Discussion: SCOTUS Strikes Down Abortion Clinic 'Buffer' Zone

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #224391

2

Of course, of course.
Let the intimidation of women seeking medical services begin.

14 Likes
3

Very narrow ruling. Supreme Court says that buffer zones are constitutional, but Massachusetts’ went too far, by limiting access to public sidewalks

4 Likes
4

“The upshot of today’s ruling is that an abortion clinic buffer zone is presumptively unconstitutional. Instead, a state has to more narrowly target clinic obstructions. For example, the police can tell protesters to move aside to let a woman through to the clinic. But it cannot prohibit protesters from being on the sidewalks in the first instance. If in practice protesters still are obstructing the entrance, then it can consider a broader restriction.”

3 Likes
5

Serious question. Does this just apply to abortion clinics?

Or could, say, a group of protesters camp out in front of a Wal-Mart or a Family Research Council office, screaming at the people that enter for engaging in greed or for bearing false witness?

In other words, does the First Amendment protect my right to loiter in front of any business or office that I personally disagree with and harass the people that work or shop there?

[Edit: Perhaps the distinction is that the ‘protest’ has to take place on a public sidewalk or in the public space in front of the business? Like a group of people could gather outside of a Gap, on the public sidewalk, and scream at shoppers for supporting child slavery, but they couldn’t do the same thing with regards to a Gap that was contained within a larger shopping mall unless they were camped out on the public sidewalk on the outskirts of the mall’s parking lot…]

[Second edit: There is still apparently a buffer zone in front of the Supreme Court building, preventing protests on the public plaza.]

7 Likes
6

Does this mean the elimination of “Free Speech” protest zones now as well? Wouldn’t it also invalidate any “protest permit required” laws?

2 Likes
7

Given that, particularly in urban areas, access to the clinics is directly adjacent to the sidewalk, that’s a distinction without a difference.

6 Likes
8

“The justices ruled that the zone violates the First Amendment rights of protesters.”

Not to mention the 2nd Amendment!

3 Likes
9

What would you like to bet that if you did that, you’d end up being hauled off and charged with something like “breach of the peace?”

2 Likes
10

Personally, I think if a group of 2 dozen or so core TPM’ers (you probably know who I’m talking about) decided to protest in front of Koch Industries, Inc. we’d see the true limits of our “First Amendment” rights. And I doubt that would cover our medical expenses at the hands of the Koch’s private goons.

2 Likes
11

And how about George W. Bush’s “free speech zones” ???

I guess putting lefty protestors in a fucking cage was A-okay?

6 Likes
12

Free Speech Zones are “security” issues at those events. Surely there’s no need for a security zone at an women’s health clinic.

3 Likes
15

So, it would now be legal to stand in front of a synagog screaming god hates Jews! Jews killed Jesus! While holding large signs of blood soaked crosses. Or in front of a Mosque holding similar signs condemning Mohammad as the mass murderer pedophile anti-Christ, complete with truly graphic photos? As a topper, in open carry states, make sure that you have a AR-15 strapped to you back, and a .45 on your hip.

No, it would probably get you arrested. Now, deny women access to healthcare, that’s just fine.

3 Likes
16

Majority CATHOLICS on the court… Protection for every thing but women’s rights…There will be MORE blood in the streets!

A woman making that decision does not need to be lectured and intimidated byt ignorant cretins! Of course these are not the rich woman who go quietly to the family MD and get a D&C and botox at the same time…Maybe even a spa visit!

1 Like
17

The law was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion who said they sought to have quiet conversations with women entering clinics to tell them about alternatives to abortion.

A “quiet conversation” with a zealot is not something a stressed out woman on her way to end an unwanted pregnancy needs to have on her way into the clinic. There’ll be talking of dying for her sins, burning in hell, and it would be just more unbearable stress.

8 Likes
18

Surely you’re joking. The whole intent of “protestors” is to intimidate women seeking medical services.

3 Likes
19

Yeah, I understand decision as an intellectual exercise, but the nuts who terrorize women seeking abortions will take this as a license to to do more of their terror tactics.

1 Like
20

If in practice? What planet are the Justices living on? It is precisely because such measures did not work that these measures were enacted in the first place.

And this has nothing to do with unreasonable restrictions on free speech either. Do you think for a moment that the Supreme Court would require states to tolerate a situation where a police escort was needed for a citizen to exercise their right to vote? You can’t even talk to a voter about politics withing 100 feet of a poll.

This opinion is a disgrace to reason.

5 Likes
21

I think the key thing here is to ask these arrogant, stupid Justices if the activity of people going in and out of an abortion clinic is one damn bit the business of stupid, loud religious idiots.

2 Likes
22

More clinic workers have been killed than politicians.

2 Likes