We want a civilized debate
Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, being subjected to harassment, abuse and violence should not be a precondition.
—
These buffer zones were created to prevent harassment, abuse and violence towards women seeking abortions in those clinics and for the safety of the doctors, nurses and staff who provided the health care services. Abortion, after all, is a completely legal procedure and women should not battle hostile crowds to get into the clinic to get it.
Why is it then that women who reached that painful and difficult decision to have an abortion, have to be subjected to the opinions and abuse of others, who decided based on their religious and ideological beliefs that abortion is wrong? What about happened to the right of all of us to privacy in our medical health care and procedures?
What if a group of people decides that plastic surgery is wrong since it interferes with your “God given in God’s image” body and protest outside offices of plastic surgery clinics, insisting on engaging women going in for breast augmentation (one crazy example) in a discussion on the slippery slope to hell of having this procedure done? Or decide to harass men who go in for butt or pecks implants? Since all these procedures are legal, should not all have similar protections? And since only abortions seem to create a violent mob atmosphere and incitement to mayhem, should there not be common sense protections in place, such as buffer zones?
The petitioner in this case was Eleanor McCullen, 77 years old from Newton MA, likes to protest outside abortion clinics several days each week and was frustrated with having a buffer zone preventing her from closely engaging the women coming to the clinic. She was thrilled with the Supreme courts decision and indicated, “It restores your faith in the country. The court recognized our First Amendment rights, and now I’ll have a chance to speak to people one-on-one.” Clearly, having struggled and reached this heart ranching decision, every woman about to undergo an abortion would jump at the chance to have a friendly intimate chat on the sidewalk outside the abortion clinic with Eleanor.
The court’s decision is a huge step back for right to privacy and ignores the purpose of the buffer zone, which is to prevent violence at abortion clinics while at the same time allowing anti-choice protestors to express their views. We are only talking about 35 feet here, which strikes the appropriate balance between right to privacy and free speech.
Chief justice John G. Roberts Jr, delivering the courts opinion, said that the abortion opponents who filed the appeal “Wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks–sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history. [Massachusetts officials] assert undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on those same streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities, but here, the Commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purpose. The Commonwealth may not do that consistent with the first amendment.”
Important to remember that this 2007 buffer zone law evolved out of the killing of two women by John C Salvi 3d who sprayed dozens of round at Brookline abortion clinic in MA. Also important to note that Supreme Court Justices have a very large buffer zone around the plaza, building and the justices. Where is the “traditional public forum” here, Mr. Chief Justice, why can’t we approach for chats, discussions and advice?
Maybe it is time to bring back the scarlet letter for adultery as well since this decision makes absolutely no sense at all. Even taking the very best case scenario of a peaceful discussion, subjecting patients about to undergo a legal medical procedure to the opinions and chatter of strangers questioning their decision is insane. You can stand across the street and protest all you want as it is, which is your right under the first amendment. The elimination of this small buffer zone will just make a very painful experience so much more excruciating, and unnecessarily so. Women about to undergo a legal medical procedure should not have to explain themselves and engage with anyone they do not want to, whether that person agrees with them or not.
Although I understand Eleanor’s activism, I disagree with her actions and position and wish she would put all this good activism energy to better use making sure of two critical things:
1. Education, prevention and contraception are widely available to prevent the need for most abortions; and
2. Kids that are born are well taken care of, well fed, well educated and given all opportunities to become a well adjusted, contributing and successful member of our society.
Photo: Carl Guderian /Flicker Photo2: kmuller00 /Flicker
Trying to post here, but I keep getting that ‘spam filter message: I’d said- “Do you need a dissenting Justice to validate your viewpoint? I don’t.” Yes, exactly that there- nail on the head. In this particular instance, yes, on the mechanics of that case, I feel less qualified to dispute the entire unified decision of the Supreme Court, rather than just a majority (or minority) of it. I may be smarter, wiser, or more moral than any or all of them individually; but collectively here I’m just feeling less self-assured. I think if there was any viable angle to… Read more »
“Do you need a dissenting Justice to validate your viewpoint? I don’t.” Yes, exactly that there- nail on the head. In this particular instance, yes, on the mechanics of that case, I feel less qualified to dispute the entire unified decision of the Supreme Court, rather than just a majority (or minority) of it. I may be smarter, wiser, or more moral than any or all of them individually; but collectively here I’m just feeling less self-assured. I think if there was any viable angle to launch a dissent, one or more of them would have dissented, and dissented with… Read more »
And what about your opinion? Do you need a dissenting Justice to validate your viewpoint? I don’t. That is part of having the ability to think critically. The fact that there was no dissent is distressing indeed but does not change the facts that this is a bad decision (and there have been bad ones in the past). Can you make a valid argument that supports this decision that is not based on belief and ideology? I don’t think you can. And besides you may want to be forced to confront an Eleanor McCullen (seems like a nice enough person)… Read more »
No it does not. It speaks volumes on the horse trading going on in the court. The Hobby Lobby decision is coming up and there was some negotiation and trade. You must look at each decision by itself. There is no legal or constitutional basis for this especially in light of the fact that the Supreme Court gave themselves a 100 feet buffer zone, which makes the rational of the ruling invalid. Further this is not a free speech issue, that was the excuse. This is about making abortion unavailable and inaccessible to women of little means. Rich women always… Read more »
In your reply to me you said this wasn’t about abortion yet in this reply you say it is? Regardless, this was a unanimous court decision- not even a single dissent- which I don’t think you even read. Not one justice broke ranks and you try to explain it away.
