General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy Wife’s Abortion v. Your Free Speech
http://time.com/2928275/supreme-court-abortion-free-speech/My Wifes Abortion v. Your Free Speech
Aaron Gouveia @daddyfiles
June 26, 2014
I still remember the harassment the day we visited a clinic 4 years ago. By ruling the 35-foot buffer zone unconstitutional, the Supreme Court is putting people in danger
snip//
In 2010, my wife and I went to a Brookline, Massachusetts, abortion clinic after a team of renowned Boston doctors diagnosed our 16-week-old unborn baby with Sirenomelia. Our babys legs were fused together, but that wasnt the worst of it. The baby had no kidneys, no bladder, and no anus. We were given the heartbreaking news that there was a zero percent chance of a live birth.
Because my wifes health wasnt in immediate danger, the hospital couldnt get her in for a termination for two weeks. However, that meant itd be a 50/50 chance of being able to have an abortion, or having to deliver a stillborn. After much soul-searching and contemplating a no-win scenario, my wife decided a stillbirth was more than she could handle and so the hospital sent us to a recommended clinic to perform an abortion.
When we pulled into the parking lot and got out of our car, the saddest day of our lives got exponentially worse.
Two women, 35 feet away, were standing across the street holding signs. When they saw us, they immediately started yelling things like Dont do it! and Youre killing your unborn baby! I couldnt have been more horrified. I couldnt believe how these people would willingly stand outside and harass others at their weakest and most vulnerable. I couldnt mask my anger nor could my wife hold back her tears at being unnecessarily and unfairly vilified.
But you know what I could do? I could hear them.
snip//
Had SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of the buffer zone it wouldve preserved the free speech of the protesters while ensuring women have unobstructed access to the buildings that house their reproductive health specialists. But without that separation, I worry how often and to what degree future conflicts will escalate.
Too much space? With all due respect to Justice Kagan, 35 feet wasnt nearly enough to block out the horror and insults while running the gauntlet that that day at the hands of those whose free speech you seek to protect.
Even after 35 feet and four years later, my wife and I still hear them.
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Post removed
Cleita
(75,480 posts)If the new Pope doesn't stand up and do it like he did to the Mafia, then he needs to go too.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)who do not agree with the churches anti-abortion teachings. Without voicing that he just incites violence with his words on this subject.
That's what I think!
Cleita
(75,480 posts)and patients in harm's way deliberately. That has to be wrong by anyone's rules or beliefs.
plantwomyn
(876 posts)with the non-existent right of having an unwilling audience.
Mc Mike
(9,106 posts)SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Supreme Court Justices need some of their own sauce. If protesters can come within five feet of a woman seeking medical care, then protestors can legitimately also expect the freedom to get in Scalia's and Alito's faces as well, along with all other government officials. The fact is that when I protested GHW Bush in 1992 about the first Iraq War, I was kept >1/2 a mile from him.
Rank hypocrisy. What's good for the goose...
k&r,
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Let's see how decisions start changing if protesters with AR-15's slung over their shoulders start coming up and yelling at the SC justices from about 8 feet away.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)calimary
(80,693 posts)TOTALLY with you, appal_jack!
Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it. So that means those crap-ass "First Amendment Zones" have also been rendered unconstitutional???? We can get in the faces of the GOP at their next CONvention? We just wanna have a conversation with them, after all! And we're not even the ones who like to prance around showing off all our massacre machines (freedom-freedom) and other hand-held instruments of death and carnage! So they need not fear anything from us, sincerely!
Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it. Hmmm... gee, I keep coming back to that, don't I...
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)calimary
(80,693 posts)Haven't we tried everything else? We've tried being patient with them. Reaching out to them. Talking to them. Compromising (HIDEOUS option, in my opinion). Trying to meet them halfway. Extending a hand (only to have them spit in it). Trying to reason with them. Presenting worthy arguments to them. Doesn't seem to get through, does it? What would Occupy have done if all they did was try to talk it out. The fact that they CAMPED, sat in, stayed for days - even weeks, in the cold (!), put their asses on the line, only THAT was enough to even start seeing comments about how they changed the conversation and brought some new views to it. Only THAT got any traction, and even that was not enough. But they sure didn't need guns - the way the cliven bundy bozos did. And at least those jackasses had warm weather. Hell, the people in Wisconsin sure didn't. The people Occupying Wall Street in the dead of a New York winter didn't. Sometimes we have to resort to our own types of pressures. Notice - none of them are assaultive or life-threatening in nature, EVER.
