While we’ve all been pleased to see the courts enforcing minority rights by striking down restrictions on same sex marriage, the flip side also happens: the Supreme Court has now ruled that abortion protesters can’t be restricted by a ‘buffer zone’ around clinics. Their rationale is some nonsense about “sidewalk counseling”.
Some of the individuals who stand outside Massachusetts abortion clinics are fairly described as protestors, who express their moral or religious opposition to abortion through signs and chants or, in some cases, more aggressive methods such as face-to-face confrontation. Petitioners take a different tack. They attempt to engage women approaching the clinics in what they call “sidewalk counseling,” which involves offering information about alternatives to abortion and help pursuing those options. Petitioner Eleanor McCullen, for instance, will typically initiate a conversation this way: “Good morning, may I give you my literature? Is there anything I can do for you? I’m available if you have any questions.” If the woman seems receptive, McCullen will provide additional information. McCullen and the other petitioners consider it essential to maintain a caring demeanor, a calm tone of voice, and direct eye contact during these exchanges. Such interactions, petitioners believe, are a much more effective means of dissuading women from having abortions than confrontational methods such as shouting or brandishing signs, which in petitioners’ view tend only to antagonize their intended audience. In unrefuted testimony, petitioners say they have collectively persuaded hundreds of women to forgo abortions.
So the court recognizes that many protesters use “aggressive methods”, but they side with the sweet little lady who claims to be kindly offering pamphlets, rather than with the women who are being frightened away from medical care. If there is a buffer zone, poor Ms McCullen is denied her right to be condescending, but if there is no buffer zone, patients are denied the right to seek legal medical treatment without harassment.
I fail to see how this “unrefuted” claim that their tactics of suppression actually work is relevant to their claim that their right to lie to patients trumps the patients’ rights to care.
But I wonder how the court deals with the stark reality that abortion clinics need volunteer clinic escorts to help women get through the lines of shouting protesters? Isn’t the fact of their existence evidence that there is a problem with access? Apparently not. The escorts are the problem.
…theBoston clinic uses “escorts” to greet women as they approach the clinic, accompanying them through the zones to the clinic entrance. Petitioners claim that the escorts sometimes thwart petitioners’ attempts to communicate with patients by blocking petitioners from handing literature to patients, telling patients not to “pay any attention” or “listen to” petitioners, and disparaging petitioners as “crazy.”
It’s clear where the judges’ sympathies lie.
It’s great when the courts are on the side of justice, but not so great when you’ve got bought & paid-for clowns of the reactionary right, like Roberts and Scalia, calling the shots.
This is amusing. The Supreme Court is surrounded by a rather restrictive barrier.
But what if I want to give the justices some ‘sidewalk counseling’?
“Petitioners claim that the escorts sometimes thwart petitioners’ attempts to communicate with patients by blocking petitioners from handing literature to patients, telling patients not to “pay any attention” or “listen to” petitioners, and disparaging petitioners as “crazy.””
So “freedom of speech” now means you can make people listen to you. So I guess you can protest abortion but you can’t protest the protesters.
Time to organize “sidewalk counselors” in front of pregnancy crisis centers and in front of conservative Churchs and supreme court justices houses.
That’s… repugnant. A kindly old lady handing out pamphlets can easily do so from outside the buffer zone, considering that people going to the clinic would have to be outside that buffer at some point in order to get in.
From the ruling:
Argh. So basically, because someone who just wanted to have nice friendly conversations might not be heard amidst the rabble of protesters, there shouldn’t be any buffer zone, which allows the rabble of protesters to stand closer to the clinic and still drown out the nice friendly conversations. You can’t exactly say something is burdensome if the possible negative side effects still exist without it.
The Supreme Court Buffer Zone. http://www.thewire.com/static/img/upload/2013/06/13/pr_04-26-05.png Just saying…
I read somewhere else that this ruling does not apply to the buffer zone around the supreme court, that stays in place. Great.
The Catholics should have recused themselves. How can they make a fair decision when their church is against abortion?
