doctorow at June 27th, 2014 23:01 — #1
kthejoker at June 27th, 2014 23:32 — #2
Geez, Cory, hypberolize much?
Did you read the decision? It was unanimous, by the way.
It has nothing to do with buffer zones and everything to do with the specific overreach of that Massachusetts law. It doesn't even eliminate other buffer zone laws in other states.
I mean, it's always a good time to highlight the need for abortion clinic escorts, but the need is not suddenly "urgent."
And this is also a pro-free speech and pro-assembly ruling. If we're going to fight back against a surveillance/command and control state, this is the things that come with it.
headcode at June 28th, 2014 00:15 — #3
Gee, Supreme Court, hypocrite much?
There's this little thing they have with "free speech zones" that really sticks in my craw.
ygret at June 28th, 2014 01:34 — #4
I call bullshit. Its one thing to make laws limiting our right to protest against government. Its quite another to cut down a state law that stops anti-abortion protesters from harassing women on their way to obtain medical procedures. The first is a massive public institution that is supposedly owned by us. The other is a private person and her doctor being intimidated and harassed. And btw, this decision will of course be used to remove similar laws in other states.
yadayada at June 28th, 2014 02:02 — #5
cowicide at June 28th, 2014 04:12 — #6
When it comes to the most extremist, hypocritical, conservative nutjobs - what's good for the goose is almost always never good for the closeted, self-loathing, homophobic, homosexual gander. Like usual, they'll hypocritically cry fowl because they lack the self-awareness of a rabid rat in heat.
cameronh1403 at June 28th, 2014 08:04 — #7
Read that link. Amazes me how the people who want to 'save the babies' don't want to take care of them after the child is born. They also think that by killing women and people who work at clinics, this will somehow get them in God's graces.
hungryjoe at June 28th, 2014 08:22 — #8
It's not the religion, it's the people.
When I was a kid, the local Catholic church paid protesters to come hold disgusting anti-abortion signs outside the Methodist church. They did this because a local OB/GYN attended and was a respected member of the Methodist church. All involved were some kind of Christian, with the possible exception of the protesters. All that can be said of them is that they were mercenaries.
My point is that this is the natural course of action for people, whether they're Christians, Jihadists, Bolsheviks or Khmer Rouge. First you come up with a label that distinguishes Us and Them, and then you try to destroy Them.
walterplinge at June 28th, 2014 08:28 — #9
So, what is your solution to the widespread harassment and intimidation that goes on outside of abortion clinics?
glyphgryph at June 28th, 2014 09:01 — #10
To do what the Supreme Court says - the enforce the fucking laws that already cover this shit, arrest the motherfuckers for harassment and disturbing the peace, and to throw the criminals in jail.
The MA state has no balls whatsoever to do what is both legally allowed and legally should be done, and instead wants to spend it's time creating unconstitutional measures, is exactly part of the problem.
Of course, I hope that all the other buffer zone laws fall by the wayside as well, but I suspect that thanks to our conservative justices the ones in front of banks, political events, and business meetings (which are all far larger) are going stick around a lot longer and abortion will get to be a "special case"...
(Meanwhile, clinics who can would be well served by getting private drives for unloading passengers, since like with the Supreme court, parts of the property that aren't the public sidewalk are parts of the property where they can, in fact, legally keep people out with no business there.)
yadayada at June 28th, 2014 09:19 — #11
Frontline just sent this link in response to the ruling.
A good example of 'sidewalk counseling' at 52:45.
walterplinge at June 28th, 2014 09:32 — #12
Yes, if the police actually bothered to do this, then there would indeed be no need for the buffer zone. I've always though of it as a workaround, but that doesn't really change the reality of the situation.
cameronh1403 at June 28th, 2014 09:49 — #13
People using something to justify their fear of the 'Other'. Tale old as time...
cameronh1403 at June 28th, 2014 09:50 — #14
The police have better things to do, like throw flash bangs into babies cribs and then say that it was justified.
therealmac at June 28th, 2014 11:00 — #15
The cops are there everyday. All these "sidewalk counselors" have to do is follow police directions to step back and they can scream in patients faces all day long. The Boston PD are not the problem here.
clamb at June 28th, 2014 11:49 — #16
Actually many do want to help the mothers and children. Here is just one example http://www.severalsourcesfd.org/several-sources-mission.html
marilove at June 28th, 2014 14:10 — #17
Oh, please. What a crock. That's not helpful. That's just anti-choice bullcrap wrapped in nice language.
lolipop_jones at June 28th, 2014 16:47 — #18
Well said. I see nothing wrong with a law providing a buffer zone to permit the customers of any business from entering and leaving that business without being harassed by protestors.
But if you want it to apply to fundamentalists and abortion providers, you got to apply it to "occupiers" and banks, too. That's what that ol' first amendment is all about.
mikethebard at June 28th, 2014 17:29 — #19
This is where those second amendment solutions come in. A 12 gauge can create one hell of a buffer zone.
therealmac at June 28th, 2014 21:49 — #20
So can you loan me a bullet proof vest when I go to get a Pap smear?
next page →