It always struck me that OUR side tends to want to chain itself to trees or chain-link fences. OUR side tends to want to sit in somewhere, in somebody's office or office hallway, or in and around railroad tracks. OUR side tends to want to go on hunger strikes. OUR side tends to want to stand in groups holding candles and signs - and not guns or massacre machines. NOT a firearm in sight (and very likely, no concealed-carry either). THEIR side comes fully armed and threatening and in-yer-face, shoving their damn guns and assault weapons and other such monstrous personal hand-held massacre-machines in your field of vision, disrupting your sense of safety and a peaceful day at the fast-food joint or coffee place or big-box store. THEIR side crawls along underneath your legs and tries to trip you and interfere, or drag big crucifixes behind them and into your face. THEIR side shouts accusations at you, gets literally IN your face, in your way, physically blocking you from moving! THEIR side tends to assault your vision with gruesome, lurid, bloody signs shoved in your face, violating your space and your right to privacy. They threaten you with great bodily harm and even death, circulating your names and addresses and other personal information in public, online, showing where your house is and where your kids go to school - and what their names are! That's what THEY do.
These people are vile. Beneath contempt. They need a taste of their own medicine. If SCOTUS thinks this is no big deal, no harm-no foul, then maybe they need to see what size deal it is. Even with our side doing it, they're in no physical danger anyway. 'Cause that's just not us. That's the CONS' and baggers' thing. Dems, liberals and progressives don't operate that way.
Another kind of evidence that both sides are NOT the same, btw. No difference between the two? Um... guess again.
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)They deserve at least as much protection as the various party and politicians with their "free speach zones"
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)I also support shutting down these "protesters" who are every bit as zealous and obnoxious as the Westboro Baptist Church.
eta: I wonder how SCOTUS would have ruled had it been someone other than a grandmotherly type in the case.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)yes indeed
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)My Ectopic was in a Hospital. Yes, hospital DO terminations (mostly for health/life of mother reasons) also, but these anti-choice people are not protesting at hospitals because they DON'T KNOW. Picket the hospitals and accost every woman of childbreaing age getting admitted into a hospital?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Several weeks ago I went to the local hospital for some pre-op testing and there were anti-choicers with signs at the road entrance. They had positioned themselves at the stoplight so there would be a captive audience. I had to sit in my car through an interminably long red light and all I could do was give them the finger.
Ilsa
(61,675 posts)Emergency. Absolutely needs to be in a hospital. A normal early term abortion is a manicure by comparison.
3catwoman3
(23,812 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 28, 2014, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)
...is exactly why everyone needs to mind their own damn business about the medical decisions made by anyone other than themselves. I was 38 and 41 with my only 2 very intentional pregnancies. Given my age, I had genetic testing and all was well. Had I faced a situation such as the one heart wrenchingly described in the OP, I would have made the very same choice.
I find it very sad that every pregnancy isn't a welcome event, and not all pregnancies have happy outcomes. For a variety of reasons, they aren't and they don't. It is absolutely not up to me to decide for any other person what they can or cannot handle when it comes to making decisions about continuing or terminating a pregnancy.
If pregnancy termination is such an offense against god, why not let those who choose it take their own spiritual chances with whatever god there might be when their time comes to account for how they spent their time on this planet? The self-righteousness of those who have appointed themselves as god's enforcers on Earth is really galling.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)It's not just about them appointing themselves as god's enforcers - in a way it's tyranny of a majority religion.
I have a friend who is not Christian and her religion says that the fetus is not a baby until the mother feels it move. Therefore, termination is fine before that. I had an exchange with a anti-choicer online once where I told her that maybe her religion says the fetus is a baby at conception, but that my friend's religion does not, and that by trying to remove her choice to terminate she was persecuting other people's religions. I said she was essentially trying to make her religious beliefs into law, and that the US was not a theocratic state. I asked her if she wanted a theocratic state where religious leaders made the laws, like Iran. That seemed to make her think...a bit.
Then I mentioned a friend of mine who had a termination at 22 weeks because of an anencephalic fetus...the fetus had little chance of survival to term, and none afterwards. I said she had a termination so that she could try to get pregnant again, because she wanted many children close together and she was close to 40 years old. I said if one terminates a fetus with a fatal deformity, in order to have more children, isn't that justified? If one carries a fetus who is terminal to term, and then is unable to have more children because of the time lost because of maternal age, and more children aren't born, isn't that just as tragic? I finally got this person to admit that it wasn't as black and white as she thought.