Alverant @1: re free speech now meaning you can make people listen to you. Well, on a public street, yes, it does. Or at least make them hear you. And should. That what the protesters are shouting is something you’d rather not hear is irrelevant. I’m fairly sure President Johnson would rather not have heard protesters shouting “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” But they had an enforceable right to stand outside the Whute House gates shouting it. So did the Westbiro Baptist Church loons have a right to shout their bile along cemetary access roads. . People don’t have, and should not have in this country, an enforceable right not to be offended in public places. And that little old lady leafletter’s right to approach entrants calmly cannot and should not be sacrificed because others there want to shout bile. If they block access, they’re subject to arrest. And should be. But mere words — unkless they are threats — cannot block access, even if they’re shouted and unpleasant and unwelcome or offensive to those hearing them.
If the clinics put up cameras they can use the evidence against the “sidewalk counselors” for assault and battery, should they qualify. They should also make sure to put up signs saying they are recording.
Except that counseling isn’t something you can just walk up and do to someone. People seek out counselors when they need counseling (or are sent there by the courts in some cases,) but the point remains that when someone is in need of counseling, they will contact the counselor, and until then no counseling takes place. Also, counseling requires certain credentials and training, which I suspect these jackasses lack.
Yeah, knowing that there is a video recording of them going to get an abortion wouldn’t discourage anyone from going to a clinic…
It was a unanimous decision on the part of the Supreme Court, so even the liberal judges appear to be skeptical of that particular buffer zone law. I read the decision – it still allows the police to clear out protesters if they become so numerous that it’s impossible to get patients into the clinic, and protesters can’t obstruct the entrance to the clinics.
Theoretically, at least. In practice, it’s not going to be good – the new buffer zone law went into place because everyone (including the police) pointed out that the old one wasn’t enough.
The most depressing thing about this decision is that it wasn’t one of the 5-4 splits, with Team Republican on the majority side. It was unanimous. So, among things lost today is a great deal of respect for the four justices not normally associated with the right-wing nutjobs.
Donnie @2 – The Rude Pundit suggests exactly that.
Although some of his suggestions (like posting the home addresses of priests) I assume are made in the spirit of hyperbole, I rather like the idea of standing outside the churches with photos of women who have died from illegal abortions.
…I can’t even.
Folks, consider volunteering as clinic escorts if you possibly can. Please. They’re going to need all the help they can get.
Dalillama@9 Re: counseling only being possible when someone voluntarily seeks it, and that all counseling necessarily requires professional certification of some sort. I don’t think either point is valid. Courts, for example, routinely make getting counseling a part of sentencing, and schools routinely refer very unvoluntary students to it. And I’m fairly sure most of us has gotten good counseling on occasion from friends or family or colleagues wholly uncertified to provide it. You’re taking a term with very broad application and trying to define it very varrowly to fit particular circumstances only.
With my upcoming job I will have Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off. I know what I’m going to do with my weekends now.
I found Patrick G’s post from 2012 where they mentioned getting involved in Louisville or Lexington (my neck of the woods also.) It would be cool to carpool with a fellow FTBully if you’re still able and active in the escorting.
I will go out on a limb and predict that there will be more less than peaceful confrontations at clinics and other places where buffer zones have been previously seen to be needed.
uncle frogy
There are “buffer zones” around polling places and I assume no one is complaining about this. It makes sense in that people allowed to say what they want but the voter can then move away from it when they want. I am disgusted these people call themselves counselors. Counselors listen to the person. These people do not want to listen; they just want to judge and push their own point of view. Freedom of speech should also mean people have freedom to ignore it. Government has to listen to freedom of speech but individuals shouldn’t have to if they don’t want to
flatlander100@15:
Courts and school officials have sanctioned authority over the people brought before them. A school principal could not, for instance, order someone completely unaffiliated with the school to attend counseling; neither could a judge randomly compel someone to counseling with an official hearing of some sort.
Officious family members are just as despicable as these assholes outside clinics; the only difference is we are more likely to cut family members some slack because we have an interest in preserving a specific sort of relationship. People can and do tell family members to fuck off, up to and including filing restraining orders, suing for divorce, or moving far away and refusing to accept phone calls or email.
When it reaches a certain level of personal unacceptability, we call it “abuse” or “harassment.” I submit that line is a lot brighter and a lot lower hurdle for strangers than family members.
Argh, should be “…randomly compel someone to counseling withOUT an official hearing of some sort”, of course.
Come on guys, look on the bright side. If having an “escort” to shield you from the angry rantings of passersby is an illegal infringement on said persons’ free speech, then a lot of one percenters will have to forgo their bodyguards and actually listen to the multitudes that want them dead.
flatlander100
If you’d actually read the comment to which I responded, you’d see that I noted the existence of compulsive counseling and the ways in which it did not obviate my point. Your disingenuousness is noted.