Did you read what I wrote? Did you read the decision? This was supposed to be a case about privacy vs free speech and since abortion is legal, it could not be otherwise presented. However, to your valid point, the case would not have made it to the supreme court otherwise. And since buffers were deemed not to violate free speech in other cases and jurisdictions, and since the Supreme Court gave itself 100 feet buffer which violates the public sphere they based this decision on, this is a bad and hypocritical decision based on ideology and politics and not… Read more »
Again though, I think your argument would carry a little more weight if even just one of the supreme court justices had dissented on the decision (as they frequently do), IMHO. This is not a uniform court; but in this case- despite the vast ideological divides between liberal and conservative justices- they rendered a uniform verdict, with not even one writing even a dissenting opinion: So it’s counterintuitive then to think that the case before them there was strong, or even viable. It’s fine to stand on principle; but generally speaking, it’s better to fight smart than it is to… Read more »
Not to get too deep into the politics or the legal, moral or philosophical issues, but it is VERY important to remember that on this particular case (as I understood the ruling, if this is the case I’m thinking of) the Supreme Court’s decision was Unanimous in striking it down: That not even one of the more liberal justices on the Supreme Court decided to rule for it, or voiced any dissenting opinion- that in and of itself (I would think) speaks volumes to the relavtive merits & liabilities of that particular case.
Again, this is not about abortion. No one if for abortion. This is about a balance between right to privacy and free speech. People have their right to privacy in medical procedure without being harassed by anyone. It is your right to think abortion is killing and that is your belief. You can express it and protest and lobby your representative and write letters asking for an overturn of the legality of abortion. What you cannot do is, again, harass women going in for a legal procedure however wrong you think it is. That is where this decision is wrong.… Read more »
1. I am not an abortion activist. 2. The non-violent anti-choice ones don’t need to get in women’s faces and should not have an issue with 35 feet buffer zone since there is plenty of violence against staff working in those clinics and the patients who use the services. Otherwise there would be no need for the buffer, like there is no need for one at your community urologist for vasectomies for example, or various plastic surgeries etc. Interesting that it is always the group that is breaking the law that wants the law to change so they are no… Read more »
If you don’t believe abortion is killing someone then there is no need to oppose or limit it. As far as all of the programs you list- if you’re putting making someone’s college debt easier to deal with on an equal footing with keeping someone from snuffing out their lives, you have a bizarre value system.
Again, buffer zone never silenced speech, was not intended to silence speech and as your friend here indicates, he was free to hold vigils and protest in front of abortion clinics to his heart content. Bottom line, this never was an issue of free speech but an issue of trying to stop women from getting abortions by getting in their face, filming them, taking their car information, abusing them and yes sometimes killing. If you are one of the peaceful protestors I applaud you and support your right to do that, again the buffer zone never prevented that, and that… Read more »
Holy cognitive dissonance batman. An abortion activist shames non violent pro-lifers about acts of murder.
I don’t think the court should have a buffer either.
That is not true and you know it. There is and always was free speech in public places and outside clinics (but not within 100 feet of the Supreme Court – where is your outrage here?). The reason the buffer zones had to be created is because of violence and abuse, inclusive of killings, of women and staff in those clinics. 1st amendment does not give you the right to get in my face when I am going into my doctor and clinic for a procedure. You can protest all you want but I have an right to privacy, and… Read more »
You have no right to privacy on a public street.
My outrage is that you want to silence speech in certain places based on the content of that speech, but evidently feel you have to hide behind prevention of “violence and abuse”. Your concern about “killings” has nothing to do with speech and you know it.
That’s a good point AnonymousDog. As they say, “what’s good for the goose….” Personally, I’ve participated in some practices outside these clinics but in my area, the two that I attend are not intrusive and we’re at least 100 feet away, if not more. We hold prayer vigils and are available if someone wants to speak with us. In our case, we are harassed more then the patrons of the clinic. People don’t have a problem getting into our faces and screaming … but that’s to be expected. There was only one time where we drew a crowd of over… Read more »
You forced people providing a medical service to abide by your specific religious event? Such arrogance and ignorance! I bet you are one of those who goes around shouting about sharia law too although you think nothing of your theology being forced on society.
Actual abuse and harrassment of women going into abortion clinics is still unlawful. The statutory buffer zones around abortion clinics were created to silence speech about a specific subject within those zones.
If you want state legislatures to stifle the kind of speech you disagree with in specific places, just come out and say so.
This kind of nonsensical decision happen when the Supreme Court makes decisions based on ideology and politics and not constitutional principles.
It also does not seem to bother them that they are preventing the same give and take and discourse in public places rule they are quoting here, in the very large and substantial buffer zone they created for themselves around the Supreme Court plaza and building. What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander here, and leading by example clearly does not apply here with the entitled Supremes