But geez, I've met a lot of these types and almost always they are unable to see past their own nose. They figure because they would never do it, it must be immoral. And more than one who figured because they did have one when they were younger, and regret it, that everyone else MUST be the same and therefore shouldn't have that choice. Such self-centred stupid people.
Warpy
(110,900 posts)who must be shoved everywhere by human beings because he's incapable of reminding people he exists. He's small enough to fit in a tidy little box, the one their bibles came in.
I just wonder with extreme fatigue why they'd bother worshiping such a little, helpless god.
LittleGirl
(8,261 posts)before being born. And the first hospital my sis-in-law went to said that they heard a heartbeat but their maternity ward was full. Her brother drove her across town to another and the baby had died in route. My brother was working in a city 2 hrs away and was speeding home as fast as he could. It was awful for the whole family. I ask those anti-abortion people if they ever lost a fetus before and what they would do if they found out that their baby wasn't viable. They shut the hell up then.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)birth defects. Heart, lungs, kidneys, intestines, stomach and brain all had serious defects. Their sheer will seemed to keep him alive for those 8 long months. He never laughed or smiled or cried. It was hopeful that he may never have felt any pain due to the birth defects.
It was heart-breaking to watch them do everything possible trying to save the poor little guy in the face of no real good odds for him. I will never understand the doctors allowing it either, seemed he was almost an experiment.
My deepest sympathy for your brother and sil.
LittleGirl
(8,261 posts)I'm so sorry for your loss. Hugs.
Bettie
(15,997 posts)There is nothing worse than that moment when your pregnancy goes from happy to the worst possible outcome.
It has been 15 years since our first died during birth and it is still painful at times.
Since then, I've known many families in the situation of having to decide to continue or terminate a non-viable pregnancy. Some aborted, some didn't...every one of them went through the same pain. There was no difference except the length of time.
I also know women who have had elective abortions. None of them, none took the decision lightly.
These protesters need to live their lives and let others worry about their own.
LittleGirl
(8,261 posts)It was about 23 yrs ago but it was like it happened last week in my mind. I was desperate to have a child some day and never did. So for them to lose one was heartbreaking. They had another son about a year or so later. And he's a tea bagger nightmare just like my brother, his father. sigh.
Bettie
(15,997 posts)I've had three live boys since then and I still wonder what my girl would have been like.
Sorry you have a teabagger brother and nephew too. I have two brothers of that persuasion and it is frustrating.
LittleGirl
(8,261 posts)I'm so sorry for your loss. Hugs.
edit: left out "They"
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)I'd have walked right up to them and literally screamed in their faces that my wife & I just got the most horrifying news of our lives, that the child that we very much WANTED was diagnosed as severely deformed, lacking internal organs, and had ZERO % chance of being born alive, and YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES are doing NOTHING making a horribly depressing situation WORSE, esp. for my wife ... along with other obscenities, references to going back to their trailers, minding their own damn business, etc.
My DOG, I HATE those people. I'm seriously considering trying to start an anti-Religion movement, based on the idea that forcing Religion on children is child abuse, picketing in right in front of churches with signs saying things like "God is like Santa Claus for Grown-Ups", and "Forcing Religion on Children is Child Abuse" ... and now that there's no 35 foot law, as long as I'm on public land, nobody can stop me. Love to hear how the parents explain my messages to the ones old enough to read ...
Like the cranky dude suggested the other day ... that was a great idea.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)I used to scream at them while driving by and at the kid concerts my daughter went to, imagine picketing Ricky Nelson's twins band or NKOTB, despicable people.
I love your sign ideas and completely agree on religion as child abuse from my own experience. "God is like Santa Claus for Grown-Ups"
I used to park outside war friendly churches, during that war criminal George W. Bush's stolen terms, and crank up 'Killing for Jesus' by the Circle Jerks. I was asked to leave and always defended my right to be on a public street. Luckily no cops ever showed up to harass me.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)secondwind
(16,903 posts)folks are venomous, they are vile, they don't care to ask if you are there for a much-needed clinical termination of a pregnancy, they just want to convince you to not go into the clinic..
I say... FUCK THEM.. they are awful , and they will not give up easily
calimary
(80,693 posts)They will NOT give up easily. They won't give up, PERIOD. So we can't ever let down our guard. And we may have to start thinking more creatively or deviously - to outwit these domestic terrorists. Figure out another way. The OP just underscores it. It's NOBODY ELSE'S DAMN BUSINESS!!!! NONE of those busybody assholes know the circumstances that bring a woman, or a woman and her man or partner, to have to seek an abortion. NO WOMAN I know or have ever heard of would say "WHEEE!!! Cool! I'll just go get an abortion! Awesome! Easy-peasy!" NONE! It's not something you enter into lightly, or casually. These fuckers have no idea what is happening in the personal lives and bedrooms of those who wind up needing a termination of pregnancy. NONE.