Once again, you’re being a disingenuous shithead. The people claiming to provide ‘sidewalk counseling’ are clearly using that term to try to imply that there is a therapeutic component to their harassment. This is the same bullshit that apologists use when they switch meanings of ‘faith’ mid argument.
flatlander100@7
This isn’t about the right not to be offended. This is about people who don’t want to hear what you’re saying being forced to listen. If I’m on a public sidewalk with earphones on, no one has the right to take them off so I can listen to what they’re selling. If I’m on the “Do Not Call” list telemarketers don’t have the right to call me anyway about “lowering my credit card interest rate”. I don’t have the right to walk around with a boombox with “Weird Al” polkas cranked up to max volume. The Vietnam protesters had a right to chant, but LBJ had the right to ignore them. Teenagers don’t have the right to crowd the current pop star sensation and make him listen to how much they love him. He has the right not to be harassed and so do women seeking a legal medical procedure.
Frog @ 19 Wouldn’t dusagree with anything you posted. I was merely challenging the banket claim that counseling can never occur unless it is voluntarily sought. That’s all.
You can’t stand and do “free speech” within 50 feet of a polling place in most districts, because it’s considered hassling the voters and intimidating them into making a particular decision by coercion. Do you think that’s unconstitutional?
Especially given the violent extremist bent found among the people who voice the opinions that they do, that creates an atmosphere of intimidation regardless of whether those people are actually violent or not.
Allverant@ 23 Nothing in the decision would require you to take off those earphones (to use your example). Nothing. People entering clinics want to plug their ears with cotton, or wear earphones with Iron Butterly cranked up to ten so they won’t hear the protesters, they’re free to do so. ( Not a bad idea, actually.) If the town has noise ordinances and you crank up a boombox on a public street in violation, nothing in the decision cancels the noise ordinance or prevents you being cited. The point is, you cannot stop people from speaking in public places words you don’t like and find iffensive. And that is the issue. I think PZ was wrong to suggest the decusion means the court’s sympoathies lie with the anti-abortion crowd. I think the decision means the court has re-stated its strong commitment to free speech and the First Amendment. In the end, if the courrts can’t preserve the free soeech rights of the anti-abortion protesters on the public streets, and yes the same rights for the Westboro Baptist Church loons, then tgey can’t protect mine either. And living in Utah as I do I very much want those rights vigirously protected agaist the holy rolkers who run the state leguslature and who would be only too happy to shut up opposition to their faith-based anti-gay and anti-abortion policies if they could.
I’d love to help out as a clinic escort, but I’d probably end up both angry and depressed by the end of a single shift. :-(
jrfdeux:
Acting as an escort can be very rewarding, especially when you partner up with someone you know. A good sense of humour definitely helps.
I am so disppointed, especially as a clinic escort. They’re going to be even more insufferable this Saturday, I know it.
Also, this:
Is utter bullshit. I invite any of those Justices to hang for a couple of Saturdays at clinics across the country. Even in my comparatively quiet neck of the woods, “protesters” engage in shit that would be called harassment or outright bullying if it were anyone fucking else doing it. There is no caring there, nothing personal about screaming “Don’t Kill Your Baby!” at the back of someone who has already told you they’re not interested in what you have to say.
I need a drink. Like all of them.
I also think that having a friendly conversation is more likely to change someone’s mind than shouting and waving signs (regardless of the fact that both “counselors” and sign-wavers are assholes). But if you follow that logic, wouldn’t lifting the buffer zones be counter-productive because it only increases the density of sign-wavers as everyone will want to be as close to the entrance as possible?
So will this ruling also affect ‘free speech zones’ around political events? Or is only the evil slutty, etc. wimmin who don’t get to have any rights, as usual?
I can’t believe this was fucking unanimous. Also, the horrible imposition of the buffer zone was all of 35 feet. Thirty five fucking feet. Apparently that’s way too much of an imposition on the anti-choice crowd.
