strained voice or a waving hand than a direct greeting or an outstretched arm. While the record indicates that petitioners have been able to have a number of quiet conversations outside the buffer zones, respondents have not refuted petitioners’ testimony that the conversations have been far less frequent [*16] and far less successful since the buffer zones were instituted. It is thus no answer to say that petitioners can still be “seen and heard” by women within the buffer zones. Id., at 51-53. If all that the women can see and hear are vociferous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively stifled petitioners’ message.
Let’s parse this. The Court is saying that McCullen wasn’t merely a protestor. She was a “counselor”, seeking to change a woman’s mind seeking abortion. They are not getting together in a drum circle. What the court has done is carve out a special status for anti-abortion protestors, putting them above those who might, say, gather on the Supreme Court steps. If Mr. Gibson honestly thinks that the Court will extend that special status to Occupy SCOTUS, he obviously hasn’t been paying attention. Normal protesting is still liable to be restricted beyond buffer zones. In the above text, the Court—including the liberal justices—have carved out an exemption for anti-abortion protestors. “Petitioners are not protestors. They seek not merely to express their opposition to abortion, but to inform women of various alternatives and to provide help in pursuing them.” Reading comprehension dictates that that piece of text applies to this case and this case only. The dudebros in Zucotti can still be moved along, or kept away from a national convention.
Read More: http://theobamadiary.com/2014/06/27/screw-women-well-get-our-drum-circles-back/#more-176880
= new reply since forum marked as read
In other words, as a MAN, this "liberal" is perfectly ok with letting pregnant 15-year-olds be traumatized by ultrapuritan whackjobs because, to him, such traumatization serves the "greater good".
There is no one so brave as he who sacrifices others for his sake.
As long as he's not the one to pay the price he's good with the decision and the essential ruling.
How long would that same essential ruling last if We the People were to gather and heckle congress critters, Supremes or even the police?
Nada.
Thank you for your, OP~