Let's call 'em what they are. They're TERRORISTS. Every bit as vile and vicious and scheming as al Qaeda. But this type is home-grown. Domestic Terrorists. That is what they ARE. Whether they like it or not. Consider how the term "terrorist" is objectively and dispassionately defined:
Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
Dictionary.com
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
ter·ror·ist
ˈterərist/Submit
noun
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
synonyms: extremist, fanatic; revolutionary, radical, insurgent, guerrilla, anarchist, freedom fighter; bomber, gunman, assassin, hijacker, arsonist, incendiary
"the detainees are suspected terrorists"
https://www.google.com/#q=terrorist+definition
Seems to fit - like a glove.
Ino
(3,366 posts)Sherri "I don't know if the earth is round" Shepherd. Now she's all against abortion.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/30/joy.01.html
SHEPHERD: Yes.
BEHAR: Now, you`ve talked about that you had a lot of them.
SHEPHERD: Yes.
BEHAR: How many? How many did you have really?
SHEPHERD: I had a lot.
BEHAR: Ten?
SHEPHERD: Yes, it was a lot.
BEHAR: Really?
SHEPHERD: It was a long time -- it was over a decade and a half ago. But I was young. And it was a time when for me, it was like birth control.
BEHAR: Yes.
SHEPHERD: Because you know, sometimes when you are young, you just don`t think about the ramifications or the consequences of the choices that you make. And I was one of those girls. I didn`t think about these are babies. I just knew that I was pregnant and I didn`t want to be pregnant anymore.
BEHAR: So wasn`t it easier after the fifth abortion to say to yourself I might as well just use a condom and it`s lot easier than an abortion.
SHEPHERD: No. I just didn`t think about it. I was a teenager -- I just didn`t think about it.
BEHAR: Now, you didn`t have to write this in your book. You could have kept that to yourself. But you put it in there.
SHEPHERD: I did because you know what? What hit me later on was the guilt. When I finally grew up and got a little wisdom and I realized, "Wait a minute I killed a lot of babies because I`m not for abortion."
BEHAR: That`s how you feel about it.
SHEPHERD: That`s how I feel about it, that I killed a lot of babies. That I made really bad choices and it took years before I could let the guilt go. And it was because someone at church said to me, "When you get to heaven, your babies are going to be there and they`re going to say, `Momma, we`ve been waiting for you`."
And for me, that freed me up of the guilt and forgiven myself. So I wanted to let other women know that you can forgive yourself. You don`t have to carry around that shame for the rest of your life.
Now I`m not against taking away a woman`s choice but I don`t believe in abortion because I feel like...
BEHAR: For yourself?
SHEPHERD: I just don`t believe in abortion, period. But I would never take away a woman`s right to choose what`s good for her body. But I still believe that when you do have an abortion, still inside, you go through a lot of stuff. It tears away at your spirit and your soul. So I don`t think people think about that.
now I know why I never watched that show. She's a moron.
calimary
(80,693 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Thank you for posting that. Both she and McCarthy are loons.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)that this woman had ten or more abortions while she was in her teens?
Two or three, I'm willing to buy. But ten, maybe more? Plus, I'm under the impression that any abortion clinic usually also does birth control advising and prescribing. And she didn't listen to any of that?
Sometimes people just make shit up.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)yep. My stepdaughter had to get one- she had to pay $150. No one does this more that 3 times without the lightbulb coming on that birth control is cheaper.
pansypoo53219
(20,906 posts)we need to raise taxes and if young women WANT the baby. they should get 50k up front for the babies care. put your MONEY where you mouths are. not all women are mommy material. i am not, so i have not MADE any.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Perhaps some legal expert out there could address this:
"Baird said abortion clinics should invoke the 1871 law that allows the use of federal marshals when the rights of a class of people are in jeopardy. Federal marshals should step in to escort women to the clinics - just as they did in the 1960s when black children need protection as they entered segregated schools in the South..."