The Supreme Court already upheld a different form of buffer zone in 2000, and didn’t overturn its holding in this case. Hill v. Colorado 530 U.S. 703 (2000) Massachusetts is free to pass to a law banning people from approaching unwilling listeners (CO bans coming within 8 feet of someone within 100 feet of a clinic). It can also, as the court suggests, enact harsher penalties for obstructing the entrance to a clinic (as Federal law does) or outlaw following and harassing someone near a clinic (as New York does). It could empower police to order protestors to disburse when their number starts to cause congestion. There are lots of options, and this doesn’t mean that protestors are free to harass women.
flatlander100:
Protesters often bully and harass patients using just words. Do those patients not have a right to be free from bullying and harassment? I tend to think so. Given that, it seems like a conflict of rights here. Does the freedom of speech on the part of the protesters trump the right to safety on the part of the patients? You seem to think the answer is yes. Why?
So you’re placing the burden of dealing with harassing protesters on the patient. “Lovely”.
****
Feminace:
I agree. In many ways, it seems like the SCOTUS judges are out of touch with Americans. They can’t see that the protesters aren’t counselling. They don’t appear to see the bullying and harassment. Or if they do, they don’t care.
flatlander,
Bullshit.
The court has re-stated its strong commitment to harassing women who seek abortion.
qwints:
I worry that people are going to debate what counts as harassment (hell, they probably are already). Some will likely claim that they weren’t harassing, but counselling, regardless of the truth behind their claims, or their intentions.
What about the property rights of lease holders? I can understand the Court’s thinking if the protesters are on a public sidewalk, but what if they are on private property, such as a parking lot? I would think that if they are on private property they could simply be charged with trespassing, or that at least the clinic would have the right to set up a rope line or barriers on the property in question.
I wish free speech absolutists would consider context.
Those “counselors” offering their “help” on some random street? Fine. I would want them to fuck off and do something useful with their lives, but fine.
Those “counselors” offering their “help” in front of an abortion clinic, in midst of even worse “helpers” in an already hateful political and social atmosphere where women are being judged for their reproductive decisions all the time? Harassment.
The court has restated its commitment to free speech?
So are the “frees speech zones” at presidential appearances going away?
Do we get to “counsel” the supreme court justices?
I’d personally like to have a word with them.
iPods or similar devices with ear plugs for clinic clients would presumably prevent them from having to listen to either verbal harassment or ‘counseling’.
Would it also be okay if the homeopathy idiots stood outside the chemotherapy center trying to persuade cancer patients to try alternatives? Or if anti-vaccers parked themselves outside the health centers trying to frighten parents arriving to vaccinate their children with leaflets about autism?
chris61 @40:
Hmm. Woman being harassed. Suggestion that the victim of harassment do something/change something/wear something in order to prevent harassment. I could swear I’ve heard people advancing similar arguments before. Where was that? Oh. Right. Just about any thread having anything to do with rape. And every time it is women being told to change because something bad is happening to them — rape, harassment, denial of medical care.
@Tony, luckily they’re claims don’t matter. The court approvingly cited laws that prohibit approaching people close to a clinic without their consent, regardless of one’s intent. The real problem has been that Boston and other police refuse to enforce the law to protect women, repeatedly allowing anti-choice protestors to break the law.
The law struck down today was enacted in the wake of mass shootings at the state’s abortion clinics. These people are not counselors: they’re material supporters of terrorism.
Anyone defending this decision here who wants to be informed by reality – which apparently has no impact whatsoever upon the musings emanating from that rarified bubble (complete with its own buffer zone) that Supreme Court justices inhabit – please see: http://www.shakesville.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-buffer-zones-and.html?m=1
if that happened, I think there would be insufficient members left for a quorum.
aren’t 5 of SCOTUS Catholic?
@42 Ogvorbis
Given the amount of time it can take to overturn a Supreme Court ruling, I thought it was a practical suggestion for a legal interim solution. But if you’ve got something better I’d love to hear it.
I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but maybe the abortion escorts could get funding for some ear protective equipment to block the sounds. You can get earphones that reduce noises louder than jet engines to whispers, and yelling down to silence.
Wait, are escorts themselves being banned? Maybe I misread…
chris61 @46:
Sorry. I really thought I was making a comment about how when bad things happen to women, women are told to change. That really was the extent of my comment. I didn’t realize that commenting without a solution was not acceptable.
More about reality for those who maybe interested:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-anti-choice-violence.pdf
(Sorry for the long links, Horde, I’m on my phone. Also: drinking.)
chris61:
As with bullying and harassment in other venues (such as the workplace or at conventions), why is the onus on the victim to block out the harassment? Your solutions are fine on an individual level if someone chooses, but it shouldn’t be their responsibility. The assholes engaging in shitty behavior should be the ones who have to change their behavior.
Jafafa Hots @ 39:
I’d personally like to moon them.
Ogvorbis:
You’ve nothing to apologize for. I completely agree with you.
flatlander100
So, what are women seeking an abortion now? Criminals or unruely children? Because you compare them to those groups. I’m an adult woman. If and when I seek counselling I go and make an appointment. I am also very capable of differenciating between a counselor and an abortion provider. So when I make an appointment with the latter I’m not in want of the former.
karmacat
THIS
+++
On Twitter I suggested that escorts hand patients T-shirts with “don’t talk to me”. Nobody could claim that there was “consensual” conversation with that.
A lot of people have brought up the comparison to electioneering bans around polling places. Here’s what the court said on the topic:
Giliell
That’s a good idea, but the problem is that Boston (and other jurisdiction’s) police claim that it’s too difficult to tell when an anti-choicer is approaching or obstructing someone (which was already illegal) versus standing on a public sidewalk and speaking (which was legal and is now again legal). The fact that Massachusetts failed to show any prosecutions whatsoever under their existing laws in the last 17 years (page 17 of the opinion) was held against it by the court.
…the problem is that the bullies don’t listen to verbal requests of “Don’t talk to me”. I had one outright tell me that as long as I was on public property (i.e. the sidewalk), they could talk at me and the patients all they wanted.
Ogvorbis:
Too right, Ogvorbis. The onus always ends up on the women – do this, do that, then there’s the never ending ‘don’t’ list.
“In unrefuted testimony, petitioners say they have collectively persuaded hundreds of women to forgo abortions.”
Also in the news: in unrefuted testimony, inquisitors say they have collectively persuaded hundreds of people to admit to consorting with the devil.
@ #45
Six.
We’ll continue to see this kind of idiocy as long as the Supreme Court remains stuffed with Catholics. Obama made this worse with Sotomayor.
This means protestors cannot be kept away from political meeting, right? The nominating conventions can’t put protestors a mile away from the delegates in protest ghettos.
@51 Tony,
I agree that’s how it should be but can one practically either expect or make that happen any time soon? If not then I see nothing wrong with suggesting ways that could allow people to at least not have to hear what was being said.
How much can they annoy local police departments? Every single instance of a protester yelling could be called in as disturbing the peace. Every “in your face” confrontation is harassment. Etc. Wouldn’t that spur local legislatures to pass ordinances that restrict protester’s activities?
Crowds should gather on the sidewalks close to the entrances of churches, cathedrals, synagogues, and mosques as members are entering. The crowds should brandish signs reading “Don’t Fall for It” and “It’s a Lie.” They should scream menacingly at the people entering, things like “Think before you do this!” and “Don’t take your children in there!” Councilors should be standing by to help those who show any doubts. Someone should be ready to record any effort to prevent this expression of free speech.
Oh, it would be even easier to make them mad – just stand silently in front of the churches holding the exact same posters that they bring to clinics. Not as much fun when it’s their own 4 year olds seeing dismembererd fetuses on a Sunday morning. And they couldn’t claim anything about impropriety.
I just can’t come up with a clear opinion on this. I find the thought of harassing women like this utterly repugnant, and I would like to see them getting protection from this kind of behavior. But free speech isn’t an issue to take lightly, and I have a sneaky feeling some jackass would take advantage of the situation if the verdict was any different. Think of how powerful precedence can be, have you really thought through all the possibilities?
I’m not sure what that would be, but sometimes precedence allows for unintended consequences. Are you sure there’s no other way to give people some level of protection from this kind of abuse?
I noticed you offered no suggestions. Why is that? It is easy to criticize, but hard to really come up with good answers.
Also, free speech is not an absolute. There are limits, and in this case with obvious intimidation occurring, it is easy to see why some aspects of free speech should be curtailed for safety reasons.
Erlend:
Gee, Erlend, given how many of the people here have been involved in womens’ health, it’s a good bet we’ve thought about it. In depth. Much more than you have.
This really isn’t a good thread for you to play your usual idiocy.