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/abortion_rights_activist_bill_1.html
freshwest
(53,661 posts)tapermaker
(244 posts)I would recommend the movie "God bless America" on Netflix. Its a story of a thoughtful middle aged liberal who looses his job for sending a coworker flowers. He then decides rather than killing himself to start doing away with rude and obnoxious people.With the help of a precocious teen they make their way across America.Killing off those who deserve it . ie: abortion activists , people who talk on cell phones in the theatre , And rude drivers.
former9thward
(31,801 posts)tapermaker
(244 posts)can relieve stress and help us laugh at ourselves . Lighten up
Lefta Dissenter
(6,617 posts)There's already too much killing in this world. I just don't get any enjoyment out of celebrating death.
tapermaker
(244 posts)displaying the insane nature of todays media and politics and just the way people interact.The spree murder story is just the backdrop. the real story is the man trying to make sense out of a nonsensical world.His many diatribes throughout the movie are thought provoking, and are most definatly liberal in nature. His message boiled down to why cant we treat each other better.why must we ridicule those that are different. If we all could do this one thing " I wouldn't have to shoot you."
Lefta Dissenter
(6,617 posts)and my way of dealing with the insanity, particularly in the last almost-four years with Walker, is to avoid movies and books that are focused on violence or negativity. It's just my coping mechanism, since I've pretty much reached my limit. I know that these things are very popular, and I don't have a problem with that - they're just not for me.
liberalmuse
(18,670 posts)Thanks for the recommendation! I am going to check it out, and no, I don't believe in murder, but I can watch a movie and enjoy satire without confusing reality and fantasy, so no one need be concerned for me.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I'd be happy just to give those assholes at the clinics a taste of their own medicine. Shouting and flipping them off would feel might good.
vi5
(13,305 posts)You have got to be kidding me.
babylonsister
(170,962 posts)calimary
(80,693 posts)Astonishing.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)It shows. This has got to be the most disappointed I've ever been in the liberal wing of SCOTUS.
calimary
(80,693 posts)I'm stunned! The WOMEN on the court voted for this? They don't see a need for the protections? Seriously?
Astonishing. Discouraging, too.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)But it appears he did not find them in Sotomayor nor Kagan. Both of them are far removed from the reality that is a low income working woman's life. They have no clue and completely discounted the horror presented by the forced-birth terrorists' gauntlet at a free clinic that a poor woman must face in trying to terminate her unwanted pregnancy. They have no clue.
calimary
(80,693 posts)When the President said he chose her because she's a great consensus builder, I had to make sure my ears were clean. I couldn't believe what I'd just heard. She's a shitty consensus builder! She's the one who argued the government's case against Citizens United, as Solicitor General. And she LOST. Some consensus she built there, 'eh?
I CANNOT believe that the three women on the high court went this way. I cannot believe it. That they'd find it okay to leave women coming to a family planning or women's health clinic wide open and unprotected like this. I am just stunned. Not ONE vote from any of the three of them? Madame Associate Justice Ginsburg? YOU TOO?????
Sheesh... I think the Hobby Lobby case is lost. We have NO ONE on the court taking our side.
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)He's a partially stay-at-home dad who I've been following for a few years. He's very honest about his feelings.
valerief
(53,235 posts)MEAN-MEAN-MEAN, and totally lacking ANY form of compassion. They're CHRISTOZOMBIES.
I know there are nice religious people just as there are nice non-theists. These lunatics are NOT them.
alp227
(31,959 posts)if the baby was born. These right wing "PRO LIFE" types have this very shallow, narrow view of humanity. They confuse Leave It to Beaver with the real world, denying that single mothers, the childless, or gays have any human worth. Or acknowledge that sometimes, a pregnancy has to be terminated for the good of the mother. It freaking happens. Every time I stumble upon somewhere in the right wing internet ghetto, I wonder: How would I live with myself if I believed the shit they spew?
calimary
(80,693 posts)If you're for executions, then YOU'RE NOT "PRO-LIFE."
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)calimary
(80,693 posts)Hey, even my religion says GOD gave us all free will. So that's my God-given choice.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,107 posts)Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.
dem in texas
(2,672 posts)Instead of trying to help mothers after the children are born, many to low income mothers, the Republicans want to cut WIC and food stamps, and in many Republican states, they have refused the expanded Medicaid which would have covered many of the babies after they were born. Now, they are trying to ban birth control pills and other means of contraception. What is their problem?
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)It occurs to me that if one can get within 5 feet of others to express free speech, then you get pro-choicers to stand, tightly, five feet away from the women going into the clinic. And put more and more people behind them. Like a parade, you keep a tight crowd around them, so no protesters can't get close. After all, it's the right of the pro-choice folk to get within 5 feet as well, and if they're there and no protesters can get close, tough.