I don’t know, messing with free speech always makes me queasy. And I can’t shake the feeling of some right wing fanatic or corporate scumbag twisting this into something far worse. But I can’t come up with a better solution, and the point about buffer zones around polling places is pretty relevant.
Guess I’m looking for more arguments for this, just to justify what I know is right. I want to support this, what sort of society allows this kind of harassment? I just need some confirmation that this couldn’t be perverted into something bad…
What, like the documented history of what happened in front of abortion clinics before buffer zones were enacted?
I don’t really understand the logic of this. Because there are some rather polite protestors, ALL of the protestors get to surpass this buffer zone?
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court seems to have their logic quite twisted by their own ideologies.
How do you know it is “right”? Question everything, including your presuppositions on things like free speech. Which is different than freeze peach.
Erlend Meyer:
There are already limitations on free speech. But those limitations have to be justified. I think if SCOTUS had ruled in favor of buffer zones, the benefits to women would have outweighed the cost to free speech (which would have been negligible, bc protesters could still have been assholes. They would have been required to be assholes at a safe distance.)
You can never have that kind of confirmation. Human interactions will likely never allow for that. You have a conflict of rights here, and the question is how to resolve that conflict. The Supreme Court has created a “solution” that works to the benefit of the people in power, the people who are harassing and bullying. The solution provided by SCOTUS screws over the victims-women-who are already screwed over when it comes to abortion. This should not have happened.
Erlend Meyer @ 70
Funny, women getting harassed by ignorant fuckheads as they try to get medical care makes me queasy.
Absolutely everything can be perverted into something bad. That’s why civilized societies have a legal system which permits changing laws as circumstances change.
Precisely.
I’m certain the protesters will be respectful now that they’re again permitted to get directly in these women’s face, and not obstruct the sidewalks leading to the hospitals, will stand aside and allow patients to pass, and will not offer any violence. And I’m also certain that flying monkeys will erupt from the anuses of each of the current Supreme Court justices.
@ throwaway, 16:
Sadly, I’ve relocated to sunny (way too sunny right now) California. But I do highly recommend checking out Every Saturday Morning.
The Lexington clinic is situated in the middle of a nice, giant, private parking lot, so they can and do call the police on trespassers. The Louisville clinic, however, is directly on the street. They get a lot of “counselors”…
When I was in KY, there were some students at UK who had expressed interest in doing escort work. You might check in with the SSA there — a very strong chapter in Lexington, not sure about Louisville. Besides, you can’t trust the Cardinals.
Go ‘Cats!
The ACLU of Virginia gave a statement that kind of confuses me:
The ACLU of Virginia make it sound like the ruling was on more narrow grounds, and more specific (probably harder-to-enforce) legislation would still be possible.
Are any Open Carry folks Pro-Choice. Cuz that would be wrong and I am sorry I brought it up.
There are a lot of misconceptions about this decision. I understand the knee-jerk reactions opposed to it, as the people who harass women seeking an abortion are among the scum of the earth (I put them alongside the anti-vax loons who prey on the fears of parents of autistic kids), but it’s important to know exactly what the opinion said.
The Court did not rule that buffer zones are unconstitutional (in that it did not overrule a previous case, Colorado v. Hill, which allowed them). It simply held that this particular buffer zone law was unconstitutional, as it was overly broad. The 30-some feet at issue in this case was the largest of its kind in the country. Even for supporters of buffer zones, a line has to be drawn somewhere; the First Amendment generally does not permit the government to prohibit advocacy in public spaces.
Despite being pro-abortion rights, I’m inclined to agree with SCOTUS for this case. The unanimity of the judgment (if not the reasoning) demonstrates just how overbroad the Massachusetts law was. A more narrowly-tailored law with a smaller buffer zone may still survive a legal challenge.
lymie:
Initially I was going to say that I didn’t know anyone. Then I realized that a friend of mine is Pro-Choice. He’s told me he’s a feminist and supports a woman’s right to choose. A few weeks ago, I posted something on FB about the ridiculous Open Carry campaign in TX, and he said he supports people doing that. That’s just one person, but I imagine there are other people that feel the same.
It’s worth pointing out that this is a narrow ruling – it strikes down the 35′ barrier that includes sidewalks, yes, but it leaves in place other buffer zones that don’t include public space.
It also leaves open the possibility of other forms of protection.
What this means is that we need to work out solutions for those clinics which directly abut public walkways.
~ And yes, the cordon area around the Supreme Court itself is rank hypocrisy.
Oh well, Patrick, enjoy California before it’s underwater!
How does this sort of deference for the need for personal contact in expressing one’s free speech rights align with the court approved establishment of “free speech zones” around political rallies during the W administration? Those zones were substantial fractions of a mile away from the person the protesters were trying to reach.
carlie
Yeah, the only problem I see is that we are not shitty people. OTOH, there would be a million non-shitty things that would freak them out just as much:
-chanting “Condoms are great, condoms save lives”
-“ask me about contraception”
-This month: Homosexuality is totally OK
-You don’t need to be abstinent to be a good person.
This couls actually be beneficial for their kids
flatlander 100
And this is exactly where you go wrong from the beginning. Nobody, irrespective of whether they are a little old lady (yay for your and SCOTUS stereotyping) nor the professional wrestler has any right to approach me. Each and any interaction with me needs my consent*. You can say things, you can even say them loudly so I will most likely hear them, but you cannot interact with me unless I want to interact with you. That’s harassment. There are usually laws in place about street vendors who want to sell you something. They exist for a reason.
How many “old ladies” does a woman have to put up with on her way to the entrance?
+++
Yes, thinking about ways to make it easier for the women is shitty.
It puts the onus on women and other people with uteri to prevent it and that is plain wrong.
Still, we can discuss that all day long, but right now this isn’t going to help any person who needs an abortion right now, because the assholes won’t change their behaviour in a hurry and they just got a big fat “you go, guys” from SCOTUS. Therefore at the moment ideas about how to protect people who need abortions are important, giving support is important WHILE fighting against the assholes at the same time.
+++
*You know, that’s why law enforcement officers have some special rights in this situation
Who would I contact to volunteer as an escort, in the Wasatch Front area (Utah: Salt Lake City, Provo area)?
I’m a male septuagenerian, still six feet tall, about 190 pounds. I’m semi-disabled, but this vulnerability can be an advantage.
1. I use a standard cane, or sometimes a five-foot hiker-style walking stick, at doctor’s order. Consequently, I take up more sidewalk space than most non-disabled folk, and I have ample reason to carry an implement that can be seen as a threat, even though I don’t brandish it in a threatening manner. I’m also a little unstable on my feet — obviously so — leading most people to give me more room, lest they be guilty of elder abuse :-).
2. Even with my cane, I can’t walk very far or stand very long at a stretch: I have to switch to a scooter (also doctor’s order). With the scooter, I become shorter (seated), but longer (4 feet) and wider (particularly if I extend the arm rests). While on the scooter, my cane is a useful thing to carry…
In either configuration, I would be a good point man for a flying wedge leading the patient.
If necessary, I could attach signs to the armrest supports of the scooter, in a fore-and-aft orientation, to provide a physical barrier between the patient behind me and any protesters.
Any “sidewalk counselors” may feel free to counsel the sidewalk to their hearts’ delight.
Unanimously?
UNANIMOUSLY!?!?!?!
It seems that the four “liberals” of the SCOTUS are as stupid as the other Bible-humping five!
Fuck them all!
Churches often have public sidewalks in front of them. Perhaps the members of the congregation need to be counseled on the good news about the flying spaghetti monster or the actual facts on the relative risk of birth control versus pregnancy.
@ Snoof #75: Agreed, I don’t find it unreasonable to provide a safe zone for people seeking medical treatment. I don’t care what they are there for or their reasons, medical treatment should be available to everyone without this kind of obstruction.
I still believe that free speech is important and that one should be very careful about imposing limits, but at the same time one can’t make principles more important than people.
You know, I’m a bit worried about what this decision might imply for the future of abortion access period (ie. the possibility that many justices on the court would overturn Roe v. Wade if it came to them). Even if the court wouldn’t actually overturn Roe v. Wade, there are a lot of state legislatures who think they would, and this will only encourage them. That means more restrictions on abortion clinics could be coming soon in red states. The most restrictive will likely fail in courts, but I won’t be surprised at all if it gets appealed to the Supreme Court… and what if they really do want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Shit… I have the horrible feeling this is going to get a lot worse before it starts getting better.
se habla espol – if you go here, you can search for Planned Parenthoods in your area and see if they are advertising for volunteer escorts. If they aren’t, you could probably call them and ask if they need help, and if so where. Your local phone directory should have info on other clinics that aren’t PP that you could call, just be careful that it’s an actual clinic and not a CareNet or other Christian group pretending to be a clinic.