It is not the right of the protesters to get close if others are in their way.
Probably not an idea that can be implemented, but it's what popped to mind. Of course, it would be nice if such free clinics were privately owned with large acres and walls around them. That's our nation for you. If it's privately owned, you can turn anyone away and no free speech rights count (as anyone knows who tries to protest inside a corporate owned mall vs. on the promenade of a city owned mall). It's painful that there seems to be no separation in such judgements between shielding people from ideas, and shielding them from being harassed, badgered and bullied
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)was born with severe birth defects and mental retardation is one of them. I have often been accosted by pro lifers who believe that birth defects are caused by attempted abortions. Apparently they are not aware of the many things that can happen during pregnancy that will lead to the need for an abortion. My question to SCOTUS on this is why does the freedom of speech of the protestors have to be practiced right in the faces of people?? Why can't they just take out an ad in the paper?
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)My goodness, they really are shockingly stupid people. The media never reports on the twisted beliefs these people are trying to push on every person. They really are anti-life.
Thank you for your informative post. I had no idea the level of ignorance at which these people operate.
Take care.
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)with and IQ of less than 10 is smarter than they are!! And she shows it frequently!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and judge them without knowing the circumstances. The other reason is that it pushes THEIR religion on others.
I'm posting the link of the video on the Time site of the father talking to the protesters. They are judgmental pieces of shit. It's worth watching:
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Kath1
(4,309 posts)Buffer zones should be expanded, as made so obvious in your post.
jaxind
(1,074 posts)Maybe I'm exaggerating, but no buffer zones and people's right to the access of guns is a scary combination! You never know! But I guess even with a buffer zone and a crazy person with a gun, someone could still get hurt.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)How much you want to bet that not ONE of those SC Judges ever witnessed (in person) what actually happens outside these clinics? And have they had a daughter, granddaughter, or great granddaughter that was psychologically traumatized by these religious zealots while exercising her right of choice of medical care? To me, what they have allowed is freedom of speech by harassment.
It's freedom of speech by harassment v freedom of choice and freedom of privacy.
liberalmuse
(18,670 posts)Don't they have kids to raise? If not, there are tens of thousands of children stuck in child services who need a good home.
Initech
(99,909 posts)Ok if you appear to claim to care about kids as much as you claim to, then why not put your money where your mouth is and adopt kids that are homeless, unwanted and unloved? Why do pro lifers have to spend their time and energy harassing complete strangers? Even if I was religious I wouldn't spend my time making other people miserable. Haters gonna hate, I guess.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Even Roe v. Wade is iconic government overreach.
Why is the government interceding in personal medical procedures? It is absolutely unconscionable!
And if it is none of my business, how does it become my government's business?
I hope to God the ruling on Hobby Lobby having a religious grounds issue with providing contraceptives in its required health plan coverage is rejected flat out. Then I can have hope this Supreme Court is not completely lost.
The Republicans scream about personal responsibility, except they don't want you to have it? I get whiplash trying to keep up with their obvious inconsistencies!
Of course, just one reason I am a Democrat.
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)to be " iconic government overreach"? Do you not realize that it was striking down that very overreach against abortion access by state governments?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)into an individual private matter, a personal medical procedure. The correct ruling is the State has no business interfering in personal medical choices and procedures. What business is it of the State to regulate the conditions of a woman's absolute right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?
It placed limits on a basic human right - a woman's access to health care.
This is real government intrusion into our personal lives.
Today's Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate religious beliefs is a continuation of the State interfering in our personal choices and rights.
The State is now deciding we are not all equal and there are special classes of people based on sex and reproduction.
The womb is becoming a government entity, and women are a sub-class to the imposition of State will.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)because of the WAY that law was written. If the intent of the law (as written) involves regulating or placing limits on free speech it is "unconstitutional" period. Robert's in his written opinion on the ruling even suggested that Massachusetts go back to the drawing board and draft a new law. "The decision, which was relatively narrow, allows the state an opportunity to enact a new, less restrictive law. It did not overturn a previous supreme court decision in 2000, which upheld a buffer zone in Colorado."
So find a creative way to draft and pass a new buffer law absent any verbiage that suggest the purpose (intent) is to legislate speech. The Constitution forbids government from doing that. The right wing of the court wanted all buffer zone laws against abortion clinics be ruled unconstitutional, but THIS ruling leaves wiggle room for states to establish buffer zone laws.
kiawah
(64 posts)n/t