Does anybody react well to being handed “literature” by people on the street (or at your door)?
It seems the kindly old lady should take issue with the loud aggressive protesters. They are the ones making it difficult for her message to be heard, and they’re the ones who made the escorts necessary.
The kindly old lady had a long life to learn that bothering people is fucking rude, it’s her fault she never learned that lesson
So can we get a bunch of kindly old ladies to surround the supreme court and demand to counsel them? We can make signs that say “I demand my free speech rights to make you listen to meeeee.”
I’m so furious about this ruling. The “kindly old lady”, if she’s really that kind and polite, is absolutely the exception from what I’ve seen around clinics that perform abortions. But even if she weren’t, I feel it’s reasonable to suggest that there’s a limit to one’s right to seek out and accost people seeking medical care you disagree with to try to stop them outside the clinic. This is an attempt to intimidate with a smile, nothing more. The “kindly old lady” shtick is still a shtick. It’s someone you’re supposed to respect and listen to because she’s “kind” and “old” and also a lady, like you, but she’s still in your face with her smile telling you you’re committing murder by have a clump of cells extracted from your body. And she doesn’t even know why you’re there. Maybe you’re just getting a check up, or picking up some birth control information. Maybe, like my wife when she was younger, you’ve missed your period and are suddenly experiencing unusual amounts of bleeding and the Planned Parenthood, who provides care that you can afford when you can’t afford anything else, is about to save your life from an ectopic pregnancy. I shudder to think what would have happened if she’d been afraid to go to the clinic. I’d likely not have ever gotten to meet her and not have our two beautiful children.
This country has established in law and court rulings that health care decisions are one of the most personal and private things in our lives, protected by laws that go so far as to sometimes creating real problems in an attempt to preserve patient privacy. Be if it’s women’s health care, all bets are apparently off.
And this nonsense about some right to accost people on the street while the court, political candidates, the president, are all protected by buffer zones, often created simply to prevent them from seeing protesters and to keep a clean image for television shots, is simply absurd. The right to free speech is, first and foremost, the right to petition the government and speak truth to power. What the court has essentially said is that people have the right to accost complete strangers on the street about their private healthcare decisions, but no right to protest the politicians who run the country the same way. It’s inconsistent and completely backwards.
I await the protesters at the next party conventions violating the ironically named “free speech zones” and then suing the parties, the host cities, and the police and using this case as precedent. I really just want to hear the court proceedings where the justices are asked point blank what possible reason could make those cases different from the abortion clinic case, other than the fact that it is far more important, and obviously far more the intent of the document, to enable people to protest their government representatives than a poor young woman seeking health care.
Also, this was a pretty solid take on it, I thought: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_massachusetts_abortion_clinic_buffer_zone_law_goes_down.html
Cenk Uygur got refreshingly pissed off about this ruling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0FuMri8dvU
Kind of makes you want to protest and invade the personal space of the supreme court justices constantly and without end.
@doublereed #98 – Sometimes Cenk is just beautiful in his righteous anger. This is one of those times.
With all the open carry advocates and stand your ground laws, it does make one wonder what the confluence of all this is. I can well imagine a state with open carry and stand your ground and someone showing up at a clinic with a gun on their hip to get treatment meeting a protester similarly armed.
Even without going to that extreme, this is a recipe for violent confrontation.
On a side note, are you an oboe player per chance?
Apparently the SC have no clue just how nasty little old ladies can get. Most of the female bullies we have are post menopausal and they tend to be the worst of the fucking lot with being pushy and guilt trippy. They (and the men around the same age) depend on general “be respectful of your elders” kindness we have drilled into our heads as an opening for people to take their lying brochures or give them even a second of their day. That is one of the things working as an escort has cured me of real quick.
Giliell @ 94
It’s not that they don’t know better, they just don’t care. I’ve done a write up about it and called it “Screw the Rules, I Have Jesus”.
The hits from this Supreme Court keep fucking coming in. Fuck them all. And the brilliant lifetime tenure for sitting in their fucking cushy thrones will mean that their ideologies will remain a cancer affecting us all for fucking decades.
@99
Bassoonist :D
Rachel Maddow did an excellent job of covering this